Abrams: Next Star Trek Needs To Be ‘Most Meaningful’ – But Not Called ‘Star Trek 2′ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams: Next Star Trek Needs To Be ‘Most Meaningful’ – But Not Called ‘Star Trek 2′ October 23, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Celebrity,ST09 Cast,Star Trek (2009 film),Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman recently said they have more time to hand in their Star Trek sequel, so things are still in that deep thinking stage. In a new interview, producer JJ Abrams talked about what direction he sees the next Trek is going, and how he wants it to be ‘deeper’. JJ also talked about what to call the sequel. Details below plus photos of Abrams presenting an award to Zoe Saldana.

 

Going Deeper & Meaningful
As recently reported, the Star Trek team have more time now to work out the sequel to this year’s hit movie, with the script now to be done in eight months. So they are still at the ‘broad strokes’ stage. In a phone interview with MTV, JJ Abrams noted that the first film was to "bring the family together", and act as a "bridge between what came before and the star trek of now." Regarding the sequel, Abrams stated:

The second one has an obligation to go deeper and maintain the fun and adventure in the sense of optimism and scale that ['Trek' originator Gene] Roddenberry created. But I do think it has to evolve and not become some polemic over-the-top, on-the-nose allegory. It needs to be something that is not just about the characters meeting each other and having their first adventure; it needs to be about having their most meaningful one.

You can listen to Abrams below.

MTV Shows

Not ‘Star Trek 2′
Although some in the media have started referring to the sequel as ‘Star Trek 2′, Abrams told MTV that is not the plan noting "I think we can’t really do that, right?". Of course there already has been Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, so that seems like a no-brainer. Back in June Abrams noted "it would have a subtitle instead of a number" which is why TrekMovie sometime refers to the sequel as Star Trek: Something Something. An alternative would be to not have Star Trek in the title at all (like ‘The Dark Knight‘).

JJ hands Zoe ELLE Award
In other JJ Star Trek news, on Monday Abrams presented Zoe Saldana (the new Uhura) with the Calvin Klein Collection Spotlight Award at the 16th Annual ELLE Women in Hollywood Tribute. Here are some pics from the event.


JJ presents his Uhura


Zoe gives her acceptance speech

By the way, Alec Baldwin hosted the event and EOnline reports the actor’s jokes led the "laugh-filled" event. When it came to Zoe, here is what Baldwin quipped:

In the movie she actually chooses Mr. Spock over Captain Kirk.

That’s probably the main reason,” he continued, “she was named woman of the year by the Society of Grown Men Who Still Live in Their Parents’ Basements


Zoe and Alec

JJ on Hemsworth
Finally, a separate article on MTV has comments from JJ Abrams on Chris Hemsworth, who played George Kirk Sr. in the dramatic opening sequence of Star Trek. The young Australian actor is now headed to the big time, starring in the upcoming Thor movie. Abrams talked about Hemsworth’s career and even his hair, noting:

He’s so crazy handsome and he’s so strapping with the classic leading man look. I sort of wish I had dirtied him up a little bit, messed his hair up a little bit.


Hemsworth in Star Trek

 

Photos: Wire Image

 

Comments

1. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 23, 2009

I like what J.J is thinking and if they can make it meaningfull it would be great. I also hope they can have Kirks mom on there a little more and maybe even see some flash backs of Kirks Dad as well. Chris would do a great job again as he did on Trek 2009

2. Syn4Ever - October 23, 2009

Im just waiting for the 6 months leading up to the new movies release when actual details start to come out

3. DGill - October 23, 2009

“He’s so crazy handsome and he’s so strapping with the classic leading man look. I sort of wish I had dirtied him up a little bit, messed his hair up a little bit.”

Why would he want to dirty him up? LOL

4. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 23, 2009

Wow. Zoe is so Beautifull. She is much hotter then Megan Fox. But that’s my opnion. Any one Concur with me on that. Oh and Alec. I do not live in my parents basement. I live in the Attic. Lol.

5. Commander Crooner - October 23, 2009

Zoe is hot, although she needs to eat a sandwich! I think I picked my teeth with her sister after lunch today…

And On Topic… Star Trek: Something Something definitely needs to be the penultimate adventure for the crew, really unite them as truly a family and not just a bunch of folks who wind up on a ship together! I enjoyed the first movie, but now lets see some bonding!

Oh, and lots more bones! Karl was great!

6. Anthony Pascale - October 23, 2009

does everyone want more Bones? I added a poll for who you all want to get more screen time in the sequel, if anyone.

7. Hat Rick - October 23, 2009

Verily, I say, Star Trek rocketh.

8. Ian - October 23, 2009

I loved the mix of this new Trek, and would love to see the same mix again, but with a little more Bones! He was greatly underused!

9. Gary - October 23, 2009

They tried not using the title Star Trek with the Enterprise series. That didn’t work out very well. I think Star Trek needs to be in the title. Can you imagine George Lucas creating a Star Wars movie and not using Star Wars in the title?

10. That One Guy - October 23, 2009

6,
Voted “McCoy” on the poll. He was definitely underused in this one. I didn’t like how he showed up on the bridge in the final scene and didn’t even have a line. Maybe a bit more Chekov or Sulu, too. Chekov was perhaps the most underused character in all television history.

11. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 23, 2009

Yes. We need more Bones and not just him. But the big 3. Kirk,Spock and Mccoy. Have all 3 as that’s what we had nin all the Movies and Series. keep Star Trek in the Tittle. Hey Anthony. Can you have another poll about keeping Star Trek in the main Tittle.

12. Kent Butabi - October 23, 2009

Gotta have Star Trek in the title, and gotta have more Bones.

13. Hat Rick - October 23, 2009

I think we all have to take delight in how deep the bench is in this new generation of Trek cinematic stars. This takes nothing away from Shatner, Nimoy, or Stewart at their equivalent stage of development, but this group is the most telegenic, interesting and promising troupe of actors yet. And so young, to boot!

14. Anthony Pascale - October 23, 2009

Can you imagine if they made Batman movie and didn’t put Batman in the title, that would be a disaster

oh wait
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkknight.htm

or how about a James Bond movie, surely you need to put James Bond in the title!

oh, right
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm

Here is how I look at it. The TOS movies had numbers, the TNG movies had subtitles, lets have the JJ era have its own form, with the first simply ‘star trek’ and the rest with ‘trekkian’ names, but no ‘star trek’

15. Hat Rick - October 23, 2009

I might say that even Winona Ryder’s star was polished by association with this newest production. I’d like to see more involvement on her part as the years go on in flashbacks of Spock’s early life. It helps make the whole enterprise more dimensional.

Might I also say that the next movie should have more of a women’s presence overall. Trek is action and adventure, yes, but it is also about the full expanse of human experience, and what, after all, would that experience be without the distaff side?

Even TMP had its Ilia.

16. Ran - October 23, 2009

“The second one has an obligation to go deeper…”

Does it mean new screenwriters?

17. THX-1138 - October 23, 2009

I still say the last one was 11. The next one will be 12. You can keep Star Trek in the title or not. But I like the consistency of following the numbers. Sort of like all the movies actually came from something of the same place.

Even though this new movie is Other Trek.

18. Janice - October 23, 2009

Definitely gotta have more Bones, including Bones and Spock arguing/teasing each other with Kirk caught in the middle..always loved those scenes.

Hemsworth was great in Star Trek. I was blown away by his performance. Dare I say, his was the most emotionally charged, gripping, intense and most memorable of the whole movie.

I agree with Hat Rick #15 – would love to see more Amanda/Winona in flash back scenes in the next movie.

19. Admiral Archer's Prized Beagle - October 23, 2009

Personally I’d prefer to keep Star Trek in the title. They’ve already tried keeping it out when Enterprise first arrived on the scene.

I definitely voted for more Bones, that was the lone complaint I had about the movie, not enough Bones! Star Trek for me wasn’t just the Kirk/Spock relationship, but all three.

20. GarySeven - October 23, 2009

BONES
NEED MORE BONES

21. That One Guy - October 23, 2009

19,
“Enterprise” failed for a variety of reasons, least of all being its name change from Star Trek: Enterprise to Enterprise. It was an already-dying show on a dying network. It also failed because of Trek Overload. There had been series after series after series, plus all the movies. People simply stopped caring.

The next movie should simply be named “Tranya.”

22. CmdrR - October 23, 2009

THANK YOU. Yes, please include brain chow, along with the eye candy.

As for a title, mine some Bard. But, wait until you have enough of a script to find what you need.

23. S. John Ross - October 23, 2009

Title it whatever. Avoiding the number question seems reasonable to me.

And yes, give Bones some real story this time. While you’re at it, give Kirk some real story this time. While you’re at it, give Spock some real story this time, and the rest of the crew, too.

What’s he pointing at?

24. nonymoose - October 23, 2009

There should be *something* about Star Trek “XII” in the title. Then they can cash in on a possible 12/12/2012 release date.

25. Gustavo Valente - October 23, 2009

More Bones!!!!! I want to see more of Kirk/Spock/Bones relationship!!!!

Uhura is plain beautiful…but she had her time in the first one….let Bones shine now!!

More Kirk/Spock/McCoy moments please!!!

26. G - October 23, 2009

How about Star Trek 2.1? You know, kind of like a firmware upgrade? (“reboot”?) LOL

27. T'Cal - October 23, 2009

I’ve said this all along: JJA can’t go wrong by emulating what Nolan did with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. First introduce the characters by way of a solid origin story. Then move on to a complex, deep tale making sure to market the hell out of the sequel. JJA is on the right track to creating a 4 star sequel to a 3+ star first film.

28. T'Cal - October 23, 2009

24. nonymoose – October 23, 2009

There should be *something* about Star Trek “XII” in the title. Then they can cash in on a possible 12/12/2012 release date.

Genius! I can hear it now:
See the history of the future on the 12th day of the 12th month of the 12th year in the 12th Star Trek film…before the world ends on 12/21/12.

29. Scruffy the Janitor - October 23, 2009

Are you there Orci, it’s me Margaret.

Instead of Jack Black, how about SIgorney Weaver as a really cool adversary but not quite villain. No Xenomorphs or Voyager look alike aliens though.

30. Bren - October 23, 2009

I vote for “Star Trek 12: So Very, Very Tired”. Bring back the surviving cast members and fast forward to the end of the crew’s tenure. Then we can have Kirk say “Again with the Klingons…” and so forth.

