JJ Abrams Gives A Star Trek Sequel Update + Calls In To Colbert Report [VIDEO] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams Gives A Star Trek Sequel Update + Calls In To Colbert Report [VIDEO] September 29, 2009

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

In an interview promoting his FOX show Fringe, JJ Abrams has given another one of his mini updates on the sequel to Star Trek. Basically nothing new to report, but he is keeping that ‘who will direct?’ question out there. We have more on that below, plus video of JJ Abams’s phone in appearance on the Colbert Report last night.


JJ Updates on Trek and Fringe
It isn’t much, but here is the latest update from JJ on the status of the Star Trek sequel.

We’ve begun talking about the next step, the next installment and we’re just beginning to figure out what that is. We’re working it out right now. We’re definitely writing a script, I’m definitely producing it and obviously we’ll see what happens about the director.

So there you have it. Nothing much has changed, and the ‘who will direct?’ question is still hovering out there.

The main thrust of the interview was to promote Fringe, which has just started it’s second season and released the first season on home video. Here Abrams talks up the show’s progression:

The fun of Fringe is that at the beginning of every episode you’re going to get a shock and the first episode of season two is no exception. I would say the first season, like all first seasons, had a little bit of a fight to find its voice and get its rhythm. Last year we began to find that rhythm and find that voice and this year it’s a sexier, funnier more shocking and also more scary season.


JJ on Colbert
JJ Abrams appeared via a phone in on the Colbert Report last night, for final night of calling in to Stephen’s ‘Atone Phone’ (1-888-OOPS-JEW), to give Stephen their appologies for Yom Kippur. Abrams introduced himself as ‘the director of Star Trek’, perhaps that has now replaced ‘creator of Lost’ as his mainstream media hook.

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Atone Phone – Last Day of Apologies
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

JJ referred to a puzzle and his appearance last May, to promote the Star Trek movie. If you missed that, here it is, including the "Romulan Stephen Colbert".

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
J.J. Abrams
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore





1. Gary - September 29, 2009

Great! WOW!

2. Harry Ballz - September 29, 2009

Is JJ spreading himself too thin?

Tune in next week for another exciting installment!

3. bryan - September 29, 2009


4. Ian - September 29, 2009

I’m really hopeful that JJ will direct the sequel! He better!

5. Steve - September 29, 2009

I really hope he’ll direct… but right now I think it’s safe to say that there’s a 50% chance he will and a 50% chance he won’t. In interviews he has sounded more interested in directing something that’s new and original, as compared to something that’s based off pre-existing material.

I guess we just have to hope that Bob and Alex (and Damon) produce another amazing script!

6. Porthos X - September 29, 2009

If JJ doesn’t direct the sequel…let Nimoy do so:) Or Bellisario… who made NCIS :) Or maybe Christopher Nolan…READ THIS AND PLZZZ IMPLEMEN IT WHOEVER ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEQUEL READS THIS

7. Jai1138 - September 29, 2009

I hope JJ Abrams directs both Parts 2 and 3 as it , in addition to scriptwriting from Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof, would provide a sense of cohesion to the whole thing — Abrams’ ST trilogy. He’s friendly with and admires Mr. Spielberg so he might look on ST as his chance to direct his own Indiana Jones into the franchise pantheon. Then again, he may choose Mr. Lucas’ model with the original SW trilogy and select directors that he can ultimately oversee. In that case, I’d expect him to stay within the Bad Robot family and hire someone like LOST’s best director (and a producer) Jack Bender to take the center seat on Part 2.

In any case they’ve got a genuine success to live up to. A real challenge.

8. Sarah S - September 29, 2009

Glad to hear JJ is producing it, I see that they’ll figure out the director. I hope they’ll keep the release date in 2011 if they can but if that means JJ can’t direct it in that case, then I hope he’ll personally select a director who he’ll approve of–one who will carry JJ’s Trek universe vision into the next movie. The first one was really good.

9. Brett Campbell - September 29, 2009

I think Colbert should direct it. He’s a fan!

10. somethoughts - September 29, 2009

I will be curious how a James Cameron Star Trek would turn out.

It would probably be a epic tale filled with emotions, special effects and comment about the human condition.

11. The Original Spock's Brain - September 29, 2009

I think JJ can find someone to do it right if he can’t direct.

12. Green-Blooded-Bastard - September 29, 2009

I wouldn’t mind a Colbert cameo in the next one. A discrete one, mind you.

13. Robert - September 29, 2009

JJ reverse the timeline please.

14. Sebi - September 30, 2009


15. captain_neill - September 30, 2009

A new director will be fine with me as long as the next film feels like a Trek movie

16. Enc - September 30, 2009


bring back the classic TOS

sorry i dont think so.
that THING had nothing.

