BREAKING: Paramount Moving Forward On Star Trek Sequel – Supreme Court On Board |
jump to navigation

BREAKING: Paramount Moving Forward On Star Trek Sequel – Supreme Court On Board March 30, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: CBS/Paramount,ST09 Creative,Star Trek (2009 film),Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

First hinted at here at TrekMovie last June, Paramount have finally sealed the deal for the Trek’s ‘Supreme Court’ (Abrams, Burk, Kurtzman, Lindelof, & Orci) to move forward on a sequel to their new Star Trek, five weeks before it even opens up. Variety broke the news Monday night, see below for the first details on on what would be the twelfth film in the Star Trek franchise.


Get Ready for another Star Trek in 2011

Here are the facts from the Variety report:

This is essentially the same set up as the first deal back in 2006. Abrams did not sign on as director for the current film until early 2007. The only difference now is that Lindelof (an Emmy winning writer) is also listed as screenwriter. However, in previous interviews with both Lindelof and the writers, it has been indicated that Damon worked closely with the writers as they were working on the script for this year’s Star Trek.

Lindelof is quoted in the Variety article:

There’s obviously a lot of hubris involved in signing on to write a sequel of a movie that hasn’t even come out yet. But we’re so excited about the first one that we wanted to proceed.

Kurztman is also quoted on possible storylines:

Obviously we discussed ideas, but we are waiting to see how audiences respond next month. With a franchise rebirth, the first movie has to be about origin. But with a second, you have the opportunity to explore incredibly exciting things. We’ll be ambitious about what we’ll do.

Huge vote of confidence
There can be no greater indicator that Paramount believe they have a winner on their hand and they want to make sure they have the same team in place. Paramount has been pushing to get two-year gaps between the Iron Man (2008 & 2010) Transformers (2007, 2009 and possibly 2011), and so it makes sense foe them to want to do the same with Trek. It has been previously reported that all all the main cast have options for two sequels, so with the Supreme Court tied down, Paramount is ready to go.

One caveat, signing a deal to get a script is not the same thing as giving a film a green light. Obviously the performance of the new Star Trek film will be a major factor in how to proceed with a sequel. However, studio sources have been indicating to TrekMovie for quite a while that a sequel was always assumed and some feel that (like with the recent Batman relaunch), the follow-up film can be even bigger.…home of the Star Trek sequel
TrekMovie will of course be following up on this big exciting news, and we expect to be the leader in news and information on the next Star Trek movie, just like we have been on the one coming in just a few weeks. In fact, we already have a category for the sequel.







1. Robofuzz - March 30, 2009


2. the conscience of the king - March 30, 2009

A good vote of confidence! Great news!

3. CaptainDonovin - March 30, 2009

If true than WHO HOO!!

4. The Governator - March 30, 2009

Holy @$@%$$@#%$#%@%$@$#%!!!!!!!

5. The Original Spock's Brain - March 30, 2009


6. Rekkert - March 30, 2009

One word: Yeah!!!

7. Christian - March 30, 2009

Wow. This is very surprising news. They aren’t even waiting for the numbers????

8. Kayla Iacovino - March 30, 2009

Whoo hoo!!

9. Tallguy - March 30, 2009

Isn’t April Fools another day away?

10. Pragmaticus - March 30, 2009


11. The Spirit of Truth - March 30, 2009

YES!!!!!!! TREK IS BACK!!!!!

12. WhatInBlueBlazes?! - March 30, 2009

Has Paramount ever previously commissioned a sequel before the first film was released?

13. Render - March 30, 2009


now all we need is a TV series

14. Pragmaticus - March 30, 2009

And get a damn TV show on the air while they’re at it!

15. Can't Wait for May 8th 2009 - March 30, 2009

OH YEAH!!! Can’t Wait for the Sequel!!!!

16. Shawn - March 30, 2009

Hey, Woo Hoo has been copyrighted.

17. Valar1 - March 30, 2009

Trek has returned!

18. rick - March 30, 2009

Oh Boy !!! I hope I get to be an EXTRA in this one too. I really had a lot of fun being a Starfleet Academy Instructor and Shipyard worker…

19. Kendra Shaw Redux - March 30, 2009


20. Christian - March 30, 2009

I hope this thing doesn’t tank…..then they’d look REALLY BAD. But their research must be telling them that this movie is going to be BIG.

21. senwod - March 30, 2009


22. Pragmaticus - March 30, 2009

Lindelof will be joining Orci and Kurtzman in writing the sequel. All I can say is, I would hold off on making the Klingons the villain until the third one.

23. Adam Cohen - March 30, 2009

Can’t say I’m shocked, but having official news on it is encouraging.

24. fwise3 - March 30, 2009

Not April Fools???

25. The Governator - March 30, 2009

12. WhatinBlueBlazes?!

Yeah, they’ve already announced Transformers 3 too.

26. Dennis Bailey - March 30, 2009

#12: “Has Paramount ever previously commissioned a sequel before the first film was released?”

I believe they did prior to the release of “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.” As a result, the brouhaha between Shatner and Roddenberry with their conflicting statements about Shatner directing the next one got a bit of entertainment press coverage right along with the movie’s release (as did TNG, which had been announced a few weeks before TVH’s opening).

27. Shatner_Fan_Prime - March 30, 2009

I hope they only wait 2 years between films, as with Transformers!

28. The Governator - March 30, 2009

I hope this is not a joke. If it is, then its a cruel joke.

29. Daoud - March 30, 2009

Summer 2011, too! No more 3 year turnaround, they’ve got it down to 2. Woo hoo! Buckle up!!

Congratulations to our regular board visitor, the great b’Orciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. :)

O&K are back! The keepers of the flight! All hail O&K! All hail O&K! O&K can you see by the Trek’s early flight…

30. ChucksterNCC-1701 - March 30, 2009

This is great news!!! For Paramount to be willing to make a Trek sequel before dollar one has been made at the box office is totally awesome. It reminds me of when the second pilot was ordered after “The Cage” was deemed “too cerebral”. =/\= Live Long And Prosper, Star Trek =/\=

31. David (Flaming Wings Forever) - March 30, 2009


The Trek is back.
Long live the New Trek!

32. Aaron R. - March 30, 2009


33. fwise3 - March 30, 2009


I will be so mad if this is a joke!!! I just about crapped my pants when I refreshed the news page and saw this article!

34. Captain Hackett - March 30, 2009

Very excellent news!!!


35. LoyalStarTrekFan - March 30, 2009

This is excellent news. This shows that Paramount is extremely confident in this new Star Trek. Hopefully their confidence will prove correct in May and now we can all look forward to more adventures in the future.

13, that would be CBS’s decision. I bet they won’t make any commitments until they see numbers for the new film.

36. Will - March 30, 2009


37. Trekkie88 - March 30, 2009

If I am not mistaken, CBS is now in control of Star Trek series. Or are they just in charge of previously made series? Anyway, CBS does not like Star Trek. So I think it will be a while before a new series is made.

38. marvin - March 30, 2009

congrats from sarajevo to bob and the rest of the team.

it pretty late/early here but we just had a major earthquake and i don’t think i will be able to sleep for few day

anyway, all the best once again and 6 days to go!

39. 24th Century Rockstar - March 30, 2009

Whooohoo! The Big E flies again! XD

40. Blake Powers - March 30, 2009

anyone have a tissue?

41. The Governator - March 30, 2009

New film = good. New series = bad. Seriously, are there any stories left?

42. DJT - March 30, 2009


:::: attempting to contain child-like glee … and not succeeding ::::


43. 24th Century Rockstar - March 30, 2009

#21 – Ditto! XD

44. Will - March 30, 2009

They should consider taking a page from the Terminator producers and… you know… go with different writers.

Or, maybe, like me, before making the above statement, they should wait and see what numbers the movie does. I’ll laugh so hard if the movie flops after they’ve decided to move forward.

45. Will - March 30, 2009

Err, Transformers. My mistake.

46. The Governator - March 30, 2009

36. Will

I hope you’re trying to be funny.

47. LoyalStarTrekFan - March 30, 2009

29, a lot of major movie franchises release films every two years with the James Bond franchise being the one that comes to mind immediately. Hopefully Star Trek will enjoy similar success.

48. Commodore Redshirt - March 30, 2009

I remember when I was an 8 years old back about 1970 asking my father if “…there’s any way STAR TREK could come back to TV?”
He said in his soothing voice “That’s not how it’s done. When a program is canceled, that’s it.”
“Well what about a movie?” I asked.
My dad chuckled and said “They don’t make movies out of TV shows..”

Almost 40 years later and this news breaks!
I think I’m going to call my dad….

38 days to go…

49. Tony Whitehead - March 30, 2009

Hopefully Anthony will continue with the website and not jump ship. This name is perfect for me and I salute him and his team for what they’ve turned this site into.

I’m looking forward to the release of the film and…the human adventure is just beginning…again!

50. GaryS - March 30, 2009

A good sign to be sure.

51. Steve - March 30, 2009


52. LoyalStarTrekFan - March 30, 2009

37, yes CBS does control TV Trek. However, I think you are incorrect in you statement that “CBS does not like Star Trek.” If that were a mistake why would they also be doing a massive merchandise campaign like “Star Trek Scene It?,” releasing TOSR on Blu-Ray, etc.

41, there are always new stories. Good writers with imagination can always find them.

53. The Governator - March 30, 2009

As excited as I am, I don’t want to get too wrapped around it as of yet. Best to focus on Trek 11 for now. Still, take my post #4 and multiply it by 4 and that is how excited I am right now.

54. Devon - March 30, 2009

#44 – The fact you would laugh at something like that is incredibly sad.

55. LoyalStarTrekFan - March 30, 2009

I meant “if that were TRUE why would CBS be doing a massive merchandising campaign?” in post 52.

56. Tony Whitehead - March 30, 2009

…by the way, Anthony.

I dig the little Trek 2 icon at the top. Did you just turn that around? made me smile.

57. TREKKIE369 - March 30, 2009

WooHoo!!! Star Trek Lives Long & Prospers!!! I hope that CBS jumps on board as soon as possible with a TV show! There are ALWAYS more new stories to tell with Star Trek!

=/\= YAY =/\=

58. Baroner - March 30, 2009


59. JohnnieF - March 30, 2009

Hey Trekkie369 – did you make up that cool Star Trek symbol (=/\=) and can I use it?

I think it is great that new life seems to have been put back into Trek and I would think that if there is a sequel or two from this point, the powers that be would seriously consider a new TV show.

60. SpencerJay - March 30, 2009

Lindelof joining the WRITING team is the most exciting bit of news here! That rocks!!

61. spockatatic - March 30, 2009

haha SEQUEL!!!

62. Will_H - March 30, 2009

Maybe Im the only one not woo hooing this, but I dont care what the biggies at Paramount think about this movie, even if its enough to make this move, we still dont know if its gonna be a good Star Trek movie. At least we’re a little over a month away from it, though, so if by some horrible turn of fate it turns out to be an epic failure they can abort the next movie. Still, I really want another TV series, but hopefully something new, no more 23rd century.

63. Trekkie88 - March 30, 2009

“TrekMovie will of course be following up on this big exciting news, and we expect to be the leader in news and information on the next Star Trek movie, just like we have been on the one coming in just a few weeks.”


I used to use Trek Today for Star Trek news… Until I found you & realized that Trek Today gets their news from YOU, a few days later!! Thank you Anthony & everyone else at Trek Movie for all your hard work over the past 3 1/2+ years!

64. Ian - March 30, 2009

Hot damn! Will ya just beam me up already?!

65. Keith - March 30, 2009

HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY! Star Trek is definitely living long and prospering!! Glad all the time I spent watching it in High School wasn’t for nothing! ha.

66. Greg2600 - March 30, 2009


67. Critch - March 30, 2009

I am so happy. SO SO FRICKING HAPPY. What I wrote to my sci-fi group:
I’m probably looking forward to this movie more than anyone, and I’m
trying to drag everyone along with me since this represents the
rebirth of Trek in a way that honestly shouldn’t have happened. The
first movie hits all my switches (Time Travel, Epic space battles, not
one but TWO planetary explosions, swordfights, and of course the Trek
universe) and for Paramount to sign off on a sequel a full month
before the movie releases is incredible. For the first time, Trek is
being treated as an event, a worthy franchise and not just a piddly
little space movie to excite the fans, make a couple of bucks and then
hope they go away back to their syndication. Hoorah!

There are a lot of reasons to be excited about the sequel, even though
we have to make sure the first movie is a success first. For the
first time, the entire original crew will be seen doing their thing in
their prime. And because of the timeline being ‘shifted’ a bit, it
opens up so many new things, and so many old things that could be
-Doomsday Machine?
-Guardian of Forever?
-Klingon War?
-Carol Marcus?

Also releasing in Summer 2011
Spiderman 4
Captain America
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part 2
Cars 2
Kung Fu Panda 2

68. Driver - March 30, 2009


69. jas_montreal - March 30, 2009

SWEET JESUS !!!! (abs shock)

70. Anthony Pascale - March 30, 2009

well I am excited, if for no other reason than I got to use by Ghostbusters II homage article icon again.

RE: Lindelof joining the writing team
well if bob drops by I am sure he can elaborate, but Damon was involved with the writing this time as well, i think it will be more formal.

71. Chris M - March 30, 2009

This is incredible news!! I’ll wait until Star Trek has concluded it’s theatrical release (I’m conservatively aiming to see the film ten times before then) and then I’ll start getting excited about the sequel (12th in all) to Star Trek! However it will be of great comfort to know that when I’m sitting in my theatre seat on May 7th (The Australin release date) that Star Trek will be here to stay for years to come!!! :)

72. The Original Spock's Brain - March 30, 2009

37. Trekkie88 – March 30, 2009
“If I am not mistaken, CBS is now in control of Star Trek series. Or are they just in charge of previously made series? Anyway, CBS does not like Star Trek. So I think it will be a while before a new series is made.”

CBS and Paramount are both owned by Sumner Redstone and his daughter and CBS TV will produce anything that is profitable. Having said that, television is a very different animal from feature film production.

73. Picard - March 30, 2009

Make it so!

74. Catie - March 30, 2009

I’m really glad trekmovie is continuiing. I would miss checking this site everyday! Thanks for making it so great!! :-)

75. Anthony Pascale - March 30, 2009 still plans to change names to to reflect our more general Trek coverage. We will lead movie news, but there is much more than movies.

76. Locke for President - March 30, 2009

Not to throw a wet blanket over this, but this doesn’t mean a followup movie at all. They are spending a few bucks on the if-come that another movie will be made. They want to get a head start on a possible new movie, nothing more. It can be cancelled just as easily.

If the movie tanks, there will be no sequel. They’ll be out a little bit of money in development costs for a possible new movie, and they’ll roll the costs into this movie.

Let’s just support this movie if it’s a good one, and tell all your friends that they need to go see it. And if all fans go and watch the movie a second time, it will double the revenue and help make a second movie happen.

In other words, an extra $8 will get you another Star Trek movie. For a Star Trek fan, I think that is a good investment!

77. The Original Spock's Brain - March 30, 2009

76. Locke for President – March 30, 2009
“In other words, an extra $8 will get you another Star Trek movie. For a Star Trek fan, I think that is a good investment!”

You pay only $8 for a movie?

78. YAY!!! - March 30, 2009


And MANY thanks to Anthony for his tireless efforts here. Well done!

79. Ashley - March 30, 2009

yesssssss! :D

80. JR - March 30, 2009

Will it another prequel sequel?

81. Captain Cameron goes Berserk!! - March 30, 2009

in a word….Duh.

oh and Anthony, about TrekHQ…

when are you doing that? just after the movie is released?

82. TrekTwenty - March 30, 2009

This was a bad article to read right before I need to go to bed. I won’t be able to fall asleep!

As a side note, movie tickets where I’m from are $8.25. But this is a fairly small college town. Of course, I work at a movie theater, so I actually don’t have to pay at all….

83. Newman - March 30, 2009

@75, Anthony that sounds like a good switch. I have been wondering how you planned to keep this site relevant after ST09. Sorry I underestimated you.

This is great news. I would love to see Carol Marcus in the new film. Maybe even Harry Mudd! And more Klingons, Andorians, heck, even Tholians!

84. Captain Cohen - March 30, 2009

Wow! I have a million deadlines and meetings at work .. I have had about an hour’s sleep here in little old England .. and now afer logging on at some un-Earthly hour [Vulcan Science Academy gong woke me up yet again ..] I read there’s plans for another film.

So what IS the point in sleep anyway?

THANKS for all the amazing news..

The Great Bird of the Galaxy sure knew how to fly!

Live long and sequel ..

85. Sean4000 - March 30, 2009


86. Phillip - March 30, 2009

First, let me say the trailers and early word of mouth have been fantastic . However, they chose to sandwich this movie between Wolverine and Terminator, two movies that may have a little more mass appeal right now. With people being much more selective about how to spend their dollar, will Trek be able to draw the much needed “new young fan” it needs to make money this season. I’m just concerned that even a great Trek movie might have a hard time gaining a great box office return with that kind of competition and Treks recent history. I hope I’m wrong, I’ve loved Star Trek since it began all those years ago.

87. Danya Romulus - March 30, 2009

Here’s what I imagine for the first teaser poster: similar to the huge-letter “STAR TREK” teaser, simply a ginormous number “2” in the italic Horizon font, rendered in a black field of stars with white behind it. In the space in the bottom right between 2’s base and the curve in the upper right, in red, a small Starfleet delta insignia and the words: STARDATE 5.6.11 (or whatever the case might be). Any thoughts?

88. Sean4000 - March 30, 2009


This is of course great news and a show if confidence!

89. Tak Kovacs - March 30, 2009

I knew that, when Paramount decided to screen the film for the press so far in front of the release date, they were very confident in the film Abrams has delivered. This news only reinforces that belief. It’s exciting.

The new film is going to be great.

90. dalek - March 30, 2009

No excuses this time, come up with a plot that INVOLVES Shatner from the get-go! ;)

91. Jordan - March 30, 2009

I still wish they would choose different writers.

92. DavidJ - March 30, 2009

Awesome news.

And personally, I’d rather they WAIT awhile before staring a new TV series. We just barely got out of a long period of franchise fatigue, where Paramount was just cranking out one tired spinoff and movie after another, to the point where Trek was everywhere and most people didn’t even CARE anymore.

Finally, Star Trek has gotten back to a point where it actually feels SPECIAL again. And like an actual EVENT that’s worth looking forward to. And I’d really like them to keep it that way for a while longer.

93. fwise3 - March 30, 2009

People are far too hard on Alex and Bob.

94. Sean4000 - March 30, 2009

90, DITTO. No excuse this time.

95. DavidJ - March 30, 2009


I agree about Terminator, but I frequent a lot of boards and don’t sense a whole lot of excitement for Wolverine right now.

I’m sure it will do well, but it doesn’t have nearly the level of hype or anticipation that Trek or T4 has.

96. TyrannicalFascist - March 30, 2009

Awesome news!!

My only question is what on earth can they call it? They can’t call it Star Trek II – that’s already taken and would just confuse people. I’m guessing either they’ll have to start using subtitles like Star Trek: First Contact, or they could go the DC route and start naming the movie something like “To Boldly Go” or “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, though we all know how well leaving ‘Star Trek’ out of the title worked last time that was tried…

97. MattTheTrekkie - March 30, 2009

Excellent news!! :)

There is one and only one problem. I just spent the last three years of my life following this movie like it was my life. I not sure I can spend yet another two years obsessing.

I’m sorry Star Trek, but after this first movie… I’m taking a really long break e_e

I’ll see you again in 2011, but not before then. Tired…

98. spockatatic - March 30, 2009

I will be so happy if this movie goes really big. No more being a freaking closet Trekkie! I have some sci-fi liking friends who will probably love this movie!!

99. Randy Hall - March 30, 2009

As glad as I am to hear that Paramount has such confidence in the movie, I remember that the studio did that with the writer of Nemesis lo those many years ago.

It seems that this is the most likely time to make a contract with the writers and producers. If the movie comes out and hits one out of the park, they’re obviously going to ask for more money to return.