31. dmduncan - October 23, 2009

On naming the sequel:

I think they should just call it Star Trek and then tag the year and month of release on the end as a play on the stardate theme so, for instance if it came out in July of 2012 it would be:

Star Trek 2012.7

32. devon - October 23, 2009

Keep Trek in the title! Love Bones ( Karl Urban ) stole the show, but so did De Kelley in the Original Series! Give nice moments to all the characters or why bother including them at all? I always loved the special Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, Scotty moments in the series and movies : Sulu in trek 3 “And don’t call me Tiny!” . Uhura in Trek 3 “You want adventure, get in the closet!”. Chekov in Trek 4 “Can you tell me where to find the Nuclear wessels!” or Scotty in Trek 3 “Aye, and if your Grandma had wheels she be a wagon” & “Up your shaft! ” to the excelsior computer! It’s not just about the big 3, Gene had always intended Original Trek to be more of an ensemble show like its progeny/spin-off shows! The Trinity is great @ the core, but more varied & meaningful relationships are needed to sustain something long term, for instance the Spock/Uhura romance for starters! I’d also like to see Rand, Chapel, and a tie in to animated trek with Cool alien characters M’Ress and Arex ( with prosthetics and CGI today, the sky’s the limit on this stuff!!!) It would be a nice homage to animated Trek to solidify its place in Trek canon once and for all!

33. sensor ghost - October 23, 2009

What I want to see the most is more McCoy screentime. My only real problem with this first one is that it seemed to focus primarily on Kirk, Spock and Uhura and not so much the real Trek trinity of Kirk, Spock and Bones.

34. Adam C - October 23, 2009

Thought to myself what story would I do for Star Trek XII.

* Backstory on the aftermath of the Nero attack on the Klingons

New crazy brutal Klingons (frenzied from the Nero attack) Blood lust for the Federation. Highly charged catastrophic emotional stakes Klingons pillaging federation planet (possibly klingons suicidal on the federation fleet inflicting massive damage) caused tons of personal vendetta Kirk has to hates Klingons. etc etc (god I can picture it now)

Cant think of anything else :) so much interest in the new Klingons

35. somethoughts - October 23, 2009

I don’t mind a new star trek movie without the words star trek.

I can see them just calling it, 2259: Where no one(man) has gone before.

36. tim - October 23, 2009

i hate to say this but they could put these guys right into a tv series start trek the chemistry was there!!! And karl hit bones on the nose he was perfect for the character!

37. Pete359 - October 23, 2009

“He’s so crazy handsome and he’s so strapping with the classic leading man look. I sort of wish I had dirtied him up a little bit, messed his hair up a little bit.”

Gay.

38. Driver - October 23, 2009

Three years will have passed -our time- and they’re just having their first adventure after the last film? Call it “Did Ja’ Miss Us?”

39. John from Cincinnati - October 23, 2009

What’s wrong with the title “Star Trek: Guardian of Forever”?

40. Valar1 - October 23, 2009

I say the go with the title ” TO BOLDLY GO” . Any time you say that people instantly think Trek

41. John Cooley - October 23, 2009

The film should a title, “STAR TREK” and a subtitle.

The actual film should open with a teaser, the bit at the begining of every episode of the original and then the title card. Wait…just like the new movie!!! But then as the main title card fades out and as the movie fades in, the subtitle or “episode title” should come on the screen.

John

42. John Cooley - October 23, 2009

That should have read “The film should HAVE a title…”. Sorry. Going to bed.

John

43. Schultz - October 23, 2009

So Megan Fox just won another “sexiest woman” award or something. Meh. We’ve got Zoe! :)

Uhura and McCoy need bigger roles in the next film. And I want one or two cameos, something like Adm. Archer & T’Pol!! I want! I want! I want! ;)

44. Iowagirl - October 23, 2009

#3
I suppose it would have made him more…organic. :))

45. Buzz Cagney - October 24, 2009

I’d also like to see Hemsworth back. There would be so much potential in getting him and Jim together. But how do you do that? Organically I guess?! lol

46. Tomislav Bukovac - October 24, 2009

It is hard for me to believe Spock is so emotional, Now look more Romulan like than Vulcan. OK, his homeworld got destroyed, his mother died in the incident, but, it’s not inate for him to be like that.
Kirk turned out great. Rest of the crew was litttle bit in background…
It would be nice to give them chance to be more upfront.

47. DonDonP1 - October 24, 2009

I will have to agree with John Cooley: The 12th “Star Trek” motion picture should include “Star Trek” in the film’s title as well as the subtitle for the 12th “Star Trek” motion picture.

48. CarlG - October 24, 2009

@37: And the award for most immature post in this thread goes to…..

49. Bren - October 24, 2009

Star Trek XII: So Very, Very Tired

50. Lando - October 24, 2009

“39. John from Cincinnati – October 23, 2009
What’s wrong with the title “Star Trek: Guardian of Forever”?”

The fact that Harlan Ellison would start to sue the shit out of everyone involved in the production, including the cable puller and his two nephews.

51. Lando - October 24, 2009

The next movie must have a giant spider in the third act. Because spiders are the fiercest killers in the insect kingdom.

They already had a crab thing in the last movie. Jon Peters would be proud.

52. Nomad - October 24, 2009

50: Lando: Careful, I think he’s about to sue you now. Oops! And me.