Colbert gets things named after him.


it was an alt-verse before nero showed up. we need to go back to TOS.


17. Olley Olley Olley - September 30, 2009

James Cameron hardly comes out ouf the water now a days
so it would be a sea trek , not star trek

omg remember SEA QUEST STI

18. Commander K - September 30, 2009

Nick Meyer!

19. SebiMeyer - September 30, 2009

I’d hate for the next one to sport a new look again. Keep the established look. Except the engineering section, of course.

20. That Nutty Fanboy - September 30, 2009

#16: You can. All three seasons are out on DVD, both in original states and remastered. Let the rest of the world progress. :)

21. Chris Fawkes - September 30, 2009

I think that they should consult with Chris Nolan on story. I loved the new Star Trek but it would be great if the next one was like the Dark Knight in terms of it’s character development and story telling.

That is the potential the new cast have and it would be awesome to see that realized.

22. Spockish - September 30, 2009

opps that’s claim.

23. MC1 Doug - September 30, 2009

Bryan Singer would be a great choice for Star Trek XI. We could call it Super Star X-Trekman.

Seriously though, Singer would be a great choice.

24. Happy Russia - September 30, 2009

Seriously? Let’s get a director who knows what a steady-cam is. And as for character development–if any at all–the development will be about as fleshed out as Shia LeBouf and Megan Fox were in “Transformers 2.”

Bring back Nick Meyer, bring back Harve Bennett (Before he dies, PLEASE!?) and bring back competent writers. Don’t change the look, it’s too late for that (not that it’s a bad thing). Okay, you can fix engineering. I mean, can we have an actual warp core this time, production guys?

25. CAPT KRUNCH - September 30, 2009

anyone but the SHAT!.. and please don’t tell me that if he had had the money for the rock monster at the end of the movie it would been so much better…besides the first 10 minutes, and the last 5 minutes , the rest just sucked! ..Nick Myer and Frakes are good choices, how bout Nimoy again….3 and 4 were pretty good..and wouldn’t be wild to have Myer directing a Khan movie again?!

26. Lando - September 30, 2009

Those “bring back Meyer”, “bring back Harve Bennett” shouts are just as ridiculous as “bring back Shatner”.

27. star trackie - September 30, 2009

I want to see JJ do it again. He has the vision and the quirkyness in his directing to make it visually interesting. He’s not afraid to use unconventional techniques and I love the way he moves his camera…which is very important. One of the main differences in TOS and the spin offs is the camera work. The camera in TOS was all over the place. On the bridge alone it would pan, dolly, swing left, swing right…it made it all very fluid and fun to watch.

Static shots are boring and belong on boring stilted dramas, not action/adventure stories like Star Trek.

I really hope Abrahms comes back, his style of directing was very refreshing.

28. richpit - September 30, 2009

Bring back Brannon Braga and Rick Berman! ;-)

Ok, I’m SO joking…so no flames please!

29. rogue_alice - September 30, 2009

#12 – “I wouldn’t mind a Colbert cameo in the next one. A discrete one, mind you.”

I wonder if Colbert could be discrete? But, the thought have value.

30. samrock83 - September 30, 2009

Maybe JJ is sincere about the “who will direct” issue. But hollywood actors/directors often play up their apparent ambivolence to a project in order to appear non-committal, thereby maintaining a strong negotiating position when time comes to set out their contract, and especially their salary for a much-anticipated sequel. So that could be another explanation. Sorry if someone else has already said that.

31. drew - September 30, 2009

I am praying Johanthan Frakes does NOT direct the next movie.

32. drew - September 30, 2009

*Johnathan Frakes

33. Happy Russia - September 30, 2009

@ #26 —

I wasn’t “shouting” bring back Meyer and I don’t think others “shout” it either. And I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I don’t “shout” my opinions. As both a Trekkie and a ‘fan of movies,’ I was disappointed that JJ didn’t deliver on his promise of making ‘a movie for fans of movies.’ When I say, “Bring back Meyer,” I mean it as a person who was sorely disappointed in the final product and believe that Nick Meyer–or anyone else, to be quite frank–could do a better job.

The script and direction just left so much more to desire; and I believe that’s something that I think could be fulfilled by Trek’s most successful (Not Abrams) director.

As for bringing back Shatner, which I don’t think I’ve ever vouched for, the writers would have to do something really creative in order to do that. The ideas from BringBackKirk.com bring some to mind, but nothing else really. Otherwise, bringing back Shatner is really just a pipe dream, unless that hologram scene that was written is ever green lit for a filmed scene.

34. John from Cincinnati - September 30, 2009

Fix the bridge and engineering!

35. DavidJ - September 30, 2009

I’m pretty confident JJ will be back to direct. The first movie was a HUGE success and he clearly had a great time making it, so I can’t imagine he wouldn’t want to do the same with the sequel.