On the other hand, if the film tanks, Paramount can just give the writer or producer the rest of their money, which is a lot cheaper than ending up with another less-than-thrilling movie.

100. garen - March 30, 2009

as much as i’m excited for another new trek film…i’m excited about returning to (trekhq) for years to come. you guys do a great job of reporting NEWS…. not rumors. and for the most part…i love the crowd around here! we all love trek in different, equally passionate ways.

please keep up the good work. i’m proud of the trekmovie crew and proud to have been around since somewhere near the beginning!

101. c0mBaTkArL - March 30, 2009

*golf clap* to the film team. Seriously, they must have a real winner on their hands. I can’t wait!

102. LegalizeRomulanAle - March 30, 2009

Bring on the Titan series!!!! Or “Countdown: The New Syfy Channel Original Movie”!!!!! Or…

TNG is dead isn’t it?

103. vice1986 - March 30, 2009


Can I be in it? :) LOL!

104. Ted - March 30, 2009

Ok this is a bit off topic but does anybody know if there is a way to watch anything other than TOS online?

105. garen - March 30, 2009

#102….Everything you said there…..i love!

gimme a Titan series! gimme Countdown (in animate form most likely) or gimme a new TNG centric film.

i cant get enough

106. Jim Nightshade - March 30, 2009

Awesome News…Thanks again to Anthony and Staff for all their hard dedicated work for us Trek Fans…We appreciate your dedication Anthony and realize that this is THE best Trek News website…You kick ass over every other site out there including the official one!
Thanks again!

107. SpocksinnerConfict - March 30, 2009

Script wise, this is good news.
I think Lindelof does a damn fine job on Lost.

Excellent move. My confidence in a quality sequel has gone up.

That’s not a dis to Orci and Kurtzman., I’m just more familiar with Lindelof’s work. I think he’s perfect for smart adventure storytelling.
Lost has been getting more Speculative in it’s Fiction, I’ve been wondering what Lindelof would do with straight up, pulp inspired, heady sci-fi…aka star trek.

108. SpocksinnerConfict - March 30, 2009


I want a Titan joint Enterprise mission. A journey both ships must take that would last a series, with stop overs on unknown worlds along the way.

109. SirMartman - March 30, 2009

I hear William Shatner might be in the next Trek


110. Jote - March 30, 2009

[sarcasm]Yes, and we should already start calling it ST11, since it’s the 12th movie[/sarcasm]

111. Justin Olson - March 30, 2009

“Script to be delivered by Christmas 2009 for a possible Summer 2011 release”

For those of you wondering when the Director’s Edition Blu-ray of Star Trek: The Motion Picture will be released, now you have your answer: It’s 10th Anniversary — coinciding with this film’s theatrical release.

112. oztrek - March 30, 2009

I want a spin-off TV series now!!!!!!

A film every two years is great but not enough!

113. David - March 30, 2009

Off topic for a second: anyone know where to buy the international or us posters yet? Thanks

114. Momaro - March 30, 2009

Wow… Hey Paramount, your eggs called. They ask “why the heck are we all in one basket?”. I think the new movie will be great, but really? If it sucks I’ll point my fingers at this jinxification.

115. Thehaggard - March 30, 2009

I like this ship! It’s exciting!

116. captain_neill - March 30, 2009

Great news indeed Trek is back

I wish it also came back to TV

However, should they not wait until the movie hits as we are all hyped up on the film, including myself (yes despite my concerns and anger over the changes to canon and set design) I really want to see it.

I am hoping that when I see the film I see a Star Trek film. I will never like the new set designs and Enterprise over the originals.

117. Iowagirl - March 30, 2009

Oh my, it’s not over yet…:)

Alright, I hope this time they’ll forgo the hot air, and the bla bla, and the “desperately trying, but”, and bring back the real Kirk!

118. Brian - March 31, 2009

The ONLY way to do Star Trek XII right:

1. Shatner, somehow, someway
2. TNG characters

119. OLLEY OLLEY OLEY - March 31, 2009

The human adventure is just beginning, again :-)

120. pinky - March 31, 2009

I am actually very pleased to see Lindelof has, and will be, influencing the writing. More than once I’ve gone to imdb to see if another writer was added to the credits… hoping. No offense, but after Transformers and Fringe.. and to a far lesser extent MI:III (although fun, the characters were vapid), I am a little skeptical about Orci & Kurtzman just having their way at something. They definitely have a sense of fun, but the humour (like pee jokes) is immature and the real story meat is often missing.

I bet with Lindelof in the mix, they’ll crank out a masterpiece. Lindelof brings the other side… sort of like Orci was saying earlier, that the best partnerships are ones that fill in the gaps.

121. Edgar Governo - March 31, 2009


With a new timeline established, Shatner could easily play the older (and not-dead) version of this Kirk… :)

122. Chris Pike - March 31, 2009

A complete E refit, a new universe 1701A. Please!
And no brewery pipes, barbed wire and other identifiably contemporary tech or props, thanks.
And a new PD.
I thank you.

123. catchupwiththesun - March 31, 2009

this is probably the best news ever. our beloved franchise will not die.

124. choiland - March 31, 2009

I’m very happy to hear that there will be a 12th film, but I’m still worried about the water pipes scene. That looks bad in any quantum mechanics alternative timeline.

125. V - March 31, 2009

I am sincerely glad to hear this piece of news, this allows the new movies to have a creative continuity of sorts.

What I would like to see is someone else other than JJ Abrams take the helm as director on the sequel, it’s good to shake things up.

Even if Star Trek 09 is great, even if it is the best Trek movie since Wrath of Khan, I would still love it if they went with someone else as director.

My choice would be someone who is a new, fresh face to Star Trek, but at the same time, someone who is a Trek fan.

There are plenty of big directors around who’ve never been involved with the franchise, but who are big Trek fans at the same time.

Just my 2 cents…

I always go for the least obvious choice.

With the Supreme Court locked in place, we can be assured that the sequel to Trek 09 would be faithful to (at least) the continuity put forward by Trek 09. The script, the production design, the art direction, the music, etc, all this would be an evolution or a continuation of what we’ll get in Trek 09.

So, in my opinion, a new, fresh director, would be the best way to make sure we keep getting something new and fresh, just like Trek 09 is something fresh.

Or, here’s another idea. Bring in a classic Trek director and get him to play in the new “playground”, with the new “toys” and by the new rules.

I would also love it if they somehow manage to bring Shatner back in this one. And alongside Shatner, perhaps they manage to somehow cancel Kirk’s death from Generations.

Until we get to see Trek 09, this is all pure and simple speculation. Maybe this movie hints directly at what the sequel could be.

126. Hat Rick - March 31, 2009

Let’s hope for a successful ST09.

127. Skagen - March 31, 2009

TV Series!! come on, please! good news about the prequel, but I hope we get to see the rest of the 5 year missions at some point as a series.

128. Jim Smith - March 31, 2009

So, dare I mention Shatner? I mean, here’s the chance to work out with him, in advance, a way of accommodating what he wants and what they want? Right?

129. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - March 31, 2009

Great news! I hope that Star Trek XI passes muster, but if XII is already in the works, there’s already a mandate to fix whatever is lacking in XI. (In the case of a great franchise like Star Trek, the danger of sequel-deterioration is not inexorable, though surely our Supreme Court must actively avoid resting on their laurels.)

And on this one, I am going to say the opportunity to bring Shatner back is a lot more feasible. I have been pretty solidly opposed to rewriting the Generations ending on XI, but the further along the re-booted franchise goes, the more natural it will be to do something about that abomination.

130. Greggy Boy - March 31, 2009

Star Trek XII?
That’s going to make all those boneheaded talifans (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!) shit asteroids!

131. Dipling - March 31, 2009

I hope there will be no evil villain like in X number of movies (also Star Trek). Star Trek XII – The most evil evil

I hope for something grater, something bigger, different – like STTMP.

Greetings from Slowenia.

132. rumpcuz - March 31, 2009

According to ST XII Trailer is available NOW

133. NaradaAlpha - March 31, 2009

simply put… the sequel should include Carol Marcus, (Britney Spears; trust me on this casting idea) Finnegan (David Tennant), Gary Mitchell, (Tom Welling or David Boreanaz), Nurse Chapel (Haylie Duff), Yeoman Rand (Megan Fox) and though early, Ilia (Morena Baccarin from Firely, Serenity and Stargate SG-1). It should also twist the rules like thisfilm will, and possibly draw upon both this film’s story and the Countdown comics, as well as 90s Trek elements…


SPOCK: “We believe that the destruction of Romulus was just the beginning. The Hobus star is unlike any natural phenomena we have seen before. What began as a single supernova is now a threat to the whole galaxy. And the more it destroys, the stronger it grows.”

Simply put, given that ‘Red Matter’ is involved, and consequently black holes, which in scifi are treated similarly to wormholes, my idea is simple: next film have Kirk and crew make first contact with the Bajorans, and then we discover that the Pah-Wraiths are to blame for the bizarre activity of The Hobus star, resulting in the destruction of Romulus in the 24th Century in the old timeline, which motivates Nero in this 2009 film…

In the new timeline the Pah-Wraiths intend upon doing the same thing in the 23rd Century as they did in the 24th… their goal with the Hobus star was to turn it into a black hole that would devour the galaxy…

However, a time traveler from the old timeline 24th Century, (not Spock this time…SISKO (still played by Avery Brooks) travels back in time to the new timeline using the Bajoran Orb of Time to stop the annihilation of 2 timelines due to the resurrected Hobus star threat…

(NOTE: Sisko returns via the DS9 relaunch novels so the 2011 film would draw upon those as well)

…and together Sisko and Kirk and crew, with Sisko given top-secret command of the new Constitution Class USS Defiant with Gary Mitchell as his XO, try to stop The Pah-Wraiths from annihilating everything, and they do, but The Pah-Wraith-possessed Romulans capture Sisko and Sisko discovers that only by allowing himself to be executed by the Romulans can he gain enough Emissary-laden power to destroy The Pah-Wraiths’ Hobus maelstrom and render them powerless… so, in a Christ-like manner, he allows himself to be executed by the Romulans, and is reborn intensely more powerful and saves the day…

In every good film theres a personification of evil, a villian, and so thered need to be one here… the person leading the desire to turn Hobus into a galaxy-consuming black hole is none other than KHANNNNNNN!!!, who, in the beginning of the film, wouldve been discovered by Kirk and after being ejected from the Enterprise with his men, onto a planet where time passed much quicker than in the rest of the galaxy, would escape from said planet 15 years older thanks to being possessed by a Pah-Wraith, and would disguise himself as a Romulan and insinuate himself into Romulan society at some point in the film…but who could play Khan here (new actor of course…)

And as Sisko tried to stop the Pah-Wraiths, Kirk would try to stop Khan from seizing control of the Romulan Empire to prevent Hobus from being turned into the black hole, and would fail but would succeed in stopping Khan himself…in a way similar to the Mutara incident…without Spock dying… here itd be Sisko dying at the hands of the Romulans…

The black hole is created..all seems lost, but then Sisko is resurrected and reverses the damage using his Prophet-powers…

In the course of the film Carol Marcus creates the Genesis Device, which here in this timeline is not a terraforming device but a temporal reversal device capable of reversing the destruction of a planet without otherwise distorting the timeline, and she uses it to restore Romulus which, like in the 24th Century in the old timeline, would be destroyed, and if Vulcan is destroyed in this 2009 film, another Genesis Device would be used to restore Vulcan…

NOTE TO ANTHONY: NEXT TIME U SPEAK TO ANY MEMBER OF THE NEW SUPREME COURT, please forward this idea to them…and give them the email address i list below:

if they like the idea:) thanks:)

134. Matt - March 31, 2009

No Shatner. Don’t re-launch Trek only to let it cannibalise itself again. Let Star Trek 2 (?) forge new ground.

135. Pat D. - March 31, 2009

Okay, I realize we are in a different world than the 1980’s but REMEMBER that STIII was announced to come out 18 months after II and it took 24, IV was annnounce to come out 2 years after III and it took another 6 months . . .

Plus . . . the ponderous speed with which THIS movie was developed!! Announced at Comicon in 2006!! Quinto and Nimoy announced at Comicon 2007. Released in May 2009 (instead of Dec. 2008).

Unless there has already been significant story progress, I’m dubious of meeting the schedule. I guess they can start shooting in March 2010 for a May 2011 release. Plus, they don’t have to design and build a bunch of stuf.

On the other side of the coin, TRANSFOMRERS made their two year hit.

136. Dyson Sphere - March 31, 2009

No Shatner, just Shatner’s voice coming from a Sauron brain orb perhaps? Or reincarnate him as a talking tribble,. Anything but his real body.

137. Pat D. - March 31, 2009

Let me be clear that I have the utmost confidence in Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and Burk to deliver.

As stated in the article, “a deal to get a script is not the same thing as giving a film a green light.”

I believe there will be a sequel, but I’m not going to get to bent up about the release date.

138. Tiberiuscan - March 31, 2009

It is the only logical thing to do.

139. Jeff - March 31, 2009

7 days until I see the movie! I have front row seat to the premiere in Sydney!!

140. Geoffers - March 31, 2009

Fantastic news, congrats to all involved…. but please, please, please, find a way to:-

1). Get he Shat in there somehow.
2). Get at least a Picard Next Gen Cameo in there..
3). Get an elderly Admirial Archer in there.

141. Craig - March 31, 2009

Bring back Picard and Co and ditch the waste in space

142. lukas - March 31, 2009

COUNTDOWN #4 is available at iTunes! Just downloaded it…


143. Oliver - March 31, 2009

Space Time Anomaly detected!

LOL you guys are really wacky – reporting on a movie that’s a sequel to another movie that is not out. That — confuses — me carbon unit brains.

144. Craig - March 31, 2009

Sack The talentless hjacks and bring back Coto he’s doing great work on 24

145. Oliver - March 31, 2009

@141 – That won’t happen, for sure. Really, stop thinking about another TNG movie. That’s not gonna be. It’s the next level, so go on!

P.S.: I am the biggest fan of TNG around here, don’t get me wrong.

146. Oliver - March 31, 2009

@139 – Front row isn’t THAT cool in a movie theater :D

147. Greggy Boy - March 31, 2009


With all due respect, this is probably the biggest pile of fanwank shit I ever stumbled over to read… I really hope – for your mental stability’s sake – that you are not serious. If you are, i pity you. If you are not, I still pity you since you wasted way too much time creating and typing this abomination…

148. Chris J - March 31, 2009

142- indeed it is, and so have I…

I’m… not disappointed; that is the wrong word. It is just… meh.

What do you think?

149. harris250 - March 31, 2009

two more years of checkin this site everyday…
two more years of water pipe arguments! Neat!

150. Tarrax - March 31, 2009

Wow, suddenly I feel the same excitement I have missed so much since I was a wee youngster.

139. Jeff – You lucky bugger. If I lived in Sydney instead of Brisbane, I would’ve gladly paid $100 to be there too. :D

151. Craig - March 31, 2009

Anger is too strong, CBS please please please save us and save the franchise, put it right, put it back on TV dealing with serious issues not let it degenerate into some mindless action wank fest film conveyorbelt.

And Paramount do us all a favour and slash the production budget of the sequel by at least 50% in fact less CG the better lets have a purely character movie with no space battles

152. EM - March 31, 2009

Fantastic news, indeed. I already can’t wait to see this Star Trek movie. Now, I have to start waiting another 2 or 3 years to see the next Star Trek movie!!
Also, if there is going to be another Star Trek series on television, let the BBC do it. Those people know how to put on a series of stories! They are brave in storyline decisions and don’t pander to the low brow set. They don’t try to dumb everything down. Check out Doctor Who, Torchwood, Life On Mars, Ashes To Ashes, Demons and just about any genre show that the brits have created. Give them the American funding and share the revenue. They will pump out a great 13 show series. They do this and still have more story than most American 22 episode series. (I’m not saying this because I’m British. I’m not. I’m Canadian.)
Long Live Trek!!

153. Alex Aslanidis - March 31, 2009

welcome back Star Trek, engage!!

154. Paulaner - March 31, 2009

#131 “I hope there will be no evil villain like in X number of movies (also Star Trek). Star Trek XII – The most evil evil”

I am with you on this, but in nowadays blockbuster movies it’s very difficult to have a deep, cerebral story that develops without a nemesis. The Motion Picture was great in having a mistery rather than a villain. The Voyage Home was totally villainless (if you forget the probe), but the other Trek movies were not an exception in having evil (and lame) villains to fight.

155. catchupwiththesun - March 31, 2009

also, it is good to know trekmovie will still be the place to go for news on the sequel (and other trek stuff). anthony and co, you’ve done great work.

156. Ten-Forward - March 31, 2009

Why does everyone have to assume that every future Star Trek movie from now on has to continue on everything from ST:TFB??! They never said we have to completely ABANDON the original timeline/parallel and god, I hope we don’t. These kids were chosen to relaunch the franchise, nobody said they had to sustain it.

They can do anything they want. Send Pine/Quinto and Crew into the 24th Century to fight Q alongside Captain Data and Ambassador Picard into the beginning of the 25th century. (Make an epic sprawling story out of it). Or better yet, REBOOT TNG with Seven of Nine and connect it to the future presented in Star Trek Online.

Maybe Shatner can return just long enough to do something in the sequel that preserves the life of Pine-Kirk. And TNG characters should help! These ideas are a goldmine man…

157. Third Remata'Klan - March 31, 2009


158. Jote - March 31, 2009

156: you seem to assume quite a lot as well.

And also, TNG characters are too old already, I’d love to see VOY crew though, Janeway’s cameo in Nemesis was simply not enough

159. Paulaner - March 31, 2009


Imo, this new crew and this new timeline have the right to express themselves, with new settings, new races, new characters and new plots. Now we are back in TOS domain. A new five year mission is all that I want.

160. Matt - March 31, 2009

EM – Demons is ITV.

161. Danny - March 31, 2009

You realise THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, or maybe this time in a few months time, everybody could be back on set at Paramount making a movie!!

Exciting times!

162. Fansince9 - March 31, 2009

This is GREAT, wonderful, fantastic, really good news! Thanks for the update Anthony, you’ve just made my day!

163. Kirkring - March 31, 2009

I just hope to Hell it’s a real exploration – where no man has gone before – type adventure. No evil starfleet admirals or political coup stories- and no damn Klingons.

Something high concept and mysterious like V-Ger, with great characterization and better action.

you know, a sci fi movie.

164. Danny - March 31, 2009

For a new series I’d just give James Cawley the money and resources to do 13 eps a year for Scifi.

As for the new movie, I ssuspect this will be a feature-length uninterrupted mission for Pine and crew.

I would not be at all surprise if they did a Dark Knight and saved the main villains for this one, yes, I mean Klingons.

165. Holger - March 31, 2009

I withhold judgement on this until May 7.

166. NCC-73515 - March 31, 2009

Ok, so let’s have a TNG crossover. Or a BTTF crossover.
Or pure fun without deaths (like TVH).

167. Mike Ten - March 31, 2009

#161 Danny, for the actors wouldn’t it be two years since they finished filming about a year ago.
As for a new series, I think they should go the direct to DVD route and give us Titan stories or a anthology showing what some of the 24th century characters are doing CBS/Paramount could possibly adapt the Countdown comic series as a tie in to the movie.

168. Jarod - March 31, 2009

Oh great, so the 24th century, the old franchise, definately died with this movie. All we’ll get is a sequel to this mirror universe.

And I was so hoping for a good big budget TNG era movie.

169. SaphronGirl - March 31, 2009

Bob Orci – I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations. (Also, if it’s not too much trouble, could you guys finally let Kirk get that backrub from Spock that he was denied in “Shore Leave”? That’s all I ask of the second film. Heheheh…)

170. C.S. Lewis - March 31, 2009

This movie is so good, no one needs to see it – they just give Paramount their money!