53. Nomad - October 24, 2009

To me the fascination of the original series was in dealing with unknowns. We’ve only had that twice in the movies so far (I and V) – arguably two of the weakest ones but not for that reason. I’m tired of hearing all the PC stuff about how Starfleet is a peacekeeping force – Star Trek used to at least aspire to be about exploration. That’s what I’d like to see.
It’s problematic, of course, because if they find a culture less developed they’re obliged to leave it alone rather than exploit it, which historically is the raison d’etre for most exploration.

54. Dom - October 24, 2009

32. devon: ‘It’s not just about the big 3, Gene had always intended Original Trek to be more of an ensemble show like its progeny/spin-off shows!’

That’s just revisionist propaganda put out years after the events. TOS was a star-vehicle (pun!) show and ensemble TV shows were far from the norm back then. While other characters might have had the odd episode built on their character (Wolf in the Fold being an example) they were still just supporting characters.

If they could avoid a fight with the PC brigade, ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before’ would be the perfect title for the new era’s Star Trek 2. It’s arguably the most famous quote from the show and even links back to the second pilot.

55. ChristopherPike - October 24, 2009

39: Star Trek – Guardian of Forever might not be such a problem now.

So long as Harlan Ellison is paid whatever he asks for its usage.

I wouldn’t mind jumping through that hoop to erase Nero from ever having existed.

56. C.S. Lewis - October 24, 2009

Star Trek was a series of episodes. Each episode had its own name, sans colon. The opening credits say “Star Trek”. The title of the episode is shown during the first few seconds of the first scene. I believe this is true for all the spin-offs as well.

Why not do the same for any follow on pictures?

And Dom is correct. Star Trek was a star vehicle. The secondary cast was wonderful but their presense was to add depth and realism to the story, not to promote the characters per se.

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

57. C.S. Lewis - October 24, 2009

Oh I nearly forget: please, by all means, make this installment meaningful, boborci &al! There is no need to get political. The story need only feature a common human predicament and show us how the characters rise to the occasion, absent technobabble and deus ex machina!

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

58. Jeffery Wright - October 24, 2009

Lets hope the new movie is more meaningful than this:

Nero has a mining ship capable of destroying an entire fleet of purposely armed starships. A mining ship that also allegedly CLOAKS?

Take an ocean freighter built yesterday and pit it against a destroyer from from WWII and let see which ship is sunk.

Vulcan has ships far advanced compared to Earths fleet, and not one of them were in orbit around Vulcan?

Does Vulcan have so much as a single shipyard in orbit?

Anything floating around with a ray gun to shoot an invading threat? Like maybe something to shoot a meteor?

Surface to space missiles?

They were wide open to a mining ship?

How far away is Epsilon Eridani from Sol?

Their only hope was a fleet of ships from Earth?

No other Federation ships? Andorians are in the Fed, arent they? Any other planetary societies in the Fed?

Style over substance is fine, but is that Trek?

59. Pete359 - October 24, 2009

@ 49. Bren – October 24, 2009

Star Trek XII: So Very, Very Tired

Ahahahaha! I forgot about that.

Best. Clip. Ever.

60. Pete359 - October 24, 2009

Sorry for the double post, but I found the clip of YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfzuRMthMzk

“Again with the Klingons!” Classic

61. Flake - October 24, 2009

Next one needs more big 3. Big 3 interaction is what made the show great.

Y’know, Kirk listens to Spock and Bones arguing over a decision with a smirk on his face and then just does his own thing anyway :)

Oh and Klingons without the silly helmets and trench coats.

62. Flake - October 24, 2009

58. Yup agree on all points, however the funny thing is none of it matters! No one really cares.

63. The Invader (In Color!) - October 24, 2009

No stinking lame ass “Guardian”…

I don’t know why that episode is held in such regard…it’s really NOT that good in my opinion. I never watch that one on DVD.

Regardless, I’d rather Orci and Kurtzman come up with something new. I really don’t want to see any villains or threats from the old series in the new movie.

We’ve been there, done that. If I wanted to watch reruns, I can do that for FREE at home on my badass 62″ flatscreen.

64. Capt. of the USS Anduril - October 24, 2009

I voted for McCoy, but only because there wasn’t an option for the Enterprise. She had a large presence in the movie,but we didn’t get much of a chance to appreciate her. McCoy definitely needs to have a little more focus, especially with the now growing friendship between Kirk and Spock. McCoy needs to be there for balance. Logic-Gut instinct-Conscience. Spock-Kirk-McCoy. That’s how it’s always been, and always should be. =)

65. Lore - October 24, 2009

#3 Don’t you think is made quite a contrast: Clean cut George Kirk vs scruffy Jim Kirk who grew up without a dad. Maybe JJ did this without really thinking.

66. Ste OG - October 24, 2009

Obviously you need to keep Star Trek in the title but the other part of the title should have some sort of relevence to the ruddy plot.

67. Imrahil - October 24, 2009

Should probably blow up some other major parts of Trek Lore. Maybe get rid of Starfleet altogether?

68. GarySeven - October 24, 2009

You know, I never thought about it, but #58 has some good points. Oh well, it comes with the advantage of being a Monday morning quarterback. But they are good points. Thanks.
I hope JJ means “meaningful” in the sense of a comment on the human condition, and not only meaningful in terms of the growth of the relationships between the characters. The latter is necessary but not sufficient for it to be worthy of the name “Star Trek.”