Especially with all the expectations and hype that’s going to be surrounding it.

36. EFFeX - September 30, 2009

Judging from some of these comments it looks like the fans are saying the same stuff as when the new movie was first announced way back when.

Get over it everyone, we are NOT going back to old school Trek.

37. Toothless Grishnar Cat - September 30, 2009


JJ Abrams has nothing to do with the Transformers franchise.

38. dmduncan - September 30, 2009

Singer’s a ST fan. He would be good but I think he’ll also be busy on BSG.

No Meyer or Frakes, please. New blood to the franchise. Spielberg behind a great script could be a very big thing.

39. VZX - September 30, 2009

How about Chris Nolan directing Star Trek?

40. AJ - September 30, 2009

How about Roman Polanski? Oh, I forgot.

41. michaela - September 30, 2009

well,i will love to see QUENTIN TARANTINO directing ST-XII!:)I WAS KIDING!


42. I am not Herbert - September 30, 2009

Neill Blomkamp (District 9) for director!!!

District 9 is what a REAL Sci-Fi movie is like!!

Please also consider: Guillermo del Toro, Sam Raimi, Ang Lee, …

43. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - September 30, 2009



NICK MEYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

44. Pat D. - September 30, 2009

I’d take Nick Meyer in a heartbeat as the director.

He knows the characters.

45. John from Cincinnati - September 30, 2009

The tragic thing about ST:V is what it could’ve been. From Sean Connery playing Sybok to a plethora of other things. No a rock monster alone would not have saved it. But the premise was fantastic, seeking out God and finding the Devil instead. If done right, would’ve come off as one of the greatest Star Trek film’s ever! Instead, there was a poor script, poor special effects, poor acting (the Romulan Ambassador, yuuck) (Klingons sucked donkey balls)(and still no Connery) . The fact is, no one else at the studio was as excited about the story as Shatner was and I personally believe, unconsciously sabotaged the production through the casting decisions, sceenwriter decision, special effects company decision, budget decision (ST V was coming off a very highly successful ST: IV and no rational reason to reduce the budget for V)

46. Pyork (JE) - September 30, 2009

I’ll direct

47. Crusade2267 - September 30, 2009


48. Shatner_Fan_Prime - September 30, 2009

People, Paramount isn’t going to hire Nick Meyer to direct a $150 million blockbuster in 2010. (And not Frakes, either.) I love Nick, I’m itching to go buy his book, but let’s be realistic here. Number 42 listed some realistic and good suggestions. I’d take any one of those guys, and Jon Favreau as well … but he, like Raimi, is too tied up with superheroes at the moment.

49. I am not Herbert - September 30, 2009

Yes, I definitely considered Jon Favreau, and he would be great; but I wouldn’t want to take him away from Marvel, where he is kicking ass!! =)

50. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - September 30, 2009

Let’s get Chris Columbus to Direct. Or Cameren. They have great experence at directing blockbusters and I think they would be great at Trek.

51. Mark from Germany - September 30, 2009

Nimoy for director…would be great , I think

52. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - September 30, 2009

#28. One more bad joke like that and you will spend at least 12 hours in the Agoniser booth.

53. I am not Herbert - September 30, 2009

Here’s another suggestion: Andrew Stanton (WALL-E, John Carter of Mars)

…might even be cool as a PIXAR production…?

…Shatner / Nimoy as voice talent…?

54. Michael - September 30, 2009

Nimoy has stated in several interviews He’s DONE w/ directing…especially those w/ heavy FX…he just is overwhelmed with the newest technology, etc. He officially, sort, semi-retired.

55. Øystein H. Færder - September 30, 2009

Yup! JJ should direct the ST sequel. That would be most logical.

56. AJ - September 30, 2009

Man, what is all this pining for STV?

My two cents are that JJ should stick with Trek for one more stint for the sake of consistency and focus on the characters.

He can get everyone out of spacedock for their first real adventure together, and then move to producer.

I hope we get to see Admiral Pike one last time. Great version of the character.

57. ThePhaige - September 30, 2009

# 42 Im with you. I was thinking it and I saw your post.

This guy captures the gears that turn sci-fi. A great allegory Trek outing would be sweet… dealing with a great challenge in our time.

After seeing the Inglorious Basterds I almost dismissed QT as laughable when I heard hed dig doing Star Trek a while back..he also wants a crack at Bond.

58. siphunclekaiju54 - September 30, 2009

JJ should definitely direct. He has a distinct style of filmmaking that I’m not sure somebody else would capture, and I’d love to see at least two Trek movies in this style.

59. I am not Herbert - September 30, 2009

57. ThePhaige: “[Neill Blomkamp (District 9)] captures the gears that turn sci-fi. A great allegory Trek outing would be sweet… dealing with a great challenge in our time.”