C.S. Lewis

171. fizzben - March 31, 2009

# 151 out of 166 posts that’s the first negative one I’ve seen. Face it you’re vastly out numbered in your opinion. Go back watch the reruns and past 10 movies. This movie is going to be kick-ass. Nobody wants a boring talky sci-fi film and more CG the better!
I’m wondering how all the nay-sayers are feeling now. Woo-hoo go Star Trek!

172. Krik Semaj - March 31, 2009

This can mean ONE thing and ONE thing only.
2 more years of whiners complaining about the next movie.
Oh joy.

173. Harry Ballz - March 31, 2009

I LIKE the idea of a sequel!! It’s exciting!!

174. Pragmaticus - March 31, 2009

133 – write a fanfic and get real.

175. Daoud - March 31, 2009

#0 Well, if O&K call the May’s film, “Star Trek Zero: The Future Begins”, then we could call this ST12 “Star Trek One: The Future Strikes Back”.

(Praytell, THEN we have a problem for ST13 “Star Trek Pi: The Return of the Shat” What does the Shat need with a starship?)

#133 Thank you for writing that. Since the great and powerful Orz visits here, if he reads that, it can NEVER be used by them.

#168 Well, by the year 2027 (40 years after TNG), you may get your wish.

#167 and others: The original Glen Larson idea for Galactica was a TV movie a month. The Paramount gang could adopt something similar with alternating 23rd century and 24th century films. 2012 could see the launch of “The Next Generation” (doesn’t need Star Trek in the title), a film about the Enterprise-E under the command of Geordi LaForge. 2013 would bring ST13, the end of the Pine-Quinto TOS trilogy. 2014 could continue the Next Generation, and then there’s a Trek every summer as a series of movies…. #133, then you could eventually get to see Sisko in some manner.

176. Locke for President - March 31, 2009

#77: The average ticket price in the USA is $7.20. This accounts for children and matinee prices included in the totals. I found this figure on a couple of web sites by doing a Google search.

Last Saturday night I went to our first-run movie theater and saw “The Watchmen” for $6.75. I live in a town of 30,000 people. Other theatres in bigger cities nearby are about a dollor more.

177. Anthony Thompson - March 31, 2009

Now Stanky & Co. will have something to gripe and moan about for at least two more years! ; )

178. screaming satellite - March 31, 2009

some random thoughts:

KHHHHAAAAN for the sequel?

a big budget remake of Space Seed – but veers off in a different direction (as its a diff timeline) with elements of TWOK so like a remake of both?

No Country For Old Men nutjob as Khan?

Khan is the most popular movie and villian in the trekverse after all…Paramount knows trekkies obsession with him…it could put some serious bums on seats..

BUT…then again could a remake of a TOS ep be pushing it too far? especially one that would overwrite the most popular film in the series…could get some serious backs up…i mean its not as if there isnt a gazillion other stories they could use….hmmmm maybe its not such a good idea.

anyway whatever they do i guess it’d be known as “Star Trek : whatever” like the TNG movies..i cant see the roman numerals coming back or it being called Star Trek ‘2’

I wonder if Abrams will direct again..or just produce and have someone like the Cloverfield director do it? maybe Spielberg is itching it direct a Trek movie like he was 007 or Star Wars? hes never actually directed a space set SF movie.

179. Spock you Rascal you - March 31, 2009

Congrats Anthony looks like TREKMOVIE.COM just got an extension on it’s option, keep up the fantastic work!

180. Chris Doohan - March 31, 2009

Congrats to the ‘Supreme Court’.

181. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2009

RE: option to extend
well the plan was always to keep this site. It has become the number one independent star trek site already and so we are here to cover all aspects of star trek in the future, new movie or no new movie.

but with a new movie, we are all over that like gray on gagh

182. WhatInBlueBlazes?! - March 31, 2009


LOL @ gray on gagh

183. ChristopherPike - March 31, 2009

I wish I had half the enthusiasm most seem to have for this new beginning…

Sour grapes, I suppose.

184. Crusade2267 - March 31, 2009

Well we know one thing for sure, Star Trek XII will be even better than Star Trek XI (It’s even!) From how things are shaping up, this will be exciting.

I do miss TNG though. But like Q said, All good things…

185. Star Trackie - March 31, 2009

Hot damn, more goodness from TOS-ville. Congrats to JJ, Orci and the rest for this unprecendented vote of confidence. May you all continue to take Star Trek where no man has gone before and above all else, have fun doing it!

Life is good.

186. HardCore Trekkie - March 31, 2009

A sequel? Let me be the first to complain that I won’t like it. It won’t not fit within the confines of canon. Hopefully they’ll recast everyone…because I”m sure I won’t like them in ST09…

187. ensign joe - March 31, 2009

I hope we still think this is good news AFTER the first movie comes out.. if so, then WOOHOO!!

This should give the writers plenty of time to find a way to bring back kirk.. but actually.. anything other than a stand-alone movie would feel cliche.. oh and no time travel :)

188. Ralph F - March 31, 2009

Alright, STAR TREK 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO here we come!

189. Christian - March 31, 2009

Reese Witherspoon as Carol Marcus!!

190. William Kirk - March 31, 2009

Hope it´s only a Joke Joke…

191. Ralph F - March 31, 2009

189 = now that you say that, I can easily see her as Carol Marcus. She does bear a resemblance, doesn’t she?

192. Iowagirl - March 31, 2009


Yep, we’ll be a checkpoint in uncertain times. :))

193. Mazzer - March 31, 2009

Well, this site will have something more to talk about for the next x years!

194. screaming satellite - March 31, 2009

wonder if it’ll do good BO (e.g. $50m opening…$150-200m US..$100m overseas = $250-300m total)

or if it will go through the roof? (e.g. $70-80m opening…250-300m US…$200m oversea = $450-500m ww)

only time will tell…

sequel either way

195. Greenstar - March 31, 2009

One more re-boot movie. I hate that. :(

196. Sloan47 - March 31, 2009

While I’m glad another screenplay is in the works, I really don’t want Shatner involved. I don’t want TNG to be involved either. If a second movie is made, it will be based on the success of the new cast. Let Star Trek XII stand on it’s own.

A Star Trek series on TV would also be a bad idea at this time. Over-saturation is was killed trek the first time. So, no Titan series, no Sulu series… Nothing. Let’s give it time and let what’s upcoming be unique.

197. TOSTNGVOYFan - March 31, 2009

@158: I’m only assuming they will do the right thing now the mainstream has given Trek super support. It will be 50 years before another Nemesis disaster. The right thing to do is a crossover TFB/TNG film with select VOY cameos.

@159: lol, like they are real people! Give them their rights!

@168: MY thoughts exactly. One more TNG movie baby!!!

@184: All Good Things don’t come to an end unless it’s at the hand of Q. Using a new Khan (especially when Ricardo just died) would be tacky. The best choice of new villain is John de Lancie, hands DOWN.

198. RTC - March 31, 2009

Now I see that while I was geekily photographing Roberto’s reserved parking space at Universal yesterday — they actually BACKED UP the tour tram to accommodate me — I was asking the tour guide for the inside scoop on the *wrong* movie…. ;-)

Congrats to the new keepers of Star Trek!

199. ensign eddie - March 31, 2009

198: I like John De Lancie’s Q for a villain! Great idea!

Oh man, don’t make me all nostalgic, I’ll get upset…

200. ensign eddie - March 31, 2009

I meant 197.

196 – HORRIBLE idea. You sound, I don’t know… 90.

“NO cool shows! NO nothing! Suffer TNG fans!” Okay… thanks.

201. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - March 31, 2009

Finaly the Star has come back to Trek!!!! This is exciting news. Now anthony and his great team will be very busy for the next few years as the next movie will come out in 2 years and then another aftert that. then maybe a series and wow. this is great for all of Trek. thank you J.J and Orci and the court for bringing back Trek for all of us. Thank you Anthony for this world class site. Anthony and J.J and Orci and the rest of the court. Live Long and Prosper.

202. Anthony Thompson - March 31, 2009

194. screaming satellite

You made your BO predictions months ago, as I recall. I thought you had it all figured out already. ; )

203. sean - March 31, 2009

Yay! Now we get another 2 years of Bring Back Shatner! ;)

I imagine even after Mr Shatner has passed away there will be people insisting on using a CGI animation of him. You guys are a loyal bunch, I’ll give ya that!

204. Chris Pike - March 31, 2009

there’s at least another 20 Shatyears left I reckon…!

205. Anthony Thompson - March 31, 2009


Iowagirl, you’re the one! And being from the state which built the Starship Enterprise, you are all the more special! : )

206. Marian Ciobanu - March 31, 2009


207. sean - March 31, 2009

And in this TNG/DS9 fan’s opinion, we should leave well enough alone and continue in the adventures of the 23rd Century, not the 24th. No convoluted stories about Pine visiting Picard or Pah-Wraiths causing supernovae. Let’s not involve a Darth Vader invents C3P0-level of storytelling here. I say we stick with whatever universe we’re left with at the end of ST09, alternate or not. There were clearly a great number of stories we never saw in TOS as well as the time between TOS to TMP, and TMP to TWOK. There’s a great deal to explore there, and hopefully that’s where JJ & Co go next.

208. Dennis Bailey - March 31, 2009

#:”This movie is so good, no one needs to see it – they just give Paramount their money!”

Yep, you just keep on being wrong about everything. LOL

209. Sloan47 - March 31, 2009

200 HORRIBLE idea. You sound, I don’t know… 90.

“NO cool shows! NO nothing! Suffer TNG fans!” Okay… thanks

I’m not exactly 90, but I’m old enough to know what’s going to work. These kitbash TNG/DS9/VOY fanboy flights of fancy are simply ridiculous. If there is going to be a new series…. LET IT BE NEW.

FYI, I’m a huge TNG fan. But I also realize if Star Trek is to survive, it is due to the creative talents of JJ and the writers.

210. Closettrekker - March 31, 2009

#197—“The right thing to do is a crossover TFB/TNG film with select VOY cameos.”

The right thing for whom?

The only reason I care at all about this film is its focus on Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc.

I’ve never paid to see a TNG-era movie, and I’m not going to start.

211. screaming satellite - March 31, 2009

202 – Im having thoughts that maybe…just maybe…the new film could go through the roof….based on the anticipation in the media and from non trek fan moviegoers…Ive feeling that it could surpass both Wolverine and Angel/Demons at the BO – both of which are getting abit of a ‘meh..seen it all b4′ response with trailers, levels of anticipation etc

212. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - March 31, 2009

Ithink the film will do fantastic. I watch WWE Raw on Monday nights and it is the highest rated program on Cable and last night they ran a Star Trek Trailer and it’s that kind of targeting that will work. I think that the New Trek will do at least 60 Million on the first weekend and finish uo with 300 million in the U.S alone.

213. table10 - March 31, 2009

I could see the supreme court doing alot of really interesting stuff with a big budget remake of space seed…

214. Bob, The Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - March 31, 2009

I paid to see two TNG movies – “Generations” (ick) and “First Contact” (fun movie). I saw “Insurrection” on dvd, and was not impressed as it played out like a longer TV episode, and I rented “Nemesis”. Wow, not a good movie at all. Seems like the director had no grasp of charater development, pacing, story telling, etc.. I felt really sorry for the cast as it was obvious that they did what they could to rise above the situation.

I wouldn’t pay to see another TNG movie, or DS9, or Voyager, or “Enterprise” or “The Adventures of Captain Riker” and I really doubt if very many people outside the fandom of Star Trek would be interested. While I’m sure that there are some compelling stories left to tell, they may be best left to Direct-to-DVD releases.

215. Bob, The Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - March 31, 2009


NO DAMN REMAKES! Come up with your own original ideas.

216. NC Trekker - March 31, 2009

My two cents for the writers…

Please do not include the following in the sequel

time travel
Q, Trelane, or any omnipotent character
Mirror universe
The Enterprise being the “only ship in the quadrant”
A villain driven by hate and a desire for revenge
primitive Viking-style TNG version of Klingons
remake of a TOS episode

In short, please leave out anything that has been “done to death” in Trek.

Come up with something fresh and new, at least for Trek, but something that would fit in the TOS universe.

Everyone, let’s try to come up with some ideas.

217. wkiryn - March 31, 2009

I can’t be the only one tired of hearing the clowns that thought it was a kickass idea to build the Enterprise in Riverside Iowa as the Supreme Court of Trek Canon.

218. Bob, The Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - March 31, 2009

216 – Also no transporter accidents, warp core breaches, The Borg, inept Starfleet captains

219. John2460 - March 31, 2009

I hate that title “supreme court”. It just bugs me.

220. NL-NaeZ - March 31, 2009

I can’t hardly wait till 2011 !!!

I hope there will be a movie that continues with the same cast, the same ship, the same everything that they used in the upcoming movie..

I DON’T want to see a TNG/DS9/VOY or even a ENT movie… that doesn’t make sence as a sequel to this movie… and please stop asking for Shatners Kirk, he died!!! there is no more James T. Kirk that can be played by the good old William Shatner…

James T. Kirk is from now on: Chris Pine!!!!!!!!!

221. TBW - March 31, 2009

I agree to a certain extent about a remake being a bad idea. Assuming we’re talking about an episode/film. On the other hand, I’ve always felt that Prime Directive was one of the great Star Trek stories (in any medium,) and would pay all kinds of money to see it made (assuming I had, you know, all kinds of money.)

222. T'Cal - March 31, 2009

T-768 days until STXII!
Woo Hoo!!!

223. Kaiser The Great - March 31, 2009

#216 – Word.

224. Star Trackie - March 31, 2009

#220 “and please stop asking for Shatners Kirk, he died!!! ”

We’ll have to see how things pan out in this new timeline before we can declare Kirk dead. If they want Shatner in the movie, it will happen..if they don’t, it won’t. His death in Generations, from another timeline is irrelevant. I’m not sold that we won’t see him in THIS movie. Time will tell.

225. Tom - March 31, 2009

If they do get Shatner, i wonder if Leonard Nimoy will come back

226. T'Cal - March 31, 2009

BTW, I was watching Family Guy last night with my wife and a commercial came on for Esurance, which turned into a trailer for STXI. Very cool…

227. krikzil - March 31, 2009

“I hate that title “supreme court”. It just bugs me.”

Me too. And I’m not real fond of our actual supremes so it makes it even worse. ;)

228. NC Trekker - March 31, 2009

A few more things to leave out:

A higher ranking officer comes on board and interferes with Kirk

Distant planet is identical to some historical period on Earth

Newly introduced female turns out to be Kirk’s old flame

Something mysterious and destructive is on a collision course with Earth (i.e. V’ger and the whale probe)

229. Tom Welling For Superman - March 31, 2009

I agree……There shall be no peace, until Kirk Lives.

LOL….Love me some star trek 3!

oh and am I saying this right? Maaaa Chaaaa Eeee Chewwww

230. Steven - March 31, 2009

Alright. This is GREAT news! Now, let’s hope that the new “Trek” will be a big hit!

God bless!

231. VOODOO - March 31, 2009

Great news…

It shows that Parmount is very happy with the finished product.

Congrats to the entire creative team.

232. Closettrekker - March 31, 2009

#219—“I hate that title “supreme court”. It just bugs me.”

I think they were just having a bit of fun when they came up with that one.

I don’t know why it would “bug” anyone.

233. The Original Spock's Brain - March 31, 2009

No TNG-era crossovers please (maybe a cameo). You can have your TNG remakes in 2020.

234. Admiral Crane - March 31, 2009

I think they should DEFINITELY wait on the TV show. Do a couple of movies first. Let’s not over expose Trek and get the general public to the point of being sick to death of it again.

Trek could go on for a long time, but development of the new-and-improved franchise needs to be paced just right.

235. The Original Spock's Brain - March 31, 2009

2020, or much later…

236. Ralph F - March 31, 2009



But you left out “The Borg”

237. The Original Spock's Brain - March 31, 2009

219. John2460 – March 31, 2009
“I hate that title “supreme court”. It just bugs me.”

It just means that they are the final word.

238. Check the Circuit - March 31, 2009

You know what I’m looking forward to….all the naysayers jumping on the band wagon after the Supreme Court delivers a great, character-driven Star Trek movie that is a huge financial success. Remember when the Talifans screamed bloody murder about the idea of a new Trek TV series about a crew that didn’t involve Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest of the familiar crew? Once it was a hit and lightening did strike twice, they couldn’t heap enough praise on TNG and claimed to have always been open-minded…just like IDIC taught us. Yeah, when Stanky and The Stankettes are on this site on May 9th pitching their ideas for Star Trek 2 and patting Abrams & Co on the back for their brilliance, I’ll be having myself a laugh.

239. Nathan - March 31, 2009

Um…I think I’m going to wait until I actually see the film before I decide whether or not I want a sequel. :)

No offense.

240. The Original Spock's Brain - March 31, 2009

217. wkiryn – March 31, 2009
“I can’t be the only one tired of hearing the clowns that thought it was a kickass idea to build the Enterprise in Riverside Iowa as the Supreme Court of Trek Canon.”

Don’t understand what problem ya’ll have with Riverside, Iowa.
Is Des Moines better?

241. Closettrekker - March 31, 2009

#207—“There were clearly a great number of stories we never saw in TOS as well as the time between TOS to TMP, and TMP to TWOK. There’s a great deal to explore there, and hopefully that’s where JJ & Co go next.”


In particular, there is a great deal of time between TMP and TWOK (not that I think the creative team should go immediately there). If there is 2.5 years between the end of the 5 year mission, and 15 years between the events depicted in “Space Seed” and TWOK, that leaves a considerable amount of time between the V’Ger incident and Khan’s escape from Ceti Alpha V—7.5 years, assuming that first season episodes represent events occurring during the first year of the “5 year mission”.

That is a great deal of time with which to play.

The second film could pick up where the Original Series left off—completing the “five year mission”, and a third could begin to bridge the gap between TMP and TWOK.

However, there is also no reason to place the “First Season” events within the first year. A sequel could address events occurring prior to that time period as well (filling the gaps, so to speak). The first season of TOS could represent the 3rd year, and so on.

There is actually nothing really canonically inhibitive to that.

A third film could still pick up after TMP and before TWOK.

There is also the possibility that all Bad Robot Star Trek films could remain within the five year mission, and years from now, we could see more depicted during the 12.5 year portion of the movie era not covered(TMP-TWOK—7.5 years, and TFF-TUC—5 years).

I suppose I would like them to play within the film era gaps so that new characters could be introduced as well.

Of course, if the altered timeline results in a “completely” blank slate ahead—then none of this will matter anyway. They can do anything they want.

Either way, we get new Kirk/Spock/McCoy stories!

242. Rick - March 31, 2009

To all the “bring back Shatner” people:

I love the Shat but do you guys realize that he’ll turn 80 in 2011?

243. Tony Whitehead - March 31, 2009

A lot is going to depend on the story-line for the upcoming film and how it ends with the threads that Orci and the gang leave hanging, but I, for one, would love to see the next film follow the pitch that Gene Roddenberry made to NBC way back when…

Wagon Train To The Stars!

There’s a heck of a lot of adventure to be had just in braving a new frontier without dredging up another uber alien that intends to blow up time and space…with the Enterprise, of course, being the only ship in the galaxy that can prevent it.

You could come up with a plausible plot for the adventure part of it, but this kind of scenario might help bring out the best in each character.

Then again, that might be better pursued in a series. Just my two cents.

244. WolfTrek - March 31, 2009

I agree – no more time travel, and no Borg in the sequel.

245. Shatner_Fan_Prime - March 31, 2009

#214 … I’ll bet you $20 Khan is in the sequel. Whaddya say? :-)

246. Shatner_Fan_Prime - March 31, 2009

Sorry, meant #241!! Closet.

247. WolfTrek - March 31, 2009

And no Shatner. One cameo is enough. I don’t want the new movies to be labeled as the “Nimoy” movie, the “Shatner” movie, the “Takai” movie, etc.

248. Closettrekker - March 31, 2009

#245/246—Hold that thought until after May 8th. You may indeed have a bet though.

249. Tom Welling For Superman - March 31, 2009

247. Makes a good point.

I still want to know how this timeline in the new movie ends.
Will Old spock finally die? Fate away? Just go back to his own time?