69. tman - October 24, 2009

I think discussions of screen time for McCoy are meaningless. You need to get a good discussion between the character where compassion and cold logical reason are at odds and McCoy will come to life. I haven’t clocked screen time for the old shows, but I would guess McCoy has less time than Spock and Kirk in most episodes (with exceptions like the Shore Leave episode). I think it’s just the point of view he represents in the discussion so balances or wins out the cold logical view which remains very memorable.

70. dmduncan - October 24, 2009

@68: You are right. And Kirk is the fulcrum between them, between logic and emotion, and his decisions come from the point where balance is maintained. His decision to let Edith Keeler die is a perfect example of this, regardless of how much it cost him.

71. Lando - October 24, 2009

LOL. What a checklist.

“Must have logic vs. emotion discussion between McCoy and Spock.”
“Must have comment on the human condition.”

If you create a story that way, it’s going to be horrible.

72. GarySeven - October 24, 2009

#70- While I understand the movie should not be too much of a checklist or it will not evolve organically, that doesn’t mean the core essentials of Star Trek should not be preserved. Get rid of any comment on the human condition? Not with my Star Trek.

73. Daniel - October 24, 2009

I’m hoping we see the big three bond a lot more (Kirk, Spock, McCoy.) Star Trek never was Kirk & Spock for me, it was always all three.

Yes, McCoy needs more screen time.

Star Trek should be in the title, with the subtitle serving as the episode name. My opinion only.

74. Lando - October 24, 2009

71. If you comment on the human condition because you have to, not because you want to, then the end result will be ugly.

75. Michael - October 24, 2009

How about Star Trek::Rookie Generation Redux! With Jerry Mathers as the Beaver! Or….Star Trek:Kicks Ass! Guest star: The Rock as The Gorn!

76. somethoughts - October 24, 2009

#55

Rebooting the reboot, interesting.

Save Vulcan
Kirks Dad
Spocks Mom
Billions of Vulcans

Isn’t that worth a movie script?

77. somethoughts - October 24, 2009

#58

I believe the Narada was Borg modified, sides it destroyed 47 Klingon (Warbirds). I am sure Elder Spock had to give up whatever defenses Vulcan had and/or Nero was aware of it’s defenses since he is from the Future from another reality. Who knows maybe there was a missing scene in there somewhere showing the Narada destroying everything in its way, perhaps the Andorians and the entire United Federation of Planets was there or on it’s way.

I believe the most accurate statement should be, Take an ocean freighter built yesterday and modify it with alien technology that is far more advance than anything anyone has ever seen and pit it against a destroyer from from WWII and let see which ship is sunk.

Good points though.

78. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 24, 2009

#14.,

Aren’t we precariously close to falling in off the deep (pun intended) end, here?
For the most part, aren’t movie titles largely a marketing-arm final decision?

79. SupremeDalekOnTheBridge - October 24, 2009

#14

Now don’t shout at me, but in my humble opinion, that’d be stark raving mad.

80. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 24, 2009

I wonder if removing STAR TREK could be a stab at shaving pennies? Even with a license, there’s a lot of ink spilled proclaiming the trademark’s owner every time that it appears. Or maybe it’s just a space (pun) issue? More room for other legally mandated acknowledgments – I’ve read where actors in general are succeeding in getting a printed “credit” requirements for any use of their likenesses in merchandising or marketing.

81. Spocko - October 24, 2009

I hope they don’t make it like Dark Knight. The next Star Trek movie needs to have STAR TREK in the title.

82. I'm dead Jim - October 24, 2009

Anthony, yes, Batman and James Bond work well without the names in the title. But my heart is not into Batman or James Bond. I enjoy those films but wouldn’t care if they never made another. We’re talking Star Trek here and for those of us who have our hearts in it, Star Trek should be in the title.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter though. I’ll go see it at least once anyway.

And more of the Trek Triangle of Kirk-Spock-McCoy!

83. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 24, 2009

Orderly ascending numerals, at least, have the merit that it takes pity on the curators and librarians who will be shelving this stuff for posterity.

84. dmduncan - October 24, 2009

Just tag all future sequels with a stardate-like number referencing the year and month of release:

Star Trek 2012.6

Or just the year:

Star Trek 2012

That solves the problem for all future reboots and incarnations of TOS in the movies, because you’ll never have the same number after Star Trek twice.

85. Bill Peters - October 24, 2009

Wish the Movie would come out late ’11 In steed of ’12 but we take what we can. Scotty needs more Screen time as well as Nurse Chapel and Bones!

86. OneBuckFilms - October 24, 2009

Personally, I like having Star Trek in the title for sheer recognizability.

STAR TREK: New Vulcan
STAR TREK: Warp II
STAR TREK: Dammit Jim !!!
STAR TREK: Something Something

Real minor issue this. I’d call it Smith Jones Johnson as long as it’s a good movie.

87. Daoud - October 24, 2009

Star Trek: Mark 2 works fine. And uses a Trek term to advantage.

McCoy gets more screentime, if K/O use some of McCoy’s background. He did his offworld rotation back in Med School days on Dramia II. The Albatross from ST:TAS sets that up well. Have someone come looking for him.

Still… this movie should tell us why the fleet was gathering at the Laurentian System. Those lines still make hella no sense. What were they up to, before Nero turned up? Something major. We know what Captain Pike was up to. Where was Fleet Captain Garth? Captain Ron Tracy? Captain Matt Decker?