YES!! I was (yet again) so very disappointed when we did not see a Nero / bin Laden analogy!

60. I am not Herbert - September 30, 2009

…in the Quentin Tarantino vein (a little too far out there IMHO):

I’ll bet Robert Rodriguez (Predators) could do a good job…

61. I am not Herbert - September 30, 2009

Hey Anthony: how ’bout a new poll: Director for Star Trek 2?

62. Anthony Pascale - September 30, 2009

One of the quandries about the director for the Trek, if not Abrams, is that who ever it is, will be pretty limited in what they can do. The script will be done, the production design will be defined, and the general look of the new universe is set. So, any big time visionary director (Nolan, Spielberg, Cameron, Ridley Scott, etc) would be unlikely to be interested. This would be much more like a TV show, where the producers and writers are in charge and the director is there to just get the job done.

63. wickedjacob - September 30, 2009

Colbert was the criminal on an order of Law and Order several years back (i forget which one, I think criminal intent). He was actually pretty good — didn’t ham or anything.

64. I am not Herbert - September 30, 2009

Well, hopefully the production design will NOT be (pre)defined, especially by what has come (directly) before.

HOPEFULLY, we will see an improvement like we did going from TMP to WOK!!!

65. Happy Russia - September 30, 2009


True, but his crackerjack writers–Orci & Kurtzman–wrote it. I rest my case.

Dumb action with robots, dumb action with starships. Abrams needs better writers.

66. dmduncan - September 30, 2009

Hey look, a new poll on best Star Trek director. I’m going to keep voting until Stuart Baird is at 90%.

67. dmduncan - September 30, 2009

@62: Of all those director’s I still think Spielberg might be a reasonable pick. He’s the most prolific so it’s not like this will be one of those carefully considered potential gems someone like Cameron might deliberate over for eons before adding it to the slim list of films he’s made, and he likes to make fun stuff, and this new universe is so youthful and enjoyable that it might be an attractive job.

Spielberg is in a class by himself in so many different ways that I don’t think it’s a ridiculous idea he might want to direct IF it’s a good story and he were presented with it. Spielberg just naturally has the kind of attitude that Star Trek needs.

Guillermo Del Toro is cool. Ang Lee? Nah. Gore Verbinski might be a good one.

I can’t see Ridley Scott doing it. I love his work, but it’s all of one taste, which is not Star Trek-like.

68. dmduncan - September 30, 2009

Hey Anthony, if you get the opportunity to do so it would be cool to ask Spielberg a hypothetical question, such as if he was presented with a really good Star Trek sequel script, would he consider directing?

69. Ran - September 30, 2009

Regardless of the director, the script is going to be the Achilles’ heel of the new movie.

70. Enc - September 30, 2009


Thats not entierly acurate
didnt they say …

IIRC back when this movie came out and some of us complained or commented about the non TOS look. and not having reset the issue at the end of the story.

the reason were given was that the writers left it open on purpose. giveing the next team the chance to make that choice for themselves. reset or return or just make it pure TOS whatever vs stay in the JJ-verse.
although i think its a stupid move.

I dont think the next team would go back to TOS . theyd simply THINK that this new hit movie. this star trek. Is what people want to see. theyd then set out to try and keep a good thing going. not even knowing the choice was there in the first place.

71. Dom - October 1, 2009

Ken Olin would seem to be a potential choice. He worked with Abrams on Alias and his style was almost indistinguishable from Abrams’ own. Actually, I think his work on Alias was, if anything, superior to Abrams’!

72. captain_neill - October 1, 2009

If Abrams directs again, I want him to slow down on the pacing just a tad and to cut out a lot of those lens flares.

I like a fast paced film as much as the next guy but I like to have some great drama and character oments in between the action as well. Its all about dfinding the right balance, First Contact had an excellent balance of fast paced action and great character moments, like the scenes between Data and the Borg Queen.

73. Anthony Thompson - October 1, 2009

I say, give Stuart Baird another shot at it!

74. Anthony Thompson - October 1, 2009


Hey, what’s up with JJ at 14% and Meyer at 58%? C’mon folks, get real! Meyer was a B-level director. He was hired because he was cheap! Has he done anything since Trek? That should tell you something.

75. captain_neill - October 1, 2009


He is better than Abrams when it comes to a Trek movie

76. Happy Russia - October 1, 2009


Hear, hear!

Sorry to disappoint JJ’s brown-noses, but yeah, Meyer is um…what’s the word? Oh, yeah, BETTER.

77. Crusade2267 - October 1, 2009

How is Stuart Baird doing better in the poll than David Carson? Generations at least looked like Star Trek. Poorly lit Star Trek, but at least he knew why Data needed to have a cat.

78. captain_neill - October 1, 2009

Meyer had to work with a small budget, give him the budget thant Mr Abrams had and he would do a great movie.