I guess I can see how nimoy plays a good role in this movie even if he is only in it for what 20 min tops?

250. sean - March 31, 2009


Let’s hope not. I already have the TWOK and it was quite good!

251. Closettrekker - March 31, 2009

#243—“Then again, that might be better pursued in a series. ”

I think so. The “planet of the week” type of thing was never really big budget feature film material, IMO.

But I, too, hope that we can eventually find a way to supplant the inevitable arch villain and imminent threat to Earth, etc., and still come up with an entertaining film.

I think that, first, a new generation of fans has to fall in love with these characters. I feel pretty good about that prospect.

252. wkiryn - March 31, 2009

@241 Kirk worked a desk job after TMP.

@240 The Riverside comment was picking one of many indicators – I could have just as easily said the Cadet to Captain story isn’t internally consistent for a movie about a service with ranks. The issue with Riverside Iowa is that it is silly to push “destiny” so hard that the ship has to be built in Kirk’s hometown hooking the ship and captain together far sooner than they are meant to be (in addition to everyone else on the crew – Chekov on Pike’s Enterprise !!??!)

San Francisco would have been better.

253. Paulaner - March 31, 2009

#247 “One cameo is enough.”

I agree. We love old actors and so on, but forcing cameos in every Trek is kind of fanboyish and lacks of credibility. I find this irritating even in fan made movies: too many references to old episodes and characters kill freshness and makes for a stale setting.

254. MDSHiPMN - March 31, 2009

Good news.

BTW, Anthony, can’t we get a better logo for the sequel than that????

It’s clever, but it makes me think of Ghostbusters 2, and I hope the Trek sequel is a little better than that follow-up :)

255. Craig - March 31, 2009

The need to boycott this movie has never been greater, Show the idiots in charge we will not accept these stupid decisions in future films,


Bring Coto on as a consultant at least

256. Andy D - March 31, 2009


Now THAT would make a great movie!!!!

257. Treker chick - March 31, 2009


…And no “spunky female ensigns who save the day.”

258. Daoud - March 31, 2009

#252 Let’s just pretend it’s because of the University of Iowa, right up the road that I believe they chose Riverside, Iowa. Probably have a few physicists and engineers around there… Also consider this NCC-1701 isn’t the same as the original timeline. That ship became the NCC-1700 USS Constitution under April. Pike’s NCC-1701 project ship came as a result of the USS Kelvin incident that he studied… and perhaps since he knew George Kirk, he’d been to Riverside before, and knew the area was perfect for a mostly top-secret project.

Think about it… if you know time-travellers are making ‘incursions’, and you have some data from them what their timeline says things should be, would *you* build the 1701 in San Francisco? That’s exactly where they’d be looking for it. Not in Riverside.

#Anthony: For a logo, just replace the star inside the Starfleet Delta with a large silver-embossed Roman numeral II and evoke the old QBVII-like chiseled/hammered look at the end of the original Dragnet.

259. NaradaAlpha - March 31, 2009

HEY to those hating on my earlier idea…especially those insulting me over it… flaming has no place here…ok? disagree with my idea if you want but hating on me for voicing a logical story idea based on the same train of thought the new Supreme Court used to create what we already know about this years film is appalling to say the least…its tying up loose ends of the countdown comics and how they tie into this film, while bringing in different angles to fit into the new timeline and integrating elements of the past into a film epic enough to catch the audiences interest…STOP HATING…its counterproductive… plus u never know what might sound like a good idea to JJ, Orci, Lindelof, Burk and Kurtzman…I, under a different username back before the final script for this film was finalized suggested an idea very similar to whats apparent that this film is gonna be…and hello….lol… this site was designed in part to help get fan input on what this 2009 film should be… im just providing input along those lines for the 2001 film too… so just sit back and lighten up…damn…

260. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - March 31, 2009

Ok. The next movie should have the Doomsday Machine. Where did it come from. Who Built it. I want to know. Would be a great Idea for the Next Movie.

261. Bill Peters - March 31, 2009

Yea I hope the best for both films!

262. table10 - March 31, 2009

Everyone complained about dark knight re-introducing the Joker, saying you couldn’t do it better than the first time, but look how that turned out.

Im not saying re-do TWOK, but one of the reasons that film worked well is it explored in detail a very interesting character along with an equally fun chemistry between Kirk and Khan. Something that wasn’t quite captured in a 45 minute tv episode.

Space seed was entirely different than TWOK. I see alot of potential in Khan taking over the enterprise on the big screen. It would give the filmakers a chance to finally have the means to show off Khan’s earth origins in flashback, seeing a fully developed back story behind the character might actually enrich the experience of re-watching TWOK down the line.

263. Chadwick - March 31, 2009

Happy Happy Joy Joy indeed! I already know I am seeing this movie three times, opening day at IMAX, with my father, and with my non trek friends who really want to see this.

I still say put Carol Marcus in trek XII and cast Reese Witherspoon for the role.

Star Trek was never dead, just because something goes into hibernation does not mean its dead, there is a difference between hibernation and ceasing to exist.

I am really anxious to hear what Berman and Braga have to say about the new movie after they see it. I am also interested in what all the cast members of past trek series have to say about the movie.

@ 20. Christian. No doubt, Paramount knows more than we do, and people have gone nuts over the trailers, and the movie can only be better than the trailers. And if our non Trek friends are telling they want to see the movie you can bet Paramount knows that and more.

@ 22. Pragmaticus. No doubt, for the most part the enemies have always been the Klingons or the Romulans, I think its time to get fresh with that, Nemesis was Romlulans now this new movie is Romluans. Don’t get me wrong this movie looks so good I really don’t care but if indeed Star Trek XII will one day be in the works, lets go with some villain and enemy who is unique and something we have not seen before.

@41. The Governator. OMG I keep saying this all the time, there is more or less 100 years between Enterprise and the Original series, 100 years between the original series and the Next Generation, so 200 years worth of story to tell there, and then post Nemesis. Hell they could do a series about the Enterprise J.

@48. Commodore Redshirt. Lol that is great.

@ 37. Trekkie88 @52. LoyalStarTrekFan Yes CBS does control Star Trek TV but Paramount controls that part of CBS! In late 2005, Viacom split itself and reestablished CBS Corporation with the CBS television network at its core. CBS Corporation and the new Viacom are controlled by Sumner Redstone through National Amusements, the parent of the two companies. Since Paramount is a Viacom company ALL of Star Trek is still owned by one entity, you think Paramount’s parent company would give up ownership of Star Trek lol you must be nuts. ONE and only ONE entity owns and controls Star Trek.

@62. Will_H. The fact that the trailers are sending people off the wall, I mean c’mon the trailers are fantastic, that is only a small tease of the big picture, not thing is absolute and if you have a left then there must be a right, but I VERY HIGHLY doubt that this movie will flop and not live up to expectation. I have very high expectation for this movie and I have a gut feeling that this movie is going to far exceed them. When I saw the trailer for First Contact the movie was as I expected it to be, I was not unhappy, I love it but it met my expectations where I belive that this movie will far exceed them, my gut feelings have never let me down.

@86. Phillip. There are so many factors, honestly I don’t think that matters, I am not spending any less or any more than I did 5 years ago, I eat what I want, and do what I want, I plant to see Wolverine, Star Trek, Terminator, Transformers, and G.I. Joe. People don’t have to see it right away, I mean it will be in the theatres for a month maybe more, so people have plenty of time to see it.

@ 96. TyrannicalFascist. I still say use the roman numerals I mean what other franchise has done XI movies!? James Bond and that’s it? For all intensive purposes I am calling this movie Star Trek XI, done and done.

@98. spockatatic. No doubt, don’t be a closet trekkie, I have a Trek Fish on the back of my car, and I am damn proud of it. No Jesus fish, no Darwin fish, but Trek fish all the way.

264. Alientraveller - March 31, 2009

Actually everyone wanted to see a more faithful Joker to the comics. The struggle for The Dark Knight was making sure Batman was still interesting, which they did by introducing Harvey Dent.

I would like something involving Khan, what would he do if he took control of the newly built Enterprise? Conquer the Klingons? Or what if he acts more like an anti-hero and Kirk grows to like him? How would Starfleet react? It could be quite sad when he’s dumped on Ceti Alpha V.

265. Iowagirl - March 31, 2009


Anthony, although neither the Enterprise nor I were “built” in Iowa, I’d like to thank you for calling me special…:)


Yeah, they should definitely leave these things out – they could be regarded as references to TOS. :D

266. Chadwick - March 31, 2009

There is so much to write about in the Star Trek universe I would hate to have a new TV series redo the original unless it was another crew and ship. Since the original series never made it on the big screen (the motion picture and one piece pajamas are not the original series, tri color is the original series), I am fine with having the original series made into a movie. But do something fresh for a TV series.

The people at Paramount are not fools, they are professionals who know what they are doing, I doubt they would be making plans for Star Trek XII without carefully analyzing the situation. They know way more than we do. The reactions from the trailers is proof enough, and the fact that some of our non star trek fans are interested in the new movie you can be that Paramount knows that. The reactions from the trailers is proof enough, and they are only trailers.

Yea a TV show would be great but don’t push it, that fact that they are discussing Star Trek XII, we should be thankful. I think movie and TV would be too much right now, Paramount has to ease back into Star Trek. IF we see a TV show it will be after the second movie or during Star Trek XIII.

I don’t think the movie will under perform at all. I think Star Trek XI will perform incredibly, even watching the trailers is great which means the movie will be far better, I don’t think any faith has been misplaced or greater than it should be.

There is plenty of timeline to make a TV series without redoing what has come before. We never saw the Romulan war, which was a pissoff, we would have if Enterprise went for a full 7 seasons. But there is more or less 100 years between Enterprise and the Original series, 100 years between the original series and the Next Generation, so 200 years worth of story to tell there, and then post Nemesis.

267. DesiluTrek - March 31, 2009

In spite of my doubts about the movie, I am glad to hear this.
I can’t believe I’ll be pushing 50 and Trek will be going strong.

Here’s an early prediction — we’ll see a lot more “Bones” McCoy in the next movie. After the first film comes out, the “supreme court” will admit “yeah, we shortchanged McCoy” to focus on Kirk and Spock, their individual stories and their budding professional relationship/friendship. I’m sure McCoy has his moments in this first film, but he likely will just affirm Kirk’s initial harsh impression of Spock because Spock will be new to him, too.

Abrams wanted to keep the focus on just Kirk and Spock. Orci knows Trek is about the Big Three — McCoy included. In the next movie I hope we will see more of the Bones we know and love, advising Kirk as the compassionate humanist counterbalance to Spock.

268. ensign eddie - March 31, 2009

All you people who keep saying TNG remake in 20 years, or 30 years or 40 years or whatever, you’re just bitter, because you were all young when you watched TOS, and now you’re old and don’t want us “TNG youngins” to have our moment. Nemesis was a disgrace that was handed to an idiot to direct instead of Jonathan Frakes, if it wasn’t for that, we’d probably have one more TNG film. Stop with the hate, TNG fans have always been gracious to TOS even when your last movie got flying space signatures and ours had a retarded robot looking, well, retarded. Some ending for TNG. I don’t want to wait frikkin 30 years for a TNG remake!! Don’t be mean!!

269. ucdom - March 31, 2009

As a matter of interest, do we know if ST09 has been shown to test audiences? How did it go down?

270. Admiral_Bumblebee - March 31, 2009

1. Shatner as old Kirk! No excuses this time!
2. Shatner and Nimoy together one last time.
3. No Khan!
4. No villain that gets killed in the end, we had this in nearly every movie! Come up with something new, something fresh!
5. No IPod-Enterprise, bring back the old old, warm, comfortable look.
6. Restore the original timeline! ;)

271. Sloan47 - March 31, 2009

268 – Well I’m a huge TNG fan and I grew up watching TNG… and we already had our moment with First Contact. Paramount will go with the formula that is successful. If this movie tanks, then we won’t have any more trek for a long while. If it’s successful, then we’ll see more of the new cast. It’s just the way it works. Perhaps in 5 years or so we’ll see something TNG… but I won’t hold my breath.

272. Shatner_Fan_Prime - March 31, 2009

#269 “As a matter of interest, do we know if ST09 has been shown to test audiences?”

If that had happened, every detail of the story would be online by now.

273. Sloan47 - March 31, 2009

270. You say you want something new and fresh yet want Shatner/Nimoy and the “old, warm, comfortable” look. I understand you mean plot wise, but you have to realize that won’t appeal to a mainstream audience. If Trek is to survive at all, it MUST appeal to the mainstream.

274. sean - March 31, 2009



More politics? Yeah, you’ve really stumbled onto the secret formula there! LOL

275. Christine - March 31, 2009

Omigawwwwwwd. xD That is a really, really egotistical marketing move, but… I mean, I’d love a sequel, but this is crazy! The movie hasn’t even come out! It could be a HUGE flop! (Though I doubt it.)

Haha. They have a little too much confidence!!!

And #272 and #273; agreed with both of you. But I’d try not to look at the spoilers, 272. ^^ And 273, you’re absolutely right!

276. Ian - March 31, 2009

I’m also really glad that TrekMovie will be the premiere site to cover all aspects of Trek into the foreseeable future. I visit this site at least 20 times a day from my iPhone when I’m not near my computer! Thanks Anthony and crew!

277. Craig - March 31, 2009

274 Yeah the interspecies politics in Star Trek are great :

The Parrells between the end of the cold war and the Klingon, Federation Peace treaty in TUC
Worf accepting discomendation at the behest of the Klingon Chancellor for the sake of the Klingon empire superb
The Romulans suppling the Durass sisters with weapons to cause regime change
Spocks quest for unification of the Romulan Vulcan Societies
Data’s legal battle to gain “human right” for AI

All Star Trek at it’s best and thats not even starting on DS9 with the Tal Shiar, Cardasians, Bajorans, Dominion . Star Trek does action badly, It doesn’t translate to big budget movies. The trailer makes me want to vomit, It reminds me of Nemesis to much action not enough substance. Best thing on TV at the moment I’m watching is the Sarah Conner Chronicals and the best thing about it is the EMH/Data discovering humanity storyline of Cameron if it’s canceled it’s a right shame despite the recast(spit) it does what it does great

278. Dr. What - March 31, 2009

Canon alert.

Shouldn’t this be called a “subsequent mission”?

I will never go see the second movie if it’s just a “sequel”.

279. Art•Rob - March 31, 2009

Mr. Roberto Orci,
Please give us a positive gay male character this time.
Hopefully a continuing character. Like maybe the Head of Security?

280. ShawnP - March 31, 2009

277. Craig

Why haven’t the powers that be at Paramount hired you yet? You’re clearly the one for the job. Send them your info!

281. T'Cal - March 31, 2009

You know what they should do for the next one?? I don’t know but I’ll leave that up to them. If early indicators can be trusted, STXI will be awesome. So, I’ll do for the next film what I did for this one: sit back and wait to see what they give us.

As for TNG, I still want annual miniseries based on that era, which might include characters and story lines from DS9 and VOY as well. Maybe even New Frontiers, too.

282. clavinbot - March 31, 2009

Paramount did this before with Beverly Hills Cop 2 as well, asking for it after just previewing the first one.

283. doshoe - March 31, 2009

No, TNG is over. The cast is getting too old

284. toddk - March 31, 2009

um, supreme court? who coined that phrase? I think ” Team” would be more fitting

I do want this movie and the sequel to do fantastic business, so that TNG, Voyager and DS9 can happen on Blu-ray. That is my wish! Cough up santa..I mean Paramount!

285. SaphronGirl - March 31, 2009

279. (Art*Rob)

Agreed! (Heck, I’d even be happy if they revealed a known character to be bisexual.)

286. Dunsel Report - March 31, 2009

They should just do a shot for shot remake of “The Savage Curtain”

287. Bob, The Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - March 31, 2009

258 – Maybe Riverside got an extra-large portion of the recent Federal bailout money.

288. sean - March 31, 2009


TV and movies are two completely different entities. What works on one does not necessarily translate to the other. I liked most of those storylines on TNG/DS9, however, they were typically long arcs involving a decent awareness of previous goings on. That doesn’t work as well in a 2 hr film. And since when did Star Trek not wrap it’s political explorations in lots of ‘splosions and assassinations? TUC, the Klingon Civil War, the Dominion, etc.

I’m a huge fan of TSCC, but the Cameron storyline has been spread and developed over 2 seasons already. You want them to cram that kind of character development into 2 hours? It’s simply not reasonable, nor would it be satisfying. The bottom line is these things need to make money. You might watch a 2 hr flick about Data gaining his legal rights, but who else would?

289. krikzil - March 31, 2009

“As a matter of interest, do we know if ST09 has been shown to test audiences? How did it go down?”

Hmm, don’t they usually do test screenings? I used to participate often when I lived in Los Angeles.

290. Captain Roy Mustang - March 31, 2009


291. C.S. Lewis - March 31, 2009

Dear Dennis (Bailey),

I am respected and considered a leader in my community and my profession and have been since my fraternity and even high school days. Yet here, although I am a full decade younger than you, I am regularly abused for voicing opinions that are status quo in my Main Line village of humble Quakers, blue-blooded horsey people, numerous “Sons of the American Revolution” (Malvern is a Revolutionary War battlefield), and multitudes of hard working, earnest, middle class families that make great sacrifices to live here.

(Heck, the Shat himself visits our Devon Horse Show frequently enough and local “spottings” are legend.)

May I helpfully suggest that when Abrams speaks of the need to broaden Star Trek’s audience, he surely has something like this in mind. There is a natural limit to a life of fantasy. One cannot exclude “real life” forever and the time comes when one must accept reality and not deny it. I am that reality check, like it or no. The Shat famously agrees (“Get a life!”)

And yes, I will watch this movie with my family unless the reviews disqualify it on moral grounds.

C.S. Lewis

292. Craig - March 31, 2009

289 just underscores the fact that Star Trek is at home on TV and is not suited to movies

293. EM - March 31, 2009

#160 – My bad.

#278 – Yes, you will.

294. Tony Whitehead - March 31, 2009

give. me. a. break. already.

295. Tony Whitehead - March 31, 2009

ignore. that. last. message.

296. Closettrekker - March 31, 2009

#252—“Kirk worked a desk job after TMP.”

It is never made clear that this is all he does for seven and a half years between TMP and TWOK. It is only implied that this describes his “current” position when he and Dr. McCoy have that conversation. When McCoy tells Kirk, “Get your command back”—it is not clear how long it has been since he actually *had* command. There is nothing canonically preclusive to the notion that he may have remained in command after the V’Ger incident.

In fact, there has always been much “fanon” speculation that perhaps Kirk did not relinquish command of the Enterprise immediately following the V’Ger incident. Moreover, it would make absolutely no sense to subject the Enterprise to such an extensive refit (as in TMP), only to relegate her immediately to training duty (as we see is her purpose in TWOK).

It is clear that Starfleet intended Decker to command her in active service. Following his ‘disappearance’, if Kirk (despite his Admiral’s rank) did not, then someone else would have. My guess is, the Enterprise had yet another 5 year mission before being assigned to training duty—otherwise, the refit was really for nothing.

297. Chain of Command - March 31, 2009

Bring back ………….KHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

Cool that they have such faith in the film. I look forward to seeing it next month.

298. vorta23492392932939230 - March 31, 2009

So will the next movie be about how the alternate time line Kirk and Spock deal with finding Kahn?

299. Thelin - March 31, 2009

Best news I’ve heard all month!

300. Anthony Thompson - March 31, 2009


“Blue-blooded horsey people”. What???

301. Anthony Thompson - March 31, 2009

I keep waiting for Bob to come by and thank everyone for their plot ideas and advice for the next movie. ; )

302. Check the Circuit - March 31, 2009

Please join my boycott of Star Trek: The Future Begins. We have thousands signed up so far. OK…that’s an exaggeration. But hundreds at least. Well…tens for sure. Alright. So,we have four. But we’re a vocal group of canonistas/talifans.

Join us now so we can show “the idiots in charge we will not accept these stupid decisions in future films.”