TOS lays out plenty of people that surely still exist even in an altered timeline. Can we have some of that background used, please?

Please?

88. OneBuckFilms - October 24, 2009

I like the idea of reusing the teaser/title card idea, with the movie’s title integrated into the title card.

Move the “Star Trek” text up, with the movie’s subtitle under it in the same style, perhaps coming in slightly later.

89. I am not Herbert - October 24, 2009

I think it needs to be Star Trek: Something Something.

Enterprise tried it without, ended up adding it back on, but too late to overcome the crappy theme song…

Star Trek brand recognition is a very powerful thing. I doubt that the studio would allow it without

I think it should be “Star Trek: Khan’s Genesis”.

You get a little double meaning, and you avoid the hackneyed “Rise of Khan”…

90. Will_H - October 24, 2009

Yeah, calling it 2 would be a slap in the face to a lot of people and would for sure hurt Trekkie support of it. I agree that a subtitle is the way to go. Thankfully with this last film the first Trek film is always referred to as The Motion Picture or TMP, so calling this just Star Trek was ok. Zoe looks pretty thin to me, I really wish all of these Hollywood girls would gain some weight, seriously. As for the poll, I was pretty happy to see I was with the majority of people thinking McCoy needs more screen time. I think they’ve done the whole Uhura Spock thing enough in the first movie, I’d love to see more of the Kirk, Spock, McCoy trinity in this next movie, maybe even show more of how its formed between those people. Plus I still dont think that Karl Urban got the credit he deserves for his performance, I thought it was the most true to original in the entire movie…except for Nimoy of course.

91. OtterVomit - October 24, 2009

Is JJ doing his Phoenix Wright impression in the headline pic?

92. I am not Herbert - October 24, 2009

If you will forgive the indulgence, a continuation of casting the no-brainer:

a Bad Robot Production

directed by Guillermo del Toro (dreaming high but WTF)

“STAR TREK: Khan’s Genesis”

staring Javier Bardem as Khan Noonien Singh

co-staring Antonio Banderas as Joachim

co-staring Rosario Dawson as Lt. Marla McGivers

guest-staring Brent Spiner as Dr. Arik Soong

Robert Rodriguez as Khan’s henchman

Greg Grunberg as Lt. Spinelli

Cameos

Jack Black as Harry Mudd (I have to agree)

the SHAT as Cyrano Jones channeling his Priceline shtick!!!

93. colonyearth - October 24, 2009

37

Please do not use derogatory comment like that. It is insulting to people, assuming of what JJ was referring to (he wasn’t being gay), and most of all is not within the true spirit of Trek.

Such things are not called for.

CE

94. Eli - October 24, 2009

I would do the title card for the next film exactly the same way it was done with Star Trek (2009) with the subtitle making a delayed appearance below “Star Trek” with possibly even the same exact musical cue as well. I thought it worked great for the last one.

95. Blake Powers - October 24, 2009

I hope Bob Orci is reading that Poll.

96. Cmdr Celchu - October 24, 2009

#5 I really hope that the next film isn’t the penultimate Star Trek film, because we’d only have one left afterward. I certainly think that the brain trust behind the last movie is capable of coming up with more than two more movies!

97. Frederick - October 24, 2009

My vote for the next movie title: “Star Trek Lives!”

:)

98. Anthony Pascale - October 24, 2009

Added new poll on the title with three options
Star Trek + subtitle (like Star Trek: First Contact)
Star Trek + verb (like Batman Begins)
no ‘Star Trek’ (like The Dark Knight)

Again I am partial to the no trek, only because I like how it flows

TOS era
Star Trek + number + subtitle
TNG era
Star Trek + subtitle
JJ era
no Trek

although Trek + verb would also have the JJ era stand out.

99. I am not Herbert - October 24, 2009

…a little cynical to have no trek after jj trek, IMHO

100. Anthony Pascale - October 24, 2009

cynical? wtf

the point is that the film doesnt need to say star trek on it to be star trek. The Dark Knight and the Bond films dont need franchise titles in the names, nor do the jack ryan movies. I just like the idea that each era has its own title style, and returning to the Star Trek + subtitle seems to be going back to me, when i would prefer something new and different.

That being said, i don’t care that much. The only thing I would have objected to would have been ‘Star Trek 2′ which Abrams notes is not something they are thinking about

so please dont twist things around to your own agenda, whatever that is

101. fansince66 - October 24, 2009

You’re on the right wavelength,JJ.Optimism,Scale,Meaningful Story.The world can use a good, healthy dose of optimism right now(and it’s NOT just whistling past the graveyard;there’s reason to be optimistic about our future.)The scale,of course, is BIG SCREEN/ EPIC.The most meaningful stories in the human experience generally radiate out from the concept of LOVE.And I mean BIG LOVE(but NOT necessarily excluding personal/romantic love),that involves extreme efforts & self-sacrifice for the GREATER GOOD.This can obviously involve OPPOSING some antagonist,in the attempt to secure the GREATER GOOD.

Youze guys (or,for the southern idiom;”y’all”)will find the perfect story that will express these important elements,in its’ telling. Just proceed to do your magic.

And, YES;more Bones.That rough-hewn humanitarian,who has gained his “humanitarianism”by hard,personal experience,NEEDS more screen time.Also, Spock should be dramaticly different from the Spock of the original series,as he has LOST his home planet.