I think Frakes and Nimoy are excellent directors as well.

79. COMMANDER KEEN - October 1, 2009

I have a solution to the directing problem: Don’t make a new movie! Just end Star Trek now and forget it. After listening to all the varying opinions opinions here it is impossible to make everyone happy with any movie or any director. So, to save the studios and fans money just don’t make another movie. Star Trek is dead. Let it rest in peach.


Trust that JJ will chose a good director and enjoy the movie that results out of it and stop whining. If you didn’t like ST9, well there’s all those DVDs and BR of TOS and TNG to entertain you. Save your money and stay home.

80. CarlG - October 1, 2009

@16: I know zombies are popular at the moment, but I don’t think DeForest Kelley and James Doohan would appreciate the interruption.

That horse you keep beating is not just dead, but well and truly decomposed. Give the poor thing a break.

81. CarlG - October 1, 2009

How about Martin Campbell to direct the next Trek?

It’d be more fun if we could pick from any director in history, though. Think about it: Hitchcock Trek? Cecil B deMille Trek (with a cast of thousands!)?

The mind boggles.

82. Closettrekker - October 1, 2009

#78—“Meyer had to work with a small budget, give him the budget that Mr Abrams had and he would do a great movie.”

I think if that were true, Meyer would have alot more directing credit to his name than a couple of B-level Trek films and some made for tv stuff.

I like Nick Meyer, but I like him for what he is…a very good B-movie director. Give him that kind of budget, and realistically, he’s probably way in over his head.

But that’s not a slight…IMO, there is no shame in being the director of what is in my mind perhaps the greatest B-movie of all time.

83. captain_neill - October 1, 2009

I know TWOK had a small budget but I never consider it a B Movie, I consider a major blockbuster that had a smaller budget.

Meyer is a great writer, his novel The Seven Per Cent Solution is awesome and the way he crafted the story for TWOK was much more rounded than what the writers did in this new movie.

I love the new movie but its plot is wafer thin compared to TWOK.

82 Do you know this for a fact?

84. captain_neill - October 1, 2009

Personally I don’t think JJ Abrams is a great director.

He is a good director and made a good fun film. He made a Trek film which appeals to the ADD generation as well. One thing I hope he loses next time as I said in an earlier post he should slowe the pacing down just a tad so we can have some great character moments in between the action moments.

Yes I think Meyer is better. I am a fan of Frakes as a director.

The director of the highest esteem on Trek is Robert Wise, he had directed The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Sound of Music, Andromeda Strain, West Side Story, he was a legendary director.

I seem to be in the minority who thinks that JJ Abrams is just over rated, he is good but he is not the second coming, Trek can survive without him, it had before he set his mark.

85. captain_neill - October 1, 2009

In fact I am pissed off that even Meyer is getting slack on this site now.

86. CarlG - October 1, 2009

Michael Bay for the next Trek movie!

“Michael Bay presents…. Trek-SPLOSIONS!!!”

87. Happy Russia - October 1, 2009


Completely agree on the Abrams matter. What gets me are the people who actually *act* like he’s the second coming and have his shit on their noses, they’re so far up his ass.

He’s a *good* director. MI3 was good, popcorn fun. His tv shows are enjoyable. Which is what his Trek was, fun and enjoyable. But by no means was it excellent or even great. There’s a difference between a movie being good and a movie being fun. They sometimes don’t go hand-in-hand.

88. I am not Herbert - October 1, 2009

82. Closettrekker: “I like Nick Meyer, but I like him for what he is…a very good B-movie director. Give him that kind of budget, and realistically, he’s probably way in over his head.”

“But that’s not a slight…IMO, there is no shame in being the director of what is in my mind perhaps the greatest B-movie of all time.”

NO SHAME?!! B-MOVIE?!! You really DO live in your own little reality…


If you can deny WOK, you can deny anything (as we have all seen…) =(

89. Closettrekker - October 1, 2009


Deny TWOK?

Please…It is my favorite B-movie of all time. How is that a “denial”?

There is nothing wrong with “B-movies”.

90. Closettrekker - October 1, 2009

#84—“Personally I don’t think JJ Abrams is a great director.”

I don’t think he’s done anything to warrant being called a “great” director either.

But with that said, neither has Meyer, despite being many years his senior. He is a much more accomplished writer than director, just as Abrams is a much more accomplished television writer/producer than *he* is as a director, although I think he did a wonderful job on ST09.
Meyer was hired to co-write/direct Trek because he was willing to work cheap and within a small budget. He was a classic “grinder” who was, at least in 1982, willing to play the game. Given what he had, he also did a wonderful job.

Abrams came with a huge price-tag and was hired because he is one of Hollywood’s hottest commodities. While he isn’t an “A-list director”, per se, he certainly is an “A-list Hollywood figure”, something Trek hasn’t had in the director’s chair since Robert Wise.