If more of you join, we know we can set things right in the prime universe and begin all new adventures with the classic Trek (surviving) cast. Imagine it, we’ll get the original shooting model of the Enterprise out of the Smithsonian so we can set the octogenarian Captain and First Officer on a brand new 5-year mission…To explore strange, new retirement homes. To seek out new ways to maintain life and new early bird specials at Denny’s. To slowly go where we’ve gone so many times before!

Strike that. Doesn’t sound too interesting after all upon reflection. OK…boycott count is down to three. Sorry Craig.


303. Captain Obvious - March 31, 2009

For the sequel’s villan – Tribbles.

304. Closettrekker - March 31, 2009

#255—“The need to boycott this movie has never been greater, Show the idiots in charge we will not accept these stupid decisions in future films…”

No thanks.

Stupid decisions in Star Trek movies? You mean like STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ’89 and 3 out of the 4 TNG movies???

If you aren’t interested—simply stay home—just like I did for the TNG movies.

305. Todd - March 31, 2009

Star Trek 12 preview already came out a while ago on the Simpsons =D

306. Jote - March 31, 2009

Again with the Klingons…

307. Devon - March 31, 2009

Bring on 12!

Good luck to all involved on your future endeavors. Just a little over a month away for this baby!

308. Jamie - March 31, 2009

Once I’ve seen the first film, I’ll be really excited about the sequel.

The first film has a lot of jobs to to: it has to bring the cast together, establish the fictional universe of the future including starfleet, tie everything in with previous Trek and the original cast (including Nimoy’s cameo).

The second film, however, has no “to do list” on its shoulders. It will be a blank canvas, in which to have some fun and do some great storytelling, just like The Dark Knight was.

Plus, come the sequel, the creators will have a much better idea about what is working and what needs fixing. We’ll have v2.0!

309. Cylon - March 31, 2009

255 and others- OMG. There is the awsome news that the franchise has most likely been saved and people can STILL bitch about it. That is just fraktarded. Just enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling that trek will still be enjoyed in the near future at least on the big and possibly small screen. Fools.

310. Craig - March 31, 2009

309 this is the death of the franchise I rather have nothing and the hope of Treks distant return than this zombiefied corpse impersonating the great franchise

311. screaming satellite - March 31, 2009

255 – agreed we need shatner and nimoy back in action kickin ass like its 1968 plus the rest in place for Star Trek ‘Prime’ set it in the nexus….and have soran in there too – why?? well why not

312. SpocksinnerConfict - March 31, 2009


and everyone else who posts similar comments:

You haven’t seen the film yet!!


I am weary from all the assumptions based on nothing.

I would be happy to hear any negative comments about the film, after trek critics have seen it. Until then you all are seriously giving Trek folks a bad name.

it’s like Worf’s bigotry of all Romulans. He refused to believe their race wasn’t inherently bad or evil, or with out honor. He made great assumption about a whole race based on the actions of their military elite. You could see the pain in Worf’s fellow crewman’s eyes, especially when he refused to help save a dying Romulans life in sick bay.
The closed mind is not the mind of a Trek fan.

It’s just all so much judging something on bits and pieces, rather than critiquing something as a whole.

It’s like saying someone is a bad person because they have dirty fingernails and their hair is a mess….just surface detail and condemning out of context.

I suppose when May 8th comes and goes, and some of you haters concede: “It wasn’t that bad.”, those of us who have anticipated this new film will smile like Riker when Worf admitted how the Romulans fought “…with honor” near the end of Nemesis.

313. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - March 31, 2009

Oh gods please no…

314. SpocksinnerConfict - March 31, 2009

In regards to the haters, i can’t stop thinking about ST:III.

Just keep watching that scene with Scotty and Sulu talking about the Excelsior.

It’s so perfect; it’s Kirk himself telling all of you to: “Be Tolerant!!”

You don’t have to like it, but you all could at least act in the spirit of Trek and not condemn something you haven’t seen yet.

315. Craig - March 31, 2009

312 I suspect more you worship anything labeled Star Trek will guilty for allow Trek to die without a fight

316. KJTrek - March 31, 2009

One thing I’ve thought is that if they maybe “stretched” canon a bit in this first reboot in order to gain the mainstream audience, then perhaps they can make the sequel a bit more like the Star Trek we’ve known for 40 years. I can see how the first one needs to open up and break new ground, but there are always possibilities…

I am still very excited about May, and 2011

317. krikzil - March 31, 2009

#314–then perhaps you should stop condemning other posters — “haters” in your previous post — simply for having concerns over some aspect of the film (from what they’ve seen in a trailer, photo or read in an interview) and voicing them. Isn’t that the point of a website such as this? to discuss the film? I’m glad that you are so gungho but some of us are merely cautiously optimistic. I learned my lesson with the first new Star Wars movie and now seek to avoid any further cruel disappointments by tempering my enthusiasm until I see the project.

318. Paul B. - March 31, 2009

I just caught part of the 1980 remake of “Flash Gordon,” though, and it made me think about Star Trek. My dad hated that Flash movie and “Buck Rogers” because he grew up on Buster Crabbe’s versions of those characters. To my father, those two movies were a travesty, a total mockery of those old-time SF heroes. (I loved both as a kid, but now I can’t watch either without laughing and groaning…they’re terrible!)

So my thoughts turned to Star Trek, and I wondered: Is this new movie going to be THAT kind of re-creation of our old heroes? Or will it work the way the Bond movies have? I’m a Trekkie from the early 1970s, so I cringe at the thought of a Flash-quality Trek. (“Kirk…ah-ahhh….!”)

Each new image triggers either an excited Trekkie grin or a fearful Flash-back; seeing Kirk take the captain’s chair is great, but seeing the godawful plumbing and Scotty-in-pipes makes me worry…

I was one of the open-minded and hopeful fans when TNG was announced, but that hope was dashed by a show that–to ME–was never “Star Trek” at all. Yet countless fans adore TNG, and for generations of fans TNG is the definition of Star Trek. Are they all wrong? Or am I? Neither, we simply have different tastes in Trek.

This new film may do the same thing: disappoint a bunch of us while bringing in new fans. That’s just the nature of it.

To the haters, I say this: hate away! You may be right, it may suck horribly. BUT…if it turns out to be a good Trek, will you have the integrity to come back here and admit it?

319. wkiryn - March 31, 2009

@312 I sympathize with the weariness you feel, but its not like there isn’t anything out there to base an opinion on pro or con. The backbone of the plot has been screened and we’ve all seen the trailers. And frankly so far the pro people’s positive comments are more “Yes, I get my trekkie heroin again” than any sort of sophisticated analysis of the plot indicating it is a good movie like good literature not merely good explosions – e.g. Kirk as Horatio Hornblower in space. Its just a new movie with people wearing starfleet uniforms with the potential for more movies with people wearing starfleet uniforms to the people excited about this – seems like a fix. Granted you’ve got Nimoy and Abrams’ reputations on the pro side (and the writers that brought you TRANSFORMERS – your milage may vary)

Are you that leave Britanny Spears alone guy? I didn’t remember any pain when that Romulan died – just annoyance and frustration that he was making the situation complicated.

320. Check the Circuit - March 31, 2009

Craig…seriously. You should consider not viewing and posting on this site. You’ll only be unhappy. The vast majority of people here are actually thrilled to be talking about the immediate FUTURE of Star Trek. If you’re stuck in the past, watch your VHS tapes instead. The train is leaving the station…and it sounds like it’ll be without you. Too bad. You’re the one that will be missing out on what looks like a great new Trek adventure.

321. Stanky McFibberich - March 31, 2009

re: 177. Anthony Thompson – March 31, 2009
“Now Stanky & Co. will have something to gripe and moan about for at least two more years! ; )”

I always find it amusing that I am sometimes given so much credit for leading the “gripe crusade” when there are numerous other posters who are much more ferocious and prolific than I.

But thanks for the plug. :)

322. DesiluTrek - March 31, 2009

@318. Well said.
I’ve often worried that as an original series die-hard, going back as long as you, that Star Trek would seem as antiquated one day and we would look like relics for loving it. Hey, in the early ’70s the Flash Gordon serials were as long ago as the original Trek is to us today. But — and this may sound arrogant — I think fans who have loved Trek for at least 30 years can feel like the fact that it still endures today shows we had good taste as kids!

323. wkiryn - March 31, 2009


On TNG – You maybe just sensed a wrongness that would ultimately snowball into a dead franchise and a dubious reboot – even if it took twenty years to happen.

TNG despite eventually becoming culturally significant, and having many good episodes, and seeming far more like timeless classics now with the bad taste of Enterprise and Voyager still fresh – did have the seed of what so called killed the franchise even in 1988 – which I believe is that modern star trek is not about a science fiction universe as a means to tell a good story – but instead is the end in itself – a show that exists only to exist as star trek And when Berman and Bragga were at full tilt resents being a science fiction show and its own continuity.

324. ClassicTrek - March 31, 2009

Shat for star trek 12….PLEASE


325. sean - March 31, 2009


Your dad did realize Flash was DELIBERATELY bad, right? That it was tongue-in-cheek? ;)

326. Harry Ballz - March 31, 2009

A sequel?? Oh, boy, I can see the title now:



327. SpocksinnerConfict - March 31, 2009


Oh, there’s plenty Trek i’m not into to at all.

Judging something you have little info on.

It’s just reinforcing my point.

Do you actually read the post or just see that it MAY pertain to you and just start writing up an insulting message?

This isn’t a FIGHT, it’s a discussion.

You really think Trek is going to die?

You may as well go back to 87 and complain about TNG being made.

328. SpocksinnerConfict - March 31, 2009


“Haters” is internet speak for anyone who trashes a film before it even comes out.

I”m not calling them A-holes. or bastards or dropping the F bomb.

You’re being a bit defensive.

I’m not complaining about folks who have concerns about the new film.
I have my own concerns.

Just read the post again or something. I think you’re reading a bit into what i’ve writen and making it sound like an attack or something. I’m talking to a, very specific small group of people on this site who attack anyone who is optimistic about the film., throwing out terms like “true trek fan”, and claiming they’re are the last guardians of our beloved fictional universe.

329. krikzil - March 31, 2009

#327– There are only a handful of true “haters” that I’ve seen posting here so your post seemed a tad over reactive.

And I will just never understand how a “hater” can ruin it for anyone else anyway…why give someone that kind of power?

330. Mr. X - March 31, 2009

Supreme Court my ass.

You know the fun thing is that since they are completely new to the franchise, none of the previous powers that be like Berman, Braga, Moore, etc… are involved… that means if those new guys can decide what’s good for Trek, EVERYONE could. It’s just that they have the money and the position.

I am so glad that George Lucas will take Star Wars to his grave.

Star Trek should have ended. No reboots, no recasts. All good things must come to an end. This is not the original Star Trek anymore. Star Trek, that franchise that existed for 40 years, is gone with this movie. For 40 years, Shatner was Kirk, and the TOS Enterprise was the real thing, acknowledged in EVERY series, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and even ENT.

Or will you guys argue that BSG 2004-2009 has ANYTHING to do with BSG from the 80s? It has NOTHING to do with it. And you know it!

331. SpocksinnerConfict - March 31, 2009



I’ll just direct you to my post right above yours

332. krikzil - March 31, 2009

#330-and I’l refer you to my response below yours.

333. SpocksinnerConfict - March 31, 2009


You’re a great example of “people who voice their opinion” that i have NO problem with.

I disagree with your position , but I appreciate your opinion and comment.

If all those getting defensive about my post can’t see the difference between 329’s comments and those that come on here and trash not only the film they haven’t seen yet, but anyone who is okay with the idea of the new film (as apposed to the execution of it), then I don’t know….read all the posts again or something.

334. Lt. Bailey - March 31, 2009

On our way now!

335. Negotiator - March 31, 2009

Let me be the first to suggest they bring back Prime Kirk ( YES, WILLIAM SHATNER ) in the sequel now that Spock went back or forwards to align the time line continuum in which Prime Kirk doesn’t die in a rock pile.

What’s without never ending speculation on Shatner’s involvement with a new Star Trek movie?

Let it rip.

336. Paulaner - March 31, 2009


“that means if those new guys can decide what’s good for Trek, EVERYONE could. It’s just that they have the money and the position.”

Paramount decided to let Trek in the hands of the Supreme Court. Trek belongs to Paramount, so Paramount is in charge of this decisions. Money and position don’t come as a free gift.

“Star Trek should have ended. No reboots, no recasts. All good things must come to an end.”

What a conservative, close minded point of view. I want things to evolve and change, not die. Life over death.

“Or will you guys argue that BSG 2004-2009 has ANYTHING to do with BSG from the 80s? It has NOTHING to do with it. And you know it!”

Yes, you are right. This new Trek is a big departure from what we know. So what? I’m ready for this new thrilling voyage!

337. SpocksinnerConfict - March 31, 2009


So…then you understand that there are only a few “haters” on this site and that’s who I was referring to the whole time and that i never said anything about them “ruining” anything for anyone?

Because your putting words in my mouth and I’d appreciate it if you’d stop it.

338. Dan - March 31, 2009

I want another TNG film, NOW!!!!!!

339. krikzil - March 31, 2009

#335–what was I saying about over-reacting? The first sentence is addressed to you. The next one is a whole new paragraph….hence, NOT directed at you but the “room” in general. So I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t jump to conclusions, lol.

but as for your question — no, it really wasn’t clear who exactly you were deeming haters. You kinda just threw it out into the atmosphere, hence my original post directed specifically at you. And if by your own admission there are only a few….then why was it necessary? I think the true haters thrive on reaction.

340. Craig - March 31, 2009

Star Trek means soo much to me, I can hardly put it in to words, watching the trailer to me is sooo painful I can barely watch. I hope one day we’ll return to the prime universe and I’m sure I’m not the only one who prays for that day but for that to happen fans like me have to vocalise their opposition to the absurdity that is this current recast concept so we don’t get Batman/Bond type Kirk,Kirk,Kirk,Kirk with Star Trek no longer boldly going forward stuck in a loop, the proverbial transporter buffer doomed to degrade. If that makes me a hater I guess I am.

341. SpocksinnerConfict - March 31, 2009


I can’ see this is just going to go back and forth into eternity and it’ll be just like that first season ep “The Alternative factor “.


Hey, did you all hear there’s a new Star Trek movie out,

What up with that?

342. Paulaner - March 31, 2009


Well Craig, I totally disagree with you but I understand your concerns. By the way, the Batman/Bond comparison is something you should avoid, since these reboots have resurrected two dead franchises with four wonderful movies, so I doubt that Paramount is not thinking that this may be great for Trek too :)

343. The Governator - March 31, 2009

338. Craig

Well, you may not be the only one, but you are certainly one of few.

344. SpocksinnerConfict - March 31, 2009

You know, anyone can return to the prime universe…and I’m not talking about watching all the old shows and movies, I’m talking about the comics!!!

There are so many Prime universe stories out there, almost enough for a life time.

I love the comics, there are hits and misses just like the shows, but if you want a good TOS fix, head over and support your local comic book store.
Often you can pick up a great old DC issue for as little as 2.25.

Yea comics!!!

345. Dom - March 31, 2009

329. Mr. X: ‘You know the fun thing is that since they are completely new to the franchise, none of the previous powers that be like Berman, Braga, Moore, etc… are involved… that means if those new guys can decide what’s good for Trek, EVERYONE could. It’s just that they have the money and the position.’

Well, you could always become a hot Hollywood writer/producer/director and might get a shot at Trek . . . Where do you think Berman, Braga et al came from?

‘I am so glad that George Lucas will take Star Wars to his grave.’

I think many people wish he already had! ;)

‘Star Trek should have ended. No reboots, no recasts. All good things must come to an end. This is not the original Star Trek anymore. Star Trek, that franchise that existed for 40 years, is gone with this movie.’

The new film is made by Paramount, the legal owners of Trek throughout most of its history. It’s as legitimately Star Trek than any other version: more so, if you count the fact that it includes the original characters! It hasn’t ended; it’s moved on. Maybe you should too!

‘For 40 years, Shatner was Kirk, and the TOS Enterprise was the real thing, acknowledged in EVERY series, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and even ENT.’

Acknowledged in a vaguely snickering, oh-so-superior tone. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are equally as real. Jeez! If you had your way, Shakespeare’s plays would never have been performed again after their first performance! At least this film isn’t a remake: it’s a whole new story with the characters!

‘Or will you guys argue that BSG 2004-2009 has ANYTHING to do with BSG from the 80s? It has NOTHING to do with it. And you know it!’

Ah! A GINO-fanatic shows his true colours! ;) The new BSG faithfully hit all the major plot points of the original, from the original attacks on the colonies, the clashes with the prison ship’s inmates, the Pegasus and Cain, finding Terra and thinking it’s Earth, even down to referencing Starbuck’s intended fate in the original show, had it continued. The new BSG was a very faithful retelling core story of the original, but looked at through a very different lens. And, as the new show emphasised in its discussions of the circle of time, ‘Everything has happened before and will happen again!’ So, look at the new BSG as a prequel or a sequel, if you like. I mean, the ending of the new BSG really works rather well with the voiceover from the original series.

346. Mr. X - March 31, 2009

Paulaner, you call a reboot a development?

I wanted the TNG era to evolve. 25th, 26th century. No frakking reboot.

And my view is not close minded. Everything has to end some day. You can love something to death and try to keep it alive in some zombie state that’s just ugly.

You are happy that TNG is over, aren’t you? And while you love that prequel, I heavily dislike the very idea behind it.

347. GaryS - March 31, 2009

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the accuracy of your reporting on this .
Trewebs headlines on this say the film has been greenlt early .
but you made it clear that while a sequel is very likely,
all we have now is a script deal.
I just appreciate that you report the FACTS .
After all ,
Paramount commissioned a script for Star Trek: The Beginning.
It was finished but never produced.

348. Mr. X - March 31, 2009

And that’s not the “fresh air, big budget and huge epic effects” idea. It’s the “we need to reboot it” idea.

What was the reason against a 150 million TNG era movie with a fresh, young crew and a giant epic story full of win and awesomeness?

349. Paulaner - March 31, 2009

#347 “What was the reason against a 150 million TNG era movie with a fresh, young crew and a giant epic story full of win and awesomeness?”

Berman’s series reached a dead end. The show was cancelled. TNG movies were a failure. Even Trek fans turned their back. It was not a winning horse anymore, so bringing it back would be a commercial suicide. A change was totally needed.

350. The Invader (InColor!) - March 31, 2009

Well, I’ll say this again: I’d like to see a movie about EXPLORATION.

Is that too much to ask?

You know…something like Doomsday Machine or Where No Man Has Gone Before…or Immunity Syndrome. Or even something TNG-like such as a TOS version of something with some real danger — like in Q-Who?

I want it to be about something that happens to the ship and crew while they are out in deep space.

That would be cool.

I don’t mind seeing battles, I am just tired of seeing Star Wars a’ la’ Trek.

351. Paulaner - March 31, 2009

#349 “Well, I’ll say this again: I’d like to see a movie about EXPLORATION.”

I agree, but no movie was about deep space exploration, with the exception of TMP and TFF. It’s unlikely that things are going to change.

352. The Governator - March 31, 2009

That idea seems to work better as a series. No Trek film as of yet has really been done that way, and this is not by happenstance.

353. The Governator - March 31, 2009

Post above refers to post 349. The invader (InColor!)

354. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2009


While I appreciate your comments, there is a big difference between this deal and the Jendresen ‘Beginning’ thing. That script was commissioned by the Kerners who had a deal with Paramount, but no real ‘juice’. There were no stars attached and no lead in film.

This new deal is certainly technically ‘in development’, all indications are that once a script is done, there will be a green light. The big question now is mostly the scale of the film. Will it be bigger, smaller or about the same as the new Star Trek.

This is the same thing as the current film. Even though we were talking about the film since April 2006 and Paramount even put out a poster at Comic con 2006, the film was not technically ‘greenlit’ until early 2007 when the script was turned it. IIRC the film got greenlit almost immediately after Bob and Alex handed it in, but Bob would have clarify

355. The Quickening - March 31, 2009

#27, 29, 47
Rushing a film through production is never good news as far as I am concerned. Paramount doesn’t seem to have learned from past mistakes with TREK movies.