About optimism:remember that whatever a person can imagine,CAN BE DONE.It is so.The creative imagination & ingenuity of the human mind is the marvel of this universe; & fits him for partnership with the CREATOR of the universe.To paraphrase Genesis:I give you the world(& this universe);a blank canvas.Go forth & create something beautiful upon it.

102. I am not Herbert - October 24, 2009

Hi Anthony,

Sorry If I misunderstood:

I thought that your lineage was showing that Trek ceases to go on, after JJ is done with it. It looked to me like “no Trek” was next in the progression, after “JJ era”.

I am hopeful that Trek will continue on even after JJ Trek. I am just hoping there will never be a time when there is “no Trek”, that’s all.

103. Transtrekkiebatfan - October 24, 2009

The next film will simply be titled “The Final Frontier”

Many fans will burn copies of Star Trek V in response, action figures will be blown to smithereens with fireworks.

Then the movie will debut, and it will be powerful and go over well with new and old fans alike.

And the title will fit the theme of the film as opposed to simply being a tie-in to Trek lore.

You heard it here first.

104. T'Cal - October 24, 2009

How about a subtitle that’s a quote from Shakespeare?
Star Trek:
A Lean and Hungry Look
A Necessary End
A Pound of Flesh
A Tower of Strength
Dangerous Ends
For Ever and a Day
Full Circle
Infinite Space
Once More unto the Breach
Perchance to Dream
Some by Virtue Fall
The Better Part of Valor
The Crack of Doom
The Dogs of War
The Guilty Mind
The Quality of Mercy
Vale of Years

It all depends on what the plot will be, but if there is any theme that is Shakespearean, then one of these titles might work well.

105. I am not Herbert - October 24, 2009

I did misunderstand. I should have looked at your post a little longer before I used a word like that. Sorry.

106. moauvian moaul - October 24, 2009

@100
I like it A.P.

107. David_Alexander - October 24, 2009

In the second picture, it looks like someone’s just held up a kitten & Ms Saldana’s going “Awwwww!”

:-P

108. I am not Herbert - October 24, 2009

103. T’Cal Dude, those are pretty damn funny…

109. moauvian moaul - October 24, 2009

@103
I like your’s as well.

110. Michael - October 24, 2009

Star Trek;In Search of CASH!
An oldie but a goodie! Seriously, this film needs a new bad ass alien.
And NOT a Westmore nose bridge appliance and not a 2 legged/footed human. Something really off the hook and scary and menacing.
Maybe a combination of several federation ships responding to a distress call…or an exploration contact of a new species.

111. Kathryn Janeway - October 24, 2009

“does everyone want more Bones? I added a poll for who you all want to get more screen time in the sequel, if anyone.”

How do we get to vote on that poll?! I accessed the poll archive and the results are available but there’s no link anywhere to actually vote…

112. moauvian moaul - October 24, 2009

um, i meant 104

113. somethoughts - October 24, 2009

Thinking about it more, Berman and co removed Star Trek from their series Enterprise and look what happened. I think Star Trek 2009 did well, why not follow up with Star Trek something something as JJ originally wanted.

Like another posted said earlier, just go with the name of Star Trek then the release year of the movie. Star Trek 2009 then Star Trek 2011/2012 whenever they decide to release it. I really think it will either be that or Star Trek coolsounding phrase that is hot and trek like.

114. dmduncan - October 24, 2009

I dunno. A title without Star Trek in it could be misleading and dangerous. Think of all those Le Morte d’Arthur fans who went to The Dark Knight expecting medieval tales from the Round Table. It could backfire, Anthony.

115. Shadowcat - October 24, 2009

I hope McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov all get more screen time since this is an ensemble cast, While Kirk and Spock and their relationship is important, the Enterprise crew is after all a family. The relationships and interaction between the characters is important. I would like a little backstory on the characters too. Perhaps told in flashbacks. After three years, they will have changed and matured into the crew we all know and love so well. ST XI was a sort of “get to know you”. These are younger versions of the TOS crew and yes they have some rough edges. Chekov was endearing as the “wet behind the ears” whiz kid but green nonetheless. Scotty while a brilliant eccentric was somewhat of a smart arse in ST XI and has some mellowing to do. Keep his sense of humour but remember, Scotty is a very competent and talented engineer. I love the new cast and I think the next film will be even better.

Congratulations to Zoe Saldana on her Elle award. She is a talented actress and classy woman.

I like Star Trek something something as the title. I don’t mind if they use Star Trek 2011/2012.

116. Gorn - October 24, 2009

Okay, what I’m seeing is 3 options right now…
1. A Summer 2011 release date
2. A Winter/ Hoilday 2011 release date
3. A Summer 2012 release date

I really want to see the second Star Trek film out by the end of 2011, but if things go very slowly and get pushed into 2012 then that’s fine too. The extra time will give everyone more chances to make the film better and feel more right.

117. Imrahil - October 24, 2009

Yeah, because something like “Galactica 1980″ has a timeless quality to it.