The difference is that Star Trek will probably not be the pinnacle of Abrams’ career, while with Meyer, that’s about it as far as a feature film career. Once again, as a director, his work is mainly on made-for-tv movies, mini-series, etc.

Again, I like Meyer. In fact, I’m very much looking forward to the upcoming Scorcese (now THAT is a director) film adaptation of the Teddy Roosevelt biography by Edmund Morris, which Meyer helped adapt into a screenplay.

But once again, that is where Meyer truly excels…as a writer, whether it is his own original work or adapting another’s to a screenplay.

He did a fine job on TWOK. I’ve seen it a thousand times and will probably see it at least a hundred more.

As for what qualifies as a “B-Movie”, that may be subjective, but IMO, there have only been two ST films that were not….TMP and ST09.

“B-Movie” or not, that has nothing to do with which one I’d rather watch. As much as I love TMP, I’d rather watch TWOK on most days. That’s why I say it’s not a slight.

As for what constitutes a “blockbuster”, that’s also subjective, but I feel that in 1982, that would be a film that grosses $100 million or more.

“An Officer And A Gentleman”, “Tootsie”, “E.T.”…Those are 1982 “blockbusters”.

91. I am not Herbert - October 1, 2009

If you think WOK is a B-movie, then you don’t know what a B-movie is, nor do you appreciate what is arguably one of the best BLOCKBUSTER Sci-Fi movies ever!

92. Closettrekker - October 1, 2009


My application of the term “B-Movie” is not in the 1950’s monster movie sense, but to those films with lower budgets, particularly in genres of science fiction, westerns, etc. Compared to even the inflation-adjusted budgets of TMP and ST09, TWOK (and the other 8 Star Trek films for that matter) are decidely much lower budget projects.
I *do* consider TWOK a B-Movie, as I consider all but two of the Star Trek films that have been released since 1979.

Now, a B-Movie can also be a “blockbuster”, as in the case of TVH, which grossed over $30 million more than TWOK just 4 years later.

TWOK was not a “blockbuster”, IMO. In fact, it came just a bit more than $21 million shy of what I would consider to have been a “blockbuster” in 1982.

Once again, “E.T.”, “An Officer And A Gentleman”, “Rocky III”, and “Tootsie” did qualify as “blockbuster” films released in 1982…having each grossed well over $100 million, what I think is a fair mark for what constituted a blockbuster in 1982.

TWOK’s box-office take was comparable to “Poltergeist” in that year, yet another film that was NOT a blockbuster. Neither film even broke $80 million in domestic box office.

And being rude about your difference of opinion does nothing to make your argument any more substantial. TWOK only grossed about $79 million. To call that a “blockbuster” in 1982 is demonstrative of some pretty low standards for that classification.

93. I am not Herbert - October 1, 2009

Granted, blockbuster is debatable, but B-movie it is not.

(B-movie: A low-budget motion picture, especially one with poor production values)

94. I am not Herbert - October 1, 2009

So, anyway, it seems to me that the story for Star Trek 2 is a no-brainer:

It’s going to have to be Space Seed revisited: TWOK prequel …

…in the JJ-verse, the Enterprise discovers the Botany Bay a little earlier…

…or maybe: …on their way back from the JJ-verse…

95. dmduncan - October 1, 2009

It’s interesting when you find Star Trek fans who are about as forward thinking and open to new ideas as a crusty clump of barnacles.

96. Shatner_Fan_Prime - October 1, 2009

#93 … TWOK was a low budget movie, as Closet already pointed out. Total B movie. And absolutely awesome.

97. Closettrekker - October 1, 2009

#93—-I don’t think the more modern, broader application of the term “B-Movie” has to refer to poor production values. It may refer to a combination of a lower budget and some obvious plot holes, ridiculous coincidences, and/or a series of unlikely scenarios that move the story along, which I think is the case with TWOK (as well as the “blockbuster” ST09).

I think there are three basic classifications in modern film in this regard.

1)A-Movies, which have “blockbuster” type potential, or at least expectations, usually due to the finacial committment and the type of known talent hired to work on them

2)B-Movies, which have expectations more comensurate with their budgets and talent appropriation by the studio

3)Straight-to-dvd/video Movies, which are obviously subpar productions in level of committment, expectations, and usually the resulting product

My application of the term “B-Movie” was not pejorative. I have nothing but affinity for TWOK, and simply acknowledging that it is a relatively low-budget production is not the same thing as lacking appreciation for it. All that it means is that TWOK is a different kind of film from its immediate predecessor and the latest entry to the film series, both of which had the benefit of first class budget and production. You can prefer one over the other, but they were never on equal ground.