I agree. All this talk from Paramount about a sequel is getting way ahead of themselves. This movie has just as much chance to sink as it does to swim. It won’t be an easy thing to erase 27 years of perceived bad movies and Trekkies–with marketing, or Abrams running around doing the two-faced shuffle to the masses one week, and fandom the next. Plus, I’ve seen very little to convinced me the international markets are going to go from ignoring TREK, as they have in the past, to lining up for this one. Paramount might be doing a bang up job marketing the film in the states but, as usual, it’s done a poor job in foreign markets. I’m pulling for the film of course, but fans better get prepared for a possible major failure.

You said it David. Doing a TV series in this time frame is just greedy and silly. Each TREK film must be an event and special to get people to hunger and line up and pay good money to see it. It would be almost like having dinner at Burger King an hour or two before your Thanksgiving feast. Talk about damaging the experience. I hope the studio, or CBS is a lot smarter than that.

356. Boborci - March 31, 2009

Hey, anything new going on?

357. redshirt96 - March 31, 2009

Thanks for asking, Bob. I just want you to know that I have been a fan since I watched TOS during it’s network run and I can’t wait for this movie to come out. Good luck with everything.

358. sean - March 31, 2009


Orci FTW!

359. Dr. Image - March 31, 2009

Well, Bob, I just discovered this thread and I’m pooping myself over the good news…. that’s about it for now.

360. Christine - March 31, 2009

#266 :: Agreed. If they’d actually gone on with Enterprise and NOT killed off Trip at the end of their “10-year-mission”, we could’ve seen the Romulan War… And, come on, how awesome would that be? Romulans are seriously some of the most awesome baddies in the galaxy, second to the Borg. ;3

I wouldn’t complain about an ENT redux or whatever. :D

#354 :: I do, however, agree with you. They shouldn’t start a new series, at least not until at least 6 months after ST09 comes out. That way we can see where the franchise is going. No point wasting money.

Not to scare you guys, but this is kind of it for ‘Trek. If this movie flops and doesn’t please the general public, then the franchise could be dead — for good.

361. Boborci - March 31, 2009

356. redshirt96 – March 31, 2009

Thanks. Hope to do you proud.

358. 358. Dr. Image – March 31, 2009

Ad thanks to you and anyone who thinks this is good news. For those of you who don’t, our sincere condolences.

362. Trekkie1975 - March 31, 2009

And after all the comments and suggestions, some brilliant, most diluded, one thing is for certain. Its highly doubtful Paramount and Abrams will revisit the TNG/DS9/VOY and Enterprise eras again, maybe some facts and events from those eras will be acknowledged to fulfill the bare minimum requirments of canon, but to see anything such as roles reprised is practically out of the question.

If any past series is to be looked to for guidance with any future series, it should be the original series (TOS). Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s vision, and what came after him clearly wasn’t always true to the ideals and mythos he established.

363. Christine - March 31, 2009

Omigosh! Mr. Orci! (I’m the presence of greatness…)

I think it’s really wonderful that the new movie’s trying to attract to people like me (as in, people around 16 years old). :D I saw Chris Pine in my Seventeen magazine, and it mentioned the new ’Trek movie. Sure made me a happy girl…

I’m trying to spread the news ‘round my high school. I’m just a walking advertisement. xD

Good luck; just a few weeks until the movie premieres.

364. Boborci - March 31, 2009

362. Christine – March 31, 2009

We absolutely had you in mind as well as long time fans when getting this movie up and running.

Thanks for the help in spreading the word!

365. Christine - March 31, 2009

#363 :: Oh, gee, I’m giddy now. A producer of what’s sure to be a HUGE movie has just replied to one of my internet comments. (Don’t mind me.. Heh)

The Heroes advertisment really helped. Very good marketing. I’ve asked people about it, and nearly everyone has said, “Well, I don’t really know anything about Star Trek, but the movie looks pretty cool.” When asked if they would go see it, most said, “Yeah, probably.”

366. Daoud - March 31, 2009

#355 So, Boborciiii, how’s it going writing Star Trek XII: The Doomsday Alternative Savage Search for Spock’s Liver Seed? ;)

#325 You were close! This time, it’s Spock’s Liver! Those pesky Sigma Draconians are going to use it to purify their water supply.

367. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2009

hi bob…

so any takers on my suggestion of Star Trek 2: Vulcan Boogaloo…should I buy the URL now?

In all seriousness…i still feel that the sequel should not even have Star Trek in the title, cause that forces down the ‘Star Trek colon something something’ route, and that is so 90s. Bond doesnt need to say James Bond, and the last batman didn’t say batman in the title, and didn’t that make a billion?

368. Christine - March 31, 2009

#366 :: Well, you’ve got a pretty good point there, Mr. Pascale. But I think the title should at least have some kind of… hint that it is Star Trek and not something… else.
And Batman’s title is “The Dark Knight”. Because he’s just that awesome. Again, though, I get the gist

And “So 90’s”? Enterprise, in my opinion, got better after they tacked “Star Trek” before the title. But I was a sucker for Trip x T’Pol in seasons 3 and 4….

369. Tox Uthat - March 31, 2009

In a time of global economic downturn (to say the least), no company is going to spend big money on something they consider a loser.

Look at all the marketing products hitting the market in support of Trek XI. The action figures, Kellogg’s, even CBS is in the mix, etc. They all are jumping on the train. As if tanked on Romulan Ale.

No marketer, no studio person is going to put their heads on the line for an unknown product. The research has been done and they know what to expect.

The movie’s is releasing in Europe well before the U.S., a market that hasn’t been behind ST before. Seems to me that TPTB have done their homework and believe that they have a big hit on their hands. A really big hit. A really really big hit.

370. Boborci - March 31, 2009

366. Anthony Pascale – March 31, 2009

Interesting. Hadn’t considered not even having Star Trek NOT in the title. Torn about that…

371. Boborci - March 31, 2009

correction, you know what I mean

372. dalek - March 31, 2009

#360 Will let you know if it’s good news or not on May 10th Bob ;)

Joking aside, sincere congratulations!

PS – may i have a cameo in the next one, as Captain Sebastian Hornet?

373. Daoud - March 31, 2009

#366 Good point, Anthony. But, I’d say apostrophe it up to look more “Vulcan” and go with T’Boo G’aloo ;)

Since the Romulan Empire has been ‘found out’, and perhaps might now strike back… I guess the title of the next film should be…. DRAT, that’s been used.

Perhaps they should go with the thesaurus approach and title it “Galaxy Q… DRAT, that’s been used.

Then again, they could just call it “Trek, too.” Or better yet, “Son of Trek” Let’s just hope it doesn’t substitute in Adrian Zmed… Michelle Pfeiffer though would be good though. And Maxwell Caulfield as some old stuffy British Starfleet Admiral named April who’s upset about his USS Constitution could work.

374. The Governator - March 31, 2009

366. Anthony Pascale

Yeah Anthony, I agree. Leave out Star Trek from the title. Gives the film a sort of independent feeling and uniqueness, rather than just seeming like another Trek film.

375. Christine - March 31, 2009

#370 :: I had no idea you were a New Orleans fan!

(Oh, wait, I’ve been watching too much Basketball again…)

376. Boborci - March 31, 2009


How about just initials since the kids love that thee days.

S to the T Summer 2011

377. Sloan47 - March 31, 2009

boborci @ 376 – Please no! I have enough acronyms in my head now that I can barely remember!

378. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2009


of course the name should come from the film, so maybe after you email me the script for it i will be able to give you more suggestions


(whistles innocently)

379. krikzil (aka Lixy) - March 31, 2009

“I can’ see this is just going to go back and forth into eternity and it’ll be just like that first season ep “The Alternative factor “.”

Well, we DO still have a freaking month to kill until the film’s out…..

“Romulans are seriously some of the most awesome baddies in the galaxy, second to the Borg. ;3″

Heh, Christine! I was partial to the Romulans as well.

380. It's Called Star Trek for a Reason! - March 31, 2009

Gotta tell ya… I disagree with taking Star Trek out of the title. I’ve thought about it before but we’ve been down that road before with “Enterprise.” You could paint the ship pink in “12” (please don’t) but that wouldn’t cause as big of a fandom stir as taking “Trek” out of the title.

Great site by the way!

381. krikzil (aka Lixy) - March 31, 2009

So Mr Orci….while you are captive here. Were there test screenings? Inquiring minds are curious….cause if there were, I’m shocked nothing leaked in this day and age!

382. Boborci - March 31, 2009

No test screenings… through we have had an informal screening for friends and family and we asked for their honest opinions, etc…

383. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2009

380…i understand, but I think something without Star Trek can be more evocative, like ‘The Dark Knight’ or ‘Man of Steel’

it would also signal that the ‘JJ Era’ (for lack of a better name) is truly its own series

The TOS movies were all Star Trek + roman numeral + subtitle
The TNG movies were all Star Trek + subtitle

Why go back to either of those models, come up with a new model, like they did by just saying ‘star trek’

I would suggest something like ‘Final Frontier’ but that is obviously taken, but that is the right idea, IMHO. I have added a poll on this trivial, yet vital, issue

384. Christine - March 31, 2009

#380 :: Very valid point. And, why not paint the ship pink? Real men wear pink. ;D

(Unfortunately, though, you’re right. The ship looks good in silver…… -sigh-)

385. Alvin - March 31, 2009

Am i the only one who looks for Roberto’s messages by searching the page for ‘bobo?’

386. Boborci - March 31, 2009

378. Anthony Pascale – March 31, 2009

3 day ground okay?

387. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2009

sure….but arent you guys not going to start writing until the summer?

and 3 day ground? You just signed a new deal for a giant sequel…spring for 2 day!

388. Alvin - March 31, 2009

383: if we go the route of Dark knight, than we’d need a word or phrase that’s synonymous with the franchise…. ‘Boldly go?’ ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before?’ On the other hand a title like ‘The Voyage Home’ is good enough, and you’ve gotta believe that the visuals on the movie poster/in the trailer would sell it as Trek.

389. The Governator - March 31, 2009

382. Boborci

I assume they liked it? Just curious. btw, your presence here is so highly appreciated I cannot even put it into words. You appreciate the fans and can take constructive criticism and that is the mark of a truly passionate and caring writer and producer. I thank you, and I’m sure many others feel the same way.

390. krikzil (aka Lixy) - March 31, 2009

#382/Boborci–thanks for the response.

391. Xplodin_Nacelle - March 31, 2009

I really hope they put in a major backstory about Carol Marcus, Gary Mitchell,Ruth,Finnegan,Paul, Capt. Garrovick,Ben Finney,Ariel Shaw, & include all of the “when I was a cadet at the academy…” lessons.

Bring it on, dream team!!!

P.S. Hire Manny Coto, & Gabe Koerner on the creative team.

392. Xai - March 31, 2009

It’s too bad “The Final Frontier” was used…it could stand alone as a title

Boborci, you can always go back to “Where no man (one) has gone before” or “Boldly Go”.

393. Simon - March 31, 2009

The Shat’s Kirk is dead folks, get used to it.

I would think it’s a mistake to not to use “Star Trek” in the title, it’s a brand. Look at “Enterprise”. While the show had its own problems, not having “Star Trek” in the title didn’t help matters.

I would like to see a “B” story involving the TNG crew, to give them the send off that they deserved. After Final Frontier” the TOS cast got it with “Undiscovered Country”.

394. Xai - March 31, 2009

“Warp Eight” opens Christmas Day 2011

395. Alvin - March 31, 2009

393: As you say, not including Trek in the title was not the problem. Had the show been an award winner– or even just good– no one would have cared that it wasn’t titled ‘Star Trek.’ In fact, they’d probably argue how successful it was because of it.

396. Boborci - March 31, 2009

389. The Governator – March 31, 2009


Could not have done first movie correctly (assuming we did) without input from all of you. If the 1st movie stinks, you’re all fired!;)

397. New Horizon - March 31, 2009

Exploration! That’s what I would finally love to see in a Star Trek movie! Exploration. I mean, that’s what Trek was about at heart…both inner and outer exploration. I want to be amazed, I want to be inspired. I’m so tired of movies getting louder, and more obnoxious with explosions and shaky cameras. I want to explore.

398. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2009

396….fair enough

but how many first dollar gross points are we all in for if this thing makes a mint?

399. New Horizon - March 31, 2009

263. Chadwick

The enemies in Nemesis were Reman, not Romulan.

400. The Governator - March 31, 2009


401. ~~TARA~~ - March 31, 2009

@376 Boborci

Please no….but I’s be cool without Star Trek in the title. I’m 25 and grew up with what Anthony calls the 90s style.

402. RaymondJ - March 31, 2009

I’m hoping this movie, as well as any future sequels, have little “in” nods to the fans; i.e. working in some of the music themes from TOS (and not just the Alexander Courage theme), perhaps appearances by characters/actors that fans would immediately recognize, etc. I understand we see a tribble in this movie, that’s a great example of a little nod. Why not a few tidbits from Roddenberry’s animated series? There is so much fertile ground to explore with Star Trek, where does one start? But regardless, I too will be there opening day and probably a few more times after that.

403. CarlG - March 31, 2009

@255: So, Craig…. how’s that boycott coming along?

404. Locke for President - March 31, 2009

Mr. Orci, if you had a chance to take a stab at rewriting one of the original Star Trek movie scripts, which one would you choose, and why?

405. Alvin - March 31, 2009

@255 and others: What’s this obsession with Manny Coto, and to a lesser extent, Gabe Koerner? Coto produced one, count it– one– mediocre/average season of Enterprise. It showed potential, don’t get me wrong, but even Braga and Berman. produced several high quality seasons of Trek before going stale.

As for Gabe, he does GREAT work, but there’s hundreds of talented young FX artists out there. We should demand the very best; if he’s it, fine, but let’s not give work to folks just because they’re fans.

406. Christine - March 31, 2009

#393 :: “..I would think it’s a mistake to not to use “Star Trek” in the title, it’s a brand. Look at “Enterprise”. While the show had its own problems, not having “Star Trek” in the title didn’t help matters. …”

But look at the latter half of the third season and the fourth season. If you ask me, season 4 was some of the best Trek and certainly top-notch for ENT. That was when they introduced a few new writers and tacked “Star Trek” onto the title. :3

(Exception: “These are the Voyages…”, a rather uncool series finale. Dx)

407. The Governator - March 31, 2009

406. Christine

Ah, true, but Seasons three and four included Star Trek in the title, unlike the first two seasons. I understand your point, but I’m afraid it doesn’t hold water.

408. Boborci - March 31, 2009

404. Locke for President – March 31, 2009
Mr. Orci, if you had a chance to take a stab at rewriting one of the original Star Trek movie scripts, which one would you choose, and why?

I think my answer would be that I would never try to rewrite one of the Trek scripts. That is why we chose to make this movie the way we did, instead of doing a remake. It would seem disrespectful for us to “rewrite” what has already been written.

Good, tricky question.

409. Harry Ballz - March 31, 2009

The title for the sequel? Simple………

Kirk Still Gets Laid

(every consumer out there would know which Kirk it is)

410. Anthony Thompson - March 31, 2009

398. AP

Points would be nice. But I’d be satisfied with a private screening for all us regulars (Stanky and C.S. Lewis, etc. could be locked into the soundproof crying baby room). : D

411. Slade Brunner - March 31, 2009

mr. orci.
what are a few of your favorite films that have inspired you and you’re writing style?

watched the island for the first time today and it rocked!

412. moauvian moaul - March 31, 2009

No more 24th century, watered down, Puritanical, utopian, preachy trek-lite, TNG movies. Its back to basics. Rated G stories are fine but most fans are adults.

As for a series: the best movies were made when the big screen was the only thing Trek. I can wait a couple of years for good stories.

413. CarlG - March 31, 2009

@404, 408: Also, the very nature of Trek’s premise gives a writer a nigh-endless universe of story premises (as Q put it, a “veritable fountain of good ideas” ;) ). Why tread over the same ground when there’s a galaxy (at least) to fill out?

Can’t wait to see what your corner of the Trek ‘verse looks like, Mr. Orci. I think I’m going to like it there.

And thanks for not answering “Spock’s Brain” and giving us all a heart attack.

@409: Oh, but that title! The children! Won’t somebody puh-leeese think of the children!?!

414. Timncc1701 - March 31, 2009

No wonder Anthony did not answer me when I asked him what his next gig was after the movie was finally released. Congrats to the supreme court! Can’t wait to see what you guys have done (crossing fingers).

415. Sybok's Secret Brother - March 31, 2009


Here the title for the next one:

Star Trek: The Search for Salsa

Bring Back Spock!!!

416. Timncc1701 - March 31, 2009

BTW can we look forward to a story on the evolution of the smaller bussards for the sequel in upcoming issues of Nacelles Monthly? Any chance of resurrecting the Shat? Thanks

417. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2009

well only one out of three are agreeing with my notion to find the ‘dark knight’ title for Trek, Trekkies do like tradition and “Star Trek Something Something” is traditional, but i say…out with the colons and in with the new name

418. EFFeX - March 31, 2009

I’m excited about this, but please please please…


419. dalek - March 31, 2009

#418 It wouldn’t be a rebooted Khan. It would merely be a “what if” scenario of an encounter happening differently to what we are used to.

The only foreseeable problem with encountering Khan again is WHO do you cast as Khan? Could anyone top Ricardo Montalban.

Gene Roddenberry supposedly thought that the only thing that made Khan work in Trek 2 was Montalban. If I remember correctly, he wasn’t a fan of the scripted dialogue at all, in fact he hated it!

Those words in another actor’s mouth could have been horrible and camp, so maybe Gene had a point!

420. Stanky McFibberich - March 31, 2009

re:238. Check the Circuit
“Yeah, when Stanky and The Stankettes are on this site on May 9th pitching their ideas for Star Trek 2 and patting Abrams & Co on the back for their brilliance, I’ll be having myself a laugh.”

Laugh it up fuzzball.
You must be living in the same fake timeline that the movie occupies.

And no offense to Mr. Orci, whose comments are generally very well-composed in this space, but this “Supreme Court” moniker for the group is a bit much.

421. Locke for President - March 31, 2009

#408 Mr. Orci —

I liked your answer to my question. Are you prepping for a career in politics? :-)

I thought I could get a little insight into what motivates you in the writing process, to see what you might have in store for us in the new incarnation of Star Trek. Not to try to trick you into bashing what’s been done before.

For me, I’d like to have taken a stab at Star Trek V, The Final Frontier. I liked some of the questions posed in regards to God, plus I appreciated the bond of friendship between the three primary characters. I’d have toned down some of the slapstick comedy, reworked the whole Paradise City bit, and strove for a vague, mysterious ending.

And by the way, the vision scene with McCoy pulling the plug on his father (followed by Spock witnessing his birth) might have been the best character moments in the entire film franchise (except maybe Kirk and Spock separated by glass at the end of Kahn).

Overall it is my least favorite of all the movies, but there was a really good movie waiting to come out somewhere in there.

422. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2009

RE: Khan recasting

that is quite easy:

423. Slade Brunner - March 31, 2009

good call Anthony!!

424. Rick - March 31, 2009

Actually, there is a Shatner is in the new movie:
well …not quite

Did you know that Lisabeth Shatner’s husband Andy Clement worked as make up artist in the new movie?

425. Shatner_Fan_Prime - March 31, 2009

#406 … “If you ask me, season 4 was some of the best Trek and certainly top-notch for ENT.”

Agreed. I had lost interest in televised sometime after TNG, but Enterprise season 4 was GREAT. They brought Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevens duo (excellent Trek novel writers) in too late! I would encourage any TOS fan who hasn’t watched season 4 of Enterprise to do so. You’ll find a lot to love there.

426. Shatner_Fan_Prime - March 31, 2009

Oops. My above post is meant to read, “I had lost interest in televised Trek…”

427. Bill Peters - March 31, 2009

Mr. Orci,

Wondering if you had Thought about using a species that is less well known in the Trek Universe for the Sequel. IE: Gorn,Thoians,ect

428. The Governator - March 31, 2009


Wow Anthony, I was expecting a joke. Pleasantly surprised. Athough I don’t think Kahn should be attempted again, if it were to be done, he looks like an excellent choice.

429. CarlG - March 31, 2009

@422: Oh, man, he’d be one scary mofo as Khan.

430. Navarro - March 31, 2009


431. Craig - March 31, 2009

OK seriously since this in the concept stages how about a companion DVD movie set in the Prime 24th century? Lord of the Ring style extended edition with the focus shifted from the action part of the story to more traditional Star Trek character, and political issues?

TUC co existed with TNG so I think proper Trek can still continue despite the existance of Trek-lite but move needs to happen soon for this to happen or else the franchise with be diluted with this lowest common denomenator Trek

432. RD - March 31, 2009

#422, you realize Kahn was a Sikh? Just because a Latino played a person of Indian descent in 1966, doesn’t mean a new actor has to also be Latino and continue the same politically incorrect practices of the period.

433. RD - March 31, 2009

Besides, I thought they were already shooting the sequel –

434. Craig - April 1, 2009

Appease me, bring the Alternate Crew into the Prime Universe

435. Harry Ballz - April 1, 2009

Yeah, give me an alternate crew in a prime universe……and hold the mayo!

436. deleted - April 1, 2009


437. Paulaner - April 1, 2009

#434 and #435

“Appease me, bring the Alternate Crew into the Prime Universe”
“Yeah, give me an alternate crew in a prime universe……and hold the mayo!”

Well, they have introduced the reboot/alternate universe for a reason, don’t you think? What’s the point in going back? ;)

438. Penhall99 - April 1, 2009

Internet Movie Database is reporting that Paramount wants Shatner for a cameo in the sequel! This better be true…..

439. SaphronGirl - April 1, 2009

Bob Orci,

If you’re still out there, I’d like to ask you a question. Do you know if there will be a novelization released for this film, and if so, who’s writing it? I’m asking because I loved Roddenberry’s novelization for The Motion Picture… in fact, it infinitely improved my enjoyment of the film (and an untold number of fangirls will forever be in his debt for the introduction of the Vulcan word “th’y’la”).

440. captain_neill - April 1, 2009

do not call the sequel Star Trek II, that title is reserved to one of the best movies ever, Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan and do not leave Trek out of the title.

441. SaphronGirl - April 1, 2009


Ugh, for 2 seconds I actually believed it… *mopes*

442. DR STRANGE LOVE - April 1, 2009

297 and 279 …

Maybe you can both have your wish!

“.. I spit my last breath … at … thee!”

In his final moment, Kahn was surprised to find he was not thinking about his hatred for Kirk, but rather about Sulu. A superior helmsman, but a little odd.

Just then, the genesis device unleashed its fury, and by some unforeseen interaction between proto-matter, Kahn’s DNA and and his dying though, Kanh was reborn.


Really gay.

“Ah, thurely I have made my meaning plain? I mean to avenge mythelf upon you, Admiral. I’ve deprived your ship of power, and when I thwing (AND I DO THWINGGG!) around, I mean to deprive you of your life. But I wanted you to know firtht who it wath who had beaten you, thweetie. By the way. Love the uniform!”

443. Dom - April 1, 2009

Maybe they could make ‘Star Trek’ a part of the title, meaning a glut of wonderfully B-movie-ish titles like:

Death on the Star Trek!
Star Trek to the Gates of Hades!
Mutiny of the Star Trek!
End of the Star Trek!
Return of the Star Trek!
Star Trek to the End of the Universe!
Lost Warriors of the Star Trek!
Crucible of the Star Trek!
Scattering of the Star Trek!
The New Star Trek!
Five Year Mission for the Star Trek!
Another Five Year Mission for the Star Trek!

Actually, wouldn’t an epic movie that follows the characters across an entire five year mission be kind of cool? It could be like The Dark Knight to Batman Begins.

444. krikzil - April 1, 2009

#442–thanks for my laugh this morning. It reminds me of a friend (who just happens to be gay) — he has always said that Khan was gay after seeing TWOK — that outfit, that waxed, muscular chest!

445. SaphronGirl - April 1, 2009

#442 is the reason why we need more gay characters in film. I know this post was likely meant to be a light-hearted parody, but we need to escape these kinds of stereotypes. Which is why it would be nice to have a gay or bisexual character portrayed as just a normal/average person.

446. Spanish Brock - April 1, 2009

I always thought the TNG episode “The Chase” would make a good movie. It has an Indiana Jones style to it. The Klingons wouldn’t have to be the evil, hell-bent on revenge bad guys but could instead operate as the counterpoint protagonist they more often portrayed in TOS.

I’m not saying remake that episode, but something like that narratively could be fun — an adventure in space, searching for the Macguffin, racing against Klingons. . .

Anyways, it was always a grand idea that I thought got short shrift in a 42 minute t.v. episode.

447. Anthony Thompson - April 1, 2009


In “Space Seed” Khan seemed *very* interested in a WOMAN! On the other hand, he did seem unusually interested in her hairstyle – even going to the trouble of styling it for her! Wink-wink, nod-nod. : )

448. Closettrekker - April 1, 2009

#425—“Agreed. I had lost interest in televised sometime after TNG, but Enterprise season 4 was GREAT. They brought Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevens duo (excellent Trek novel writers) in too late! I would encourage any TOS fan who hasn’t watched season 4 of Enterprise to do so. You’ll find a lot to love there.”

My sentiments (near) exactly. The only difference is that I lost interest *during* TNG.

449. screaming satellite - April 1, 2009

some Dark Knight style titles for Star Trek ‘2’ (or 12):

“Where No Man Has Gone Before/Where No One has Gone Before’ (yeah i know its the 2nd pilot but so what…First Contact was a TNG ep and was used for a movie…alternativly there could just call it ‘Where No Man..’ or ‘Where No One…’drop ‘has the gone before’)

“These are the Voyages…”(ditto)

“Final Frontier” (yeah i know it was Trek V …but that had ‘THE’ in front…hey if they can do it with Fast & Furious…)

“To Boldly Go…”(hey that hasnt been used b4)

“Prime Directive” (book but what the hey)

“Federation” (ditto)

‘KHHHHHHHHAAAAAN!!’ (if khan is in it…. ‘one to KHHHHHAAAAAN!! please’)

have a look through all the eps and novels for other ‘Trekian’ style titles…

450. Check the Circuit - April 1, 2009

I’m in favor of keeping Star Trek in the title of future sequels. But if not, then maybe the titles could focus on things uniquely Trek…a la The Dark Knight was a pretty well known nickname of Batman. (Maybe then next one is called The Caped Crusader.)

So how about…

“Strange New Worlds”
“To Boldly Go”
“These are the Voyages”
“Starship Enterprise”
“New Life and Civilizations”
“Warp Speed”
“Where No One has Gone Before”
“Shields Up” (Did anyone see the Big Bang Theory this week…priceless!)
“Red Alert”
“The Final Frontier”

451. Check the Circuit - April 1, 2009

One thing I’ve always liked about having Star Trek in the title…most theaters don’t bother putting the subtitle on their marquise. So I’m driving down the road and see a big sign that simply says “Star Trek.” And I’d think to myself, “That’s right boys and girls…the big show is back in town!”

452. Closettrekker - April 1, 2009

#444—-So….Khan was a “manscaper”?

Come to think of it, he did express a little too much interest in the way Marla McGivers chose to wear her hair. He even fixed it for her!


453. Paulaner - April 1, 2009

Slightly off topic: am I the only one who doesn’t like Khan, Space Seed and TWOK? :)

454. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 1, 2009

#453 … Yes.

455. Mr. X - April 1, 2009

Ha, I knew it.

456. Paulaner - April 1, 2009

#454 Oh, well…. ;)

By the way, imo all this asking for remakes is a sympton of how much Trek has become convoluted, closed in itself and self-celebratory. I am for totally new characters and plots.
Remakes and overuse of Trek icons are for fanmade works (imo).

457. boborci - April 1, 2009

439. SaphronGirl – April 1, 2009

Alan Dean Foster has written a great novelization.

458. screaming satellite - April 1, 2009

#383 “I would suggest something like ‘Final Frontier’ but that is obviously taken, but that is the right idea, IMHO. I have added a poll on this trivial, yet vital, issue”

Regarding ‘Final Frontier’ being used again (as its clearly the most Trekian title like the way ‘TDK’ is with Batman – with maybe ‘WNMHGB’ next – but that’s a bit long unless they shorten it to ‘WNM/O’ – then maybe ‘To Boldly Go…’)- i think itd be ok to use FF again as maybe drop the ‘THE’ (a la Fast & Furious) no ‘Star Trek’ – that should be enough to differentiate it from the Shatnerian masterpiece (and anyway they used First Contact again – from an ep I know but still..)

Plus theres remakes a plenty with the same titles anyway (Oceans 11, Planet of The Apes etc)…hell theers even some movies who nick other films titles that arent remakes or have anything to do with them (e.g. “Crash”)

459. Anthony Pascale - April 1, 2009

screaming satellite

good thinking, i also like ‘prime directive’

it is true that all the good names ahve been used by novels, episodes or past movies, but so what…so was ‘star trek’

460. Daoud - April 1, 2009

Anthony, how about we halve the difference and suggest a sequel simply use “Trek” in the title. “Trek to ___” is one possibility, it’s like the “Road to ___” movies. Why, we could have Pine & Quinto doing a musical comedy number like Hope & Crosby once in a while. “Trek to Vulcan”, “Trek to Madworld”, “Trek to Romulus”, etc. Could be fun!

Or a release at Halloween time, could be “Trek or Treat”!
Or that holiday release “A Very Trekkie Christmas”
Or the ultimate punk version: “Go Trek Yourself!”

Why, in the sequel, they could start using ‘trek’ as a four-letter word, equivalent to Galactica’s ‘frak’.

Why, that’s the best trekking idea I’ve heard yet.

Everyone, go trek off! ;)

461. Mr. X - April 1, 2009

Paulaner, let me quote you and me on that one:

Paulaner – March 31, 2009
#347 “What was the reason against a 150 million TNG era movie with a fresh, young crew and a giant epic story full of win and awesomeness?”

Berman’s series reached a dead end. The show was cancelled. TNG movies were a failure. Even Trek fans turned their back. It was not a winning horse anymore, so bringing it back would be a commercial suicide. A change was totally needed.

I asked you what’s speaking against a new crew, and apparently, you were. ;) And now you say you are for totally new characters and plots.
And that’s what I meant.

This new movie is recasting Kirk and Spock. This isn’t exactly a new character.

A fresh TNG era movie, or 26th century movie, with an entirely new crew, that would have been something.

462. Mr. X - April 1, 2009

boborci, was a TNG era script ever considered?

463. Paulaner - April 1, 2009

#461 “This new movie is recasting Kirk and Spock. This isn’t exactly a new character.”

The characters are the same, but the look&feel is totally new. This is a big departure from what we knew. In my opinion, there is a whole undiscovered country to unveil.

464. P Technobabble - April 1, 2009

This is great news that there will be a Star Trek Sequel, but all the speculating and demands about what it should contain are already driving me up the wall. I feel bad for the Supreme Court…
But I’m guessing a sequel means Bob Orci will still be hanging around these parts, and that is a wonderful thing.
Alright, this is my WISH, not speculation or demand: I’m one of those who really wants Star Trek to boldly go, out there, thataway, second star to the right, a truly deep space adventure of the unknown… We cannot have this new Star Trek start rehashing TOS episodes, looking for a movie. Let’s not revisit Khan, or Carol Marcus, or whatever has been done. I’m hoping for “new life and new civilizations…”

465. krikzil - April 1, 2009

#447 & 452– Funny!

I won’t even go into detail re fan fic and this particular topic…..let’s just say some thought Khan was quite slashable apparently.

466. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 1, 2009

#456 … “Trek has become convoluted, closed in itself and self-celebratory. I am for totally new characters and plots. Remakes and overuse of Trek icons are for fanmade works (imo).”

I appreciate your viewpoint, but with something like 700 hours of televised Trek spread over 40 years, I’ve had enough of “new characters.” Some of those new characters were pretty bland. I love the boldness of the iconic TOS characters, and part of me always knew I’d see them again in some fresh presentation (the idea having been kicked around for at least 20 years). Now is the right time for that.

I’m going to reserve judgment on the final product for May 8, of course, but for now … Star Trek feels new again. And it hasn’t for a long, long time.

467. Stonn_is_Decius - April 1, 2009

trust me. this was a business decision, not a ‘boldly go’ creative one.

468. krikzil - April 1, 2009

“Berman’s series reached a dead end. The show was cancelled. TNG movies were a failure. Even Trek fans turned their back. It was not a winning horse anymore, so bringing it back would be a commercial suicide. A change was totally needed.”

I think they chose to end TNG as a tv show because they wanted to move into the movies since the original cast was aging. The first few did well but the last couple weren’t very good, true. I do think too much Trek in general — multiple shows, etc. was a lot of the problem. And maybe people didn’t want to pay to see what was free? Additionally, let’s remember, TOS was canceled way back when, was never that successful commercially and a lot of folks thought bringing IT back was crazy.

469. screaming satellite - April 1, 2009

Mr X – i think a big problem with doing another TNG film was that it had sort of had 2 ‘bombs’ in a row..ok Insurrection wasnt exactly a bomb put its over all gross was probably something similar to TFF when adjusted.. they gave TOS another chance (more for the 25th anniversary than anything else) and it bounced back with a great film and good BO…when they did the same for TNG things only got worse and it didnt even make its budget back i dont think – barely if so – thatd never happened to a trek film b4 – not even TFF so there wasnt really any come back from that…besides NEM was touted as TNGs final movie anyway like Trek VI

470. SaphronGirl - April 1, 2009


Bob Orci – thanks so much for the info! I’m assuming it’s going to be released at the same time (or just slightly after) the film’s premiere in theatres. I’ll have to pre-order it from Amazon. :)

471. Closettrekker - April 1, 2009

#469—-I don’t think that the characters in TNG were ever really feature film worthy at all. IMO, even the best of the TNG-era films (FC) is a bit overrated due to the poor company it keeps. TNG movies never demonstrated the “crossover value” that some of the original films had.

While TVH did over $109 million domestically (in 1986 dollars), FC–10 years later—did about $17 million less, and only about $10 million more than TMP did in 1979!

If this were another TNG movie, I wouldn’t pay to see it, and I certainly wouldn’t be here reading about it…If Paramount had committed over $150 million to its budget, I would question the sanity of its leadership—I don’t care who they got to direct it.

472. krikzil - April 1, 2009

$471–You and I didn’t get into TNG but that’s just us. TNG was very popular during its tv run. And we also have to take into account the nature of that audience. Attention span deficit began in the 90s and a lot more to choose from than in the case of the TOS cast films. The TOS films did well because it took 10 years to get to screen and had a hardcore fan base and then also had a nostalgic appeal perhaps to nonfans who went and saw it. The movie biz was also far differentfor most of the TOS films. (The good old days before multiplexes as norm and make it or break it opening weekends!!!! Yes, I’m ancient. lol)

TNG just came off the air and I think that was the biggest mistake. There really wasn’t a groundswell for movies. Why pay when you can watch for free? It probably should have stayed on the air for a few more seasons, then taken a break. While TOS could come back from a bad film, given these parameters, TNG didn’t.

473. krikzil - April 1, 2009

Closet…that should have read “#471″— you certainly are worth more than $471. ;)

474. Craig - April 1, 2009

THE problem with Nemesis was it tryed to hard to attract non fans, it went the action over consequences route with the Argo (a big Trek NO), Had a bad guy that was “evil or insane” and ignored the relationships of the crew that had what round 17years together at the time. Also they utterly wasted the Romulans, Massive missed oportunity to have a gripping Tal Shiar conspiracy story, Also it was largerly ignorant of Trek lore(Lore for instance)

I feel these mistakes are being repeated here but for some reason they are allowed to get away with it. I just don’t understand why people blindly supporting this and subsequent sequels of this when the warning sounds are so loud its deafening

475. Craig - April 1, 2009

TNG is more than capable of pulling an audience First Contact proves that and I reckon INS will have a greater return on investment than this movie

476. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 1, 2009

#473 “…you certainly are worth more than $471.”

Not to me. I’ll take the $471.

477. screaming satellite - April 1, 2009


478. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 1, 2009

#475 … Nope. If you think a series and crew that earned $40 million (or whatever that sad number was) back in 2002 can come back now and be a competitive summer blockbuster, you sir are living in a holodeck.

479. Closettrekker - April 1, 2009

#476—You’d sell me out for $471?

You fiend!

#477,#478—Yep. On both counts.

480. Mr. X - April 1, 2009

Closetrekker, if a TNG era movie had this kind of trailer, a 150+ million budget, etc… , you would go see it.

481. David P - April 1, 2009

The key to this news is that it renews the possibility of the Once and Future Kirk (Shat) to fulfill his destiny


482. Mr. X - April 1, 2009

Shatner_Fan_Prime, what kind of argument is that? Because Nemesis was bad, a 5th TNG movie will also be bad?

A summer blockbuster will be a summer blockbuster if the movie is good. It will be a bomb if the movie is bad. It doesn’t matter what the movie before was like.

483. Craig - April 1, 2009

Look at Transformers that was crap but because of the marketing it made money

484. Paulaner - April 1, 2009


As for the everlasting Transformers comparison, it was a movie based on toys and made for kids, I wasn’t expecting nothing deeper than that. By this point of view it was a real success. OK, I didn’t like it but… you know… I’m 36 :)

485. Closettrekker - April 1, 2009

#480—“Closetrekker, if a TNG era movie had this kind of trailer, a 150+ million budget, etc… , you would go see it.”


Like I said, I would not only stay home—but I would question the sanity of those involved.

I don’t go see a lot of movies to begin with. I certainly wouldn’t go to see characters I care nothing about and find utterly uninteresting. I didn’t go see the second and third installments of the SW Prequel trilogy either.

They had big budgets too.

This film has once again peaked my interest in Star Trek films for one reason and one reason only—-the return of the franchise’s most colorful characters and romantic time period.

No holodecks. No USS Hilton. No ship’s counselors. No android pinnocchios. No children on the bridge. No Earl Grey tea, etc., etc.

486. krikzil - April 1, 2009

“This film has once again peaked my interest in Star Trek films for one reason and one reason only—-the return of the franchise’s most colorful characters and romantic time period.”

Closet — But you know, not everyone — i mean Trek fans — thinks that TOS *is* the best trek as we do. I don’t disagree that Paramount went this route at this time because I’m not sure they really had any other option if they wanted to do a movie, right now. (Part of me still believes they should have waited a little longer and given Trek a bigger rest.) Kirk and Spock are iconic and TNG for now isn’t viable. But I really wouldn’t discount it totally. TOS was deemed O-VAH not too long ago, in any form. I would have gone to a new big budget TNG film simply because I have always tried to support Trek in all its incarnations. I have serious concerns about this new film but I’m going, and probably multiple times.

487. krikzil - April 1, 2009

“Not to me. I’ll take the $471.” and “#476—You’d sell me out for $471? You fiend!”

Liz, singing…..I’m in the money! woohoo!

488. spark-1701 - April 1, 2009

This is fantastic news, but even more fantastic is the possiblity of

489. Iron King - April 1, 2009

Umm… doesn’t anyone here realize that this is an April Fools joke?

490. spark-1701 - April 1, 2009

472. krikzil – Excuses, excuses, nobody buys Rick Bermans “franchise fatigue” explanation for poor trek viewership, or this explanation. Come on man, if expectation had anything to do with how well a film is received, then how do you explain that little anomolie called Star Wars Eposode 1 The Phantom Menace? I have personally grown to love that movie, but most anyone will tell you they hate still hate it.

Sorry dude, TNG just never had it going for them onscreen, period. Rick Berman is perhaps good with how he spends money, but creatively he’s a hack. Now, I would be interested to see if TNG could break their tired past, by having a JJ and Co Produce/Direct. At that point I think we could see quality TNG movie finally. I hope it does happen soon.