In fact, I happen to believe that TWOK actually benefitted from its restricted budget, which forced the story far more inward to a point where it was really centered around close interaction between the characters. I think that the focus on character interaction allows the casual viewer to overlook some of its flaws.

98. I am not Herbert - October 1, 2009

95. dmduncan: “It’s interesting when you find Star Trek fans who are about as forward thinking and open to new ideas as a crusty clump of barnacles.”

What’s YOUR forward thinking new idea?

…I’d like to THINK I’m open minded…

99. I am not Herbert - October 1, 2009

96. Shatner_Fan_Prime: “TWOK was a low budget movie, as Closet already pointed out. Total B movie.”

I think one could say LOWER budget, but NOT LOW budget.

“And absolutely awesome.” AGREED!!! =D

100. Closettrekker - October 1, 2009

In any case, neither Meyer nor Abrams will ever have a fraction of the resume compiled by Robert Wise, and while TWOK (as much as I love it) tends to be a bit overrated as a film, so too is TMP underrated, IMO.

While who did the best job directing a Star Trek film may be debatable, I don’t think there is any legitimate cause for debate as to who is the greatest director to ever sit in the big chair on a Star Trek production….that’s Mr. Wise…without a doubt.

And it is probably no coincidence that my four favorite Trek films are those directed by those three individuals and Leonard Nimoy. I don’t think any of the 7 other films (4 other directors) comes close.

TSFS (Nimoy)—decent
TFF (Shatner)—awful
TUC (Meyer)—decent
GEN (Carson)—awful
FC (Frakes)—okay
INS (Frakes)—bad
NEM (Baird)—awful

101. Closettrekker - October 1, 2009

#96—“Total B movie. And absolutely awesome.”

100% agreed.

102. I am not Herbert - October 1, 2009

I have to AGREE with you here! (WTF?)

Robert Wise / TMP ARE underrated, and GREAT!


103. Closettrekker - October 1, 2009

#102—I make time to view Wise’s Director’s Edition at least 3-4 times a year. I’ll never understand why it gets so little love. It sucks me in every time.

104. dmduncan - October 1, 2009

@103: Oh I love TMP. Whenever I’m having trouble sleeping, I just pop that baby in and BAM! Lights out.

105. Enc - October 1, 2009


dead is a relative term. perople are are always remaking something or other. some time we like it. others, not.

dont woryy about our money. we’ll just continue to spend it on othe rgenre material.

now lets try this argument.
not everyone was happy with TNG when it came out. spitting out 2 factions of fans.

106. Anthony Thompson - October 1, 2009

102 and 103.

I call TMP the “bad vibes movie”. No one wants to be there except for Kirk. No one is *happy* to be on board, INCLUDING Kirk! So much for the joyous reunion that I and so many fans were expecting! That film is deadly!

107. captain_neill - October 2, 2009

87 agreed

JJ Abrams is not that great to be honest, to parphrase Data, his shows are “Nothing to write home about”

They just get a lot more media coverage for som strange reason where as better shows get very little coverage.

Just my opinion, I think he is good but he seems a bit full of himself in my opinion

108. captain_neill - October 2, 2009

sorry if my opinion is negative but I just dont think he is that amazing.

and to see him as number 17 in top collest things of this year in a magazine. There are many better writers and to me Manny Coto, Ron Moore are among them

109. Closettrekker - October 2, 2009

#106—-I don’t get those vibes exactly.

To me, it’s more than they are uncomfortable, and I think that is played quite realistically. In many ways, I feel that the 10 years that the actors spent away from working on Star Trek actually helps convey the state of the characters on screen.

They have been off leading separate lives for 2.5 years, and none of them have found their lives very fulfilling in that time….Kirk in the Admiralty, Spock on a quasi-religious journey on Vulcan, and McCoy in retirement.

Like V’Ger, the “Big Three” are searching for their places in the Universe (even if that quest isn’t plainly obvious to them). By the end of the film, these characters have recognized that they never should have left the Enterprise (or each other) to begin with, and that no other life journey will ever be as fulfilling.

Nowhere is it nearly as poignant as it is with my favorite Star Trek character—-Spock. By the end of his journey, Spock realizes that he has been chasing the wrong thing, that logic is not the end-all-be-all of him. Whereas in TOS, we see a Spock who, although we know his emotions are there, is almost ashamed of his half-human heritage, and goes to great lengths much of the time to pretend that he does not feel. He views his own human heritage as a weakness. By the conclusion of the V’Ger incident, he has embraced who he really is, and from that point forward, it is a very different Spock—one who is, for the first time, comfortable in his own skin, and confident that his human blood is not a weakness, and that his individuality is actually a source of strength.