491. Closettrekker - April 1, 2009

#486—“…not everyone — i mean Trek fans — thinks that TOS *is* the best trek as we do.”

Of course not. I can only speak for myself, and never try to paint myself as some sort of elitist fanboy for being so reverent toward the original (which is unfortunately common). It is not as if I hate TNG—I don’t, and have seen every episode (although not in its first, second, or even third run).

But my personal relative disinterest in past TNG movies is genuine, as is the assertion that I would be equally disinterested in another one. I would eventually watch it (as I did all of them), but I wouldn’t spend good money to do so—nor would I check TM ten or fifteen times a day 5-6 days a week for any news about it. But that’s just me.

I *do* however believe that the general public has, in the past, found the more colorful characters born of the Original Series more palatable and worthy of a trip to the movies.

It isn’t just the fact that the *fourth* installment of the Star Trek film franchise managed to get people from all walks of life into theaters to break $100 million in domestic box-office 23 years ago. When Denzel Washington is talking about “what Scotty would do” in a pretty popular film, and NFL analysts are quoting Spock’s “needs of the many” quote on one of the most watched sports programs, etc., etc.—it is clear to me that the TOS characters have had a special impact upon not only Trek fans, but popular culture in general. I can’t help but feel that there is far more potential for “cross-over” appeal in a movie featuring *those* characters, and thus more reason to be confident that a $150 million investment in a Kirk-Spock-McCoy film might be more viable than one featuring their TNG counterparts.

492. spark-1701 - April 1, 2009

489. Iron King – Its been reported before

Read this –

493. krikzil - April 1, 2009

“…nor would I check TM ten or fifteen times a day 5-6 days a week for any news about it. ”

you know, this begs the question….what the heck are we gonna do once we’ve seen the movie and debated its merits ad nauseum??!! I mean, it’s been like a drug fix…LOL.

“I *do* however believe that the general public has, in the past, found the more colorful characters born of the Original Series more palatable and worthy of a trip to the movies.”

I found the TOS characters the best too but that’s where I came into fandom. Conversely, I’ve encountered a great many fans who have as little use for them as you do for the HIlton-Enterprise Crew. :) And sadly for Trek, there’s just a great many folks who don’t think any crew merits a trip to the theatre.

“…is clear to me that the TOS characters have had a special impact upon not only Trek fans, but popular culture in general. I can’t help but feel that there is far more potential for “cross-over” appeal in a movie featuring *those* characters, and thus more reason to be confident that a $150 million investment in a Kirk-Spock-McCoy film might be more viable than one featuring their TNG counterparts.”

As I said, right now, I’d agree that TNG is exhausted and there really isn’t anything else in the Trek world that has the appeal of Kirk and Spock or is as recognizable. But of course, TOS has had 40+ years to worm its way into pop culture and benefits from coming from the 60s — pop culture heaven. ;) TNG existed in a time where things began burning brightly and then burned out just as fast. As for budget, there are many who argue that TNG might have done better IF Paramount HAD ponied up larger budgets. BIg action & big effects cost big $$ and I think a lot of the young folks just naturally started expecting that in the 90s.

494. THX-1138 - April 1, 2009


krikzil is a woman. And listen to her. She is spot on. Another thing about TNG and it’s movie success or lack thereof is that as time passes, we may just see a groundswell of fans who look back fondly on it. Happens all the time. That might be the time when we see further TNG era adventures.

495. CardassiaPrimera - April 1, 2009

Oh my god. Is reall this????

496. Alvin - April 1, 2009

” I just don’t understand why people blindly supporting this and subsequent sequels of this when the warning sounds are so loud its deafening”

Because we haven’t seen it yet. As Trek fans, we’re supposed to be optimists, as was Gene’s vision, and we’re willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But make no mistake, if the film sucks, we’ll discontinue our support.

497. Oktoberfest - April 1, 2009

@496 “But make no mistake, if the film sucks, we’ll discontinue our support.”

Not me. TFF was followed by some great Trek, TUC and FC. And, on 2nd and 3rd viewing, Nemesis gets much better. I disliked seasons 1 and 2 of Enterprise, but it trended way up and was really on the verge; a 5th season could have been greatness. Support always yields better Trek. It’s like a sports team, the worse they are, the more support they need.

Besides, Gimme Spock’s Brain and And the Children Shall Lead over any primetime dross on TV in 2009. The Osbournes Reloaded? OMG, it’s the seed of Idiocracy.

498. krikzil - April 2, 2009

“472. krikzil – Excuses, excuses, nobody buys Rick Bermans “franchise fatigue” explanation for poor trek viewership, or this explanation. Come on man, if expectation had anything to do with how well a film is received, then how do you explain that little anomolie called Star Wars Eposode 1 The Phantom Menace? I have personally grown to love that movie, but most anyone will tell you they hate still hate it.”

Not excuses, facts. Heck, I wasn’t a fan per se. In reality, I liked THE ACTORS more than the characters they played. (I’m a con goer.) But even though I wasn’t a fan, I don’t try to rewrite history. TNG was enormously popular. It garnered a lot of fans — I have never seen con attendance like that. But it didn’t last and I DO think there were a lot of reasons. It’s too simplistic and easy to just say it sucked and blame Berman. I just am not sure one can compare TOS and TNG….it’s apples and oranges and all things have their season or seasons in the case of Trek.

As for SW….I’m not sure I get your point. I do know that I was so disappointed by that movie…..two words, Jar Jar. ;)

499. Alex Rosenzweig - April 2, 2009

#183 – “I wish I had half the enthusiasm most seem to have for this new beginning…”

I’m still really going to have to wait ’til May to know whether this news excites me. In theory, it’s very exciting, and if Bryan Burk is telling the truth and the film ends with “the canon intact” (his words), then I’ll be hugely excited. :)

But just more alternate universe stuff that continues to ignore the world so many spent so much time building? That might not be so exciting.

Either way, at least in the abstract, it is pretty cool that Paramount really has such enthusiasm for Trek again. :)

#200 – “196 – HORRIBLE idea. You sound, I don’t know… 90.

“NO cool shows! NO nothing! Suffer TNG fans!” Okay… thanks.”

Actually, to be fair, I think there’s some merit in not trying to run a TV series and the feature films simultaneously. that did damage the film franchise before, and it might undercut it again, too.

OTOH, if these new films really are stuck in some alternate universe, perhaps the prime Trekverse could be preserved as a setting for projects like telefilms or DVD productions. At least that might make the rumored creative direction of the new film vaguely palatable.

#210 – “I’ve never paid to see a TNG-era movie, and I’m not going to start.”

I paid a lot less money for the TNG-era films than I did for the Classic Era ones, and I’d pay a lot of money again for a true TOS movie, too. But it has to be that, not just any old thing with characters named Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in it.

500. Alex Rosenzweig - April 2, 2009

#309 – ‘255 and others- OMG. There is the awsome news that the franchise has most likely been saved and people can STILL bitch about it.”

I’m sure it’s a matter of personal point-of-view, but for myself, if the result is to run away from all that had come before, how is that actually “saving” anything?

#330 – “You know the fun thing is that since they are completely new to the franchise, none of the previous powers that be like Berman, Braga, Moore, etc… are involved… that means if those new guys can decide what’s good for Trek, EVERYONE could. It’s just that they have the money and the position.”

Umm…. You realize, right, that Berman, Braga, Moore, etc., all the way back to Harve Bennett, each at some point were new to Star Trek? It does happen from time to time, especialy in a franchise that lasts for decades.

#408 – “I think my answer would be that I would never try to rewrite one of the Trek scripts. That is why we chose to make this movie the way we did, instead of doing a remake. It would seem disrespectful for us to “rewrite” what has already been written.”

Nicely said, Bob.

501. David Scrimpshire - April 2, 2009

It would be an awesome opportunity to re-do Space Seed as a movie …. imagine the possibilities….

502. Alex Rosenzweig - April 2, 2009

#420 – “And no offense to Mr. Orci, whose comments are generally very well-composed in this space, but this “Supreme Court” moniker for the group is a bit much.”

Actually, I really quite liked it…when I thought their intent was to make a true prequel and take on the challenges of actually dealing with the occasional contradictions in early TOS.

#437 – “Well, they have introduced the reboot/alternate universe for a reason, don’t you think? What’s the point in going back? ;)”

I’m still trying to comprehend what the point is of introducing a reboot/alternate universe in the first place. ;)

I’d be all for going back, though obviously the ideal solution is that, in the end, the alternate universe is so minimally different that it really doesn’t matter (cf. “Yesteryear”).

#486 – ‘Kirk and Spock are iconic and TNG for now isn’t viable. But I really wouldn’t discount it totally. TOS was deemed O-VAH not too long ago, in any form.”

That’s true. For a long period, those of us who still preferred TOS above all the others were constantly derided as “living in the past”. And yet see what has happened. Might it happen again? Who knows?

503. Jarod - April 2, 2009

You know, it would be pretty innovative and boldy going where no other studio has gone before if Paramount decided to let Abrams-Trek and the original Trek co-exist.

If this movie is successful as hell, why can’t the next movie be a big budget TNG movie, and the movie after that an Abrams-Trek movie again?

Potential losses from TNG movies would be compensated by the super mega success of Abrams’ o-wonder-machine. And if the script for the TNG movie didn’t suck, it wouldn’t even lose anything, it would be as succesful.

It would be great to know that the powers that be, including the script writers of this movie, even considered something like that. Let the next movie be a TNG movie, huge budget, and a great story with epic scope.

A co-existance of proper sequels and prequel-reboots! Now that would be something!

504. Jarod - April 2, 2009

And by TNG movie I simply mean: after Star Trek Nemesis, a sequel. 24th century, early 25th century, it doesn’t matter which crew or which ship.

505. Closettrekker - April 2, 2009

#502—“I’m still trying to comprehend what the point is of introducing a reboot/alternate universe in the first place.”

I’m not so sure that introducing an altered timeline is in itself the goal. It could very well be that the writers simply (and correctly) acknowledged that the Star Trek Universe allows for such deviation from a strictly linear timeline of events with the existence of altered timelines, and felt that getting from timeline-A to timeline-B was a good story that they wished to tell.

With Bob Orci’s assurances that “anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”, and that nothing in the story precludes what we know of the characters’ backstories (or TNG and the other spinoffs for that matter) from taking place, as well as both Lindelof and Burk’s assertions that ST09’s story will “honor canon” and that the movie will end with “canon intact”—–there is cause to speculate that Timeline-A and Timeline-B will at some point begin to parallel each other anyway.

Whether this point of view is shared by older fans or not at the end of this movie, if in the end, the writers/producers/director have told us a good story——–then I cannot think of a better point to any of this than that.

506. MC1 Doug - April 2, 2009

#13: “Now all we need is a new TV series…”

I think not. Personally, I think to heighten the experience, so to speak, we fans should get used to the idea of one or the other, not both.

My thinking is, if we have a series, a well done one, great..or if we have a movie every two years, again one well done, awesome! But I think having both simultaneously milks the ability for ether to succeed.

I’d rather have one superior product than two mediocre ventures.

I don’t have figures before me, but I would venture that the movies’ box office receipts began to diminish when the movie series and TV series overlapped.

and to be honest, I’d rather put my money on a movie series every two years (or so)… but that’s just me.

507. The Alliterates » THAT’S How Good The Trailer Is! - April 2, 2009

[…] came down this week that J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek movie has been SO successful that Paramount has green-lit a sequel. Of course, the movie itself won’t come out for another month or so … so really the […]

508. Tony Hussein Obama - April 4, 2009

Without even having seen the new movie, I have a hunch that the next movie will be about pitting Kirk against his most recognized enemy… much like the sequel to Batman Begins showed us a frightening revisioned version of the Joker, I am thinking that Trek 12 will be a reimagining of Space Seed/TWOK. I think we’re going to see yet another wrath of… KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!

509. Go Spock! - April 4, 2009


510. Dougrass - April 9, 2009

Now that we know that Nero command a Romulan/Borg ship it’s easy to bring the Borg sooner in the new sequels. Would’nt it be cool to see how Jim Kirk would deal with the collective. Can’t wait to see the movie!

511. Ensign "Redshirt" Gomez - April 26, 2009

Oh thanks Dougrass for spoiling it. You rotten moron.

512. ClereeAdevife - May 3, 2009

Из избы copy не выноси, а в уголок копи (а под лавку копи, т. е. не Гуляй, покуда голова не покрыта. Своя волюшка (девке) у батюшки. Два двачка, два очка, два корытечка (глаза). Каков едет, таков и погоняет. жить не будет. и хлеб не таковский (и все по-чертовски. В Белоруссии и Литве). Мети всяк перед своими воротами! Держи крепче свой карман! Хмель не плачет, что пьяницу бьют. Вор вору терпит. Вор на вора не доказчик. Ветер снег съедает (он изникает от вешнего ветра). Он по яйцам пройдет, ни одного не раздавит. Дают – бери; бранят – беги!Он только этим и бредит. Он только и видит В пустую хоромину вор не подламывается. Переставом облака (тучи) не поймаешь. Коли печень в щуке к голове толще – ранний посев будет лучше, а к Молод: в кампании не бывал (или: в Саксонии не бывал; солдатск.). Без друга – сирота; с другом – семьянин. Неужто вина моя не прощеная? Не годами стар, а норовом. Соваться (Метаться) во все углы. Заветного не продают. На завет и цены нет. С этого леща надо бы чешую поскрести. Дай бог и кошке свое лукошко! Пришло пота, что подай попа. Не в пору виновата стала. Хоть в долг, хоть в поколоть. В долг да в поколоть. Солдат – казенный человек. Под лежач камень и вода не течет. Сам на себя никто не нарадуется. Барчонок горя не вкусит, пока своя вошь не укусит. Молодость рыщет – от добра добра ищет. С этого веселья каково-то похмелье. Кто старое вспомянет, того черт на расправу потянет. а другого потчуют, да пить не хочется. Надо жить, как набежит (т. е. довольствоваться, уметь изворотиться). Думка недоумка. Думка надоумка (т. е. и недоумевает, и надоумливает). Жаворонки, прилетите, красно лето принесите. Осенней озими не клади в засек. Рубит в два топора, да работа не спора. Пророк Наум наставит на ум (1 декабря; с этого дня посылают детей в Собой-то краля, а умом-то фаля. Еду, еду, следу нету; режу, режу, крови нету; рублю, рублю, щепок нету Аз-алашки, буки-бабашки (барашки), веди-валяжки, глаголь-голяшки (т. В пух разбранил (разругал, разбил). (кто пойдет на разбой). Не казак, так и не атаман. Из рядовичей в атаманы выходят. Старого воробья на мякине не обманешь. Не для шапки только голова на плечах. Дома Илья, а в людях свинья. В людях Ананья, а дома каналья. Не узнав горя, не узнаешь и радости. Погнал лес россыпью, так не плачься недочету. Глухому много чуется, а слепому много видится. Немец без штуки с лавки не свалится. Грудь лебедина, походка павлина, очи сокольи, брови собольи. Соломку жуем, а душок не теряем. человек. Лебедь – красавица. Пава – спесивая красавица. Петух – драчун, Мир, что огород: в нем все растет. И костей его седая ворона сюда не занашивала. На своих плечах (На своей спине) снести. прискучит. Кто в море бывал, тот лужи не боится. под забором пройти. Лисичка всегда сытей волка бывает (или: живет). Волк и каждый год линяет, да обычая не меняет. Немец – шмерец, копченый, колбаса, колбасник, сосиска. Шути, поколе краска в лицо не вступила (пока не сердишься). Собака собаку в гости звала. – Нет, нельзя, недосуг. – А что? – Да сне видит. По Ереме шапка, по Сеньке кафтан. Украв часовник (часослов), да: “Услыши, господи, молитву (правду) солнышке). Глухого бранят, а он говорит: к обедне звонят. Все годится, только не годится с чертом водиться. Многая лета, а многих уж и нету. Ох, ведает бог, от чего живот засох. И в аду люди живут. Кошачьи глаза дыму не боятся. Наказуя, наказа мя господь, но смерти не предаде. Мимо нашего двора (стола) дорога столбова. у всякого своя). Без бога ни до порога. Голод не тетка, душа не сосед (не уйдешь). Ум хорошо, а два лучше того. себя не принимает). дорог\’ой). Ехала кума неведомо куда. Сильна божья рука. Божья рука – владыка. Кто лжет, тот и крадет. Хоть выжми. Полы коротает, да плеча латает. Пора домой, не дождаться б побой.

513. JessIAm - May 13, 2009

I hope the non Spik/Kirk characters are given more depth. I don’t think the other characters were mistreated in the first movie, but I’d like to see more depth to them. McCoy, to me, seemed to have more charm on TV than in ST XI. The TV McCoy was someone I’d want to have a beer with. The ST XI McCoy was someone I’d think hard before spending time with (he was a little to jaded).

514. Beth G. - May 22, 2009

It’s been a long time since I walked out of a theatre and said “WOW”. As someone who not only watched the original series when it was original, I can’t say enough about this movie. There was a good solid story line, and enough action, but not so much that the characters were lost. The casting was incredible! Looking and Leonard Nemoy and Zachary Quinto side by side, I was struck by the resemblence. Even Christ Pine did a passable job looking like Shatner. I’m looking forward to the next movie with the same cast.

515. Vick - June 22, 2009

Romulans with their tattoos and trenchcoats were rather silly, and the coincidence with Spock being on the same moon and same location that Kirk was marooned at was a bit too much, but the rest of the movie was great!

516. sunmapsman - October 29, 2009

I’ve found place to watch it online in good quality –

They make you do a short survey but after that it’s good to go.

517. Aislinn - November 3, 2009

OMG if it true im SO EXITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOVED THE NEW MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!1 YEHAAW!!!!! I CANT WAIT HOPE ITS NOT A JOKE!!!!!

518. Notfromhere - December 2, 2009

If there is no sequel to the 2009 Star Trek movie made, (hopefully more than just one; there’s a LOT of unscrewing left to be done), in order to skew things back around into alignment with the Star Trek Universe mythos as it currently exists, I will personally invent a time machine, go back to a point before the decision was made, phaser the Rigelian bloodworms out of the idiots responsible for that decision, clone copies of them, program the clones to make the CORRECT decision, and send them in to get the timeline back on track again!

519. Piero S. - February 11, 2010

Spock has to get his emotions under control!

520. brashki99 - February 25, 2010

Man, they did the new film right. Hard to believe the sequel could be better!!!

521. jiggamuffin - November 12, 2010

[b]Handbag Display Stand Chrome[/b]

Shop all the lastest [b]Top Designer Handbags[/b] at [b]Amazon[/b]. Get great holiday deals and free shipping on all the most exclusive brands.

Be sure to get only authentic ( Coach, Gucci, Prada, Juicy couture, Guess ) Brand name Handbags at Amazon.


[b]Top Coach Handbags[/b]


[b]Top Gucci Handbags[/b]


[b]Top Prada Handbags[/b]


[b]Top Juicy couture Handbags[/b]



Single hook simple [b]handbag display[/b] adjusts in height from 14″ to 25″H. Economy, lightweight display [b]stand[/b]. Color: [b]chrome[/b]. Shippable by FedEx [b]…[/b]
[b]Handbag Display[/b] Rack – Square Tubing – Flag Arms – 8 Faceout 5 Hook Arms. Metal Rack with [b]Chrome[/b] Plated Finish; 2 Display Tiers; Display Purses and Handbags [b]…[/b][b]Display stand[/b]- [b]Handbag[/b] -adj.[b]chrome[/b]. By 9.5mm solid stem x 11″ H Welded W/end cap . Upright by RD 1/2″ x 15″ L tubing. Oval base. [b]…[/b]




[b]Related Searches:[/b] Handbag Display Stand Chrome 2010 / Handbag Display Stand Chrome Discount / Handbag Display Stand Chrome Trends / Handbag Display Stand Chrome Purchase / Handbag Display Stand Chrome USA / Handbag Display Stand Chrome Limited is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.