I felt similarly toward it when I first saw it as a kid, but I think that, given the circumstances, it shouldn’t have been a “joyous reunion” (which would have been completely unrealistic and empty, IMO)….and the story which is actually presented is one that has much more meaning than that. It felt real to me by the time I revisited it as an adult, and still does to this day.

110. Closettrekker - October 2, 2009

#107 and 108—-I think he is very talented. I loved his screenplay for “Regarding Henry”, which was the first work I ever saw of his. I loved the pilot episode of “Lost” (and really the entire first season, which was the point in that series where he actually worked very intimately with Lindelof).

I never saw “Alias” (although the consensus seems to be that his work on the show—once again, in the first season—was quite good) or “Felicity”.

I wasn’t really a fan of the MI movies, but his installment was certainly the better of the three. And of course, I enjoyed his work on Trek too.

“Amazing” is probably a term too easily thrown around, but I enjoy his work, and his success and recent recognition is deserved.

I think he has a great career ahead of him. He is still a very young man.

Nothing against Manny Coto (whose work on the final season of ENT I admire very much) or Ron Moore (who wrote the only episode of TNG I ever bother to stop and revisit), but I don’t think they are in his league, especially when it comes to making a product that alot of people want to see.

111. captain_neill - October 2, 2009

but they are better writers, Abrams is a success more so because of his name.

112. captain_neill - October 2, 2009

sorry he did a good film

just hate the notion of the opinion that Abrams can do no wrong.

Even the directors and writers that I am fans of have done stuff that was not great.

I am a huge Tim Burton fan but I admit he had a misfire with Planet of the Apes

113. dmduncan - October 2, 2009

If you are a great athlete, that doesn’t mean every one of your games is going to be great.

Evaluating JJ as a film director, he’s only made two movies. TWO. So it’s kind of early to be calling him a great director. What I can say, however, is that with ST.09 he made a great film. He may, like Spielberg, go on to make many great films, or his future career in movies may be more misses than hits. But I know what I saw in ST.09 and I don’t have to wait for another ten years to see what else he’s going to do and how he’s going to do it to issue my opinion on the Star Trek he made. That money is safe in the bank.

It was good enough that people who were never interested in Star Trek are looking at what came before because of this new movie.

114. Closettrekker - October 3, 2009

#111—-“but they (Coto and Moore) are better writers, Abrams is a success more so because of his name.”

Abrams has been twice nominated (2002 and 2005) for Emmy Awards as a writer, on two different television series (“Alias” and “Lost”).

He also wrote very good screenplays (which received alot more praise than the actual films did) in “Regarding Henry” and “Forever Young”.

He has also won an Emmy for directing (2005), and another for production (2005), as well as a Golden Globe Award in 2006 and another nomination in 2007.

Abrams’ “name” was earned by his talent—-and that talent has been recognized by both his peers and those who keep a close eye on the industry.

You may been a bigger fan of Mr. Coto and Mr. Moore (who, in fairness, has also been twice nominated for Emmys in the writing category), but it is one thing for you to say that you “like their writing better”, and quite another for you to make a blanket declaration that they are “better writers”.

I’m sorry, but there is very little to support that notion.

#112—“just hate the notion of the opinion that Abrams can do no wrong.”

Where does that notion even exist?

115. I am not Herbert - October 3, 2009

#112—”just hate the notion of the opinion that Abrams can do no wrong.”

#114 “Where does that notion even exist?”

I have to agree that there DO seem to be some JJ sycophants around here…

(sycophant: a servile flatterer, i.e. bootlicker)

116. dmduncan - October 3, 2009

@115: Yeah, just as there seem to be more than a few people who wear a Nicholas Meyer ASS hat pulled down to their upper lip.

117. denny cranium - October 4, 2009

to 97 ClosetTrekker
Re TWOK not being a blockbuster? I don’t know if that is true.
It was very PROFITABLE for Par as it only cost (I think) $16m to produce.
So in terms of profit margin it was arguably a blockbuster.
I remember the buzz about the movie at the time was fantastic
There were all ages there and established and new fans.
Nick Meyer did a fabulous job directing.
We got fantastic acting from the main characters.
It was the best script any Trek movie had in the Prime Universe.
Harve Bennett brought Star Trek out of the ashes in1982 with a fresh approach using the chops and skills he developed in making TV episodes.
I think JJ did the same thing. Took his TV background and brought Star Trek out of the ashes yet another time. God Bless him for that.

I am pleased that he and alex and bob are at the helm for the next one.
Does he need to direct? I’m not sure……but I’m all for him directing if he responds to this script the way he did for his first trek.

Right now JJ is the new great bird of the galaxy. Let him run with it,
He has the right guys with him.

118. braxus - October 5, 2009

I’d like to see what Spielberg or Cameron could do with Star Trek. This kind of movie is right up Spielberg’s alley and he would have the vision and ideas to make it work. And he know’s how to make a good movie with what he’s given.

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