118. No one who counts to Paramount - October 24, 2009

After reading all the glowing reviews that are above, I find it still hard to believe that you all are so happy with the new 2009 star trek film.
I (as so many others) find it difficult to see all this star trek history just thrown out like it was just old trash.
As you go on about the possibilty of another star trek film like the 2009 film, I read that some hope that the writing is better. Hope that the plot is good. hope that the characters have more/less time. hope, want.
And I do not accept the treatment that is piled onto people that hold opinions that differ from yours.
I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, with out the mud throwing.
It seems that you all worry about the story of this next (I cringe to call it) star trek film.
I and the others such as I worry (to a point) about this too.
But most certainly not for the same reasons.
Over the years, we have watched Paramount in its quest for money produce weaker and weaker scripts for star trek in its quest for a quick dollar.
The decline in the star trek franshise was not in the subject matter itself, but in the handeling of the franshise by the bean counters at Paramount.
In Paramount’s zeal for the quicker and bigger dollar, the star trek “story” suffered.
Paramount was disapointed with the dollar returns with the prior two star trek films.
Well let me tell you, we (the people who watched them) were sorely “disapointed” with the two prior films.
In many people’s opinion, Paramount put less into the writing of the prior two films in an atempt to save money while trying to bank on star trek’s history for its dollar returns.
Paramount now had a problem. After milking the franchise for the past few years, what to do with it now?
Does Paramount after milking it, just let it go stale and fade into the sunset, or do they hire some great writers and give it a script that the franchise deserves?
Well, Paramount does a little of both and neither at the same time.
Many believe that Paramount believed that it saw a way to finaly grab control of the franchise completly and make it their own.
Enter jj Abrams. Paramount then hires writers that either do no have a good working relationship with the subject matter, or they no longer care about the history of the subject matter.
Paramount gets THEIR script, produces it, and then bills it as a prequal to the star trek franchise.
Except it is not a prequal, it is a complete rewrite of all that has been before. Only the names and the ship were reused. Everything else is some strange skewed twist of what once was, like some bizziro reinterpretation.
Do not get me wrong. This reboot had some good things in it.
It was intertaining in an odd sort of way. Some of it was funny. the effects were great.
The rewriting of the star trek history so that Paramount could now make star trek its own, that feels as if Paramount has nothing but contempt for star trek as it was, and for the people that have grown to feel as if it was their own.
If Paramount was so concerned as to what they had reduced star trek to, as in its poor scripts and poor dollar showing, Paramount could have done what Gene did back in the 1960′s, hire great writers and demand great scripts.
But that is not what Paramount did.
Paramount made a space shoot them up with characters that we knew, doing things that the characters that we knew would not and did not do.
Would/should you take the lone ranger out of the old west and put him in old New England?
Would/should you change the Batman history to just a bored boy who grew into a man who had nothing better to do, so he decided to become a Batman?
Maybe we should change spiderman and the hulk’s origins to them actually being space aliens.
Star trek did not fall off a cliff, it was pushed by Paramount with its indeferance to the subject (star trek) and its legions of fans over the scores of years.
All star trek needed is a great script in its known history, something that Paramount and appearently JJ Abrams were NOT WILLING to give it.
One really has to ask why.
If the franchise was given great writting, with its known history and even JJ Abrams, I/we believe that all of you would be raving about that film.
I and so many others sort of liked the 2009 film, but it was not “star trek”. It was “some other trek”. It was what Paramount wanted ( the quick dollar), and hoped that you all would get on for the ride.
The fact of the matter is that Paramount did not care about the subject (star trek), and that they appearently did not care about star trek’s core, or its fans.
Appearently it is easier to rewrite something that you do not understand rather than getting someone who does know the material, and can do it justice.
And while this internet colunm goes on about if you liked or disliked this 2009 film, there appears that there is no way to express your opinions to Paramount or JJ Abrams directly to either Paramount or Abrams, who seem not to care what anyone thinks about this 2009 film, because they made a great deal of money from it, after all, to them, that is all that counts.
So what if Paramount and Abrams made a very large population unhappy, appearently that was/is easier than fixing what THEY had broken.

119. Vardonir - October 24, 2009

Star Trek: Something Something sounds good enough. LOL.
Or they could do something like “Something Something: Star Trek XII,” (like ST4) but this ain’t the odd-even number era.

@10: “Chekov was perhaps the most underused character in all television history.”
AMEN!

I’d love more Chekov. And Bones. Lotsa moar Bones.
(I wonder what would happen if they used the “original ‘City on the Edge of Forever’” script.)

PS: “Star Trek + verb”? WTF.

120. Darrksan - October 24, 2009

I say don’t have Star Trek in the title like how “The Dark Knight” does not have “Batman” in the title.

121. Canon Schmanon - October 25, 2009

Just don’t call it The Final Frontier.

122. capnjake - October 25, 2009

see here is the thing though for those trying to argue about batman being called merely “The Dark Knight”
Batman for years has been known as the Dark Knight, one of the comic lines was even called “The Dark Knight”

star trek though, should have trek in the title.
They have tried to do a star trek, without the baggage of the name before and what happend 3 years in they put the star trek back in the title.

glad to see that they are not going with star trek:II the more i read the more i think we are also not going to see any new version of Kahn either which in my opinon is a good thing.

123. Lando - October 25, 2009

100. “the point is that the film doesnt need to say star trek on it to be star trek.”

LOL, but that would take the argument away from the defenders of the movie. “This isn’t Star Trek!” – “Of course it is Star Trek. It’s called Star Trek! So it is Star Trek!”

124. Hat Rick - October 25, 2009

118, if appealing to the fans means that Trek cannot change, then Paramount cannot afford to appeal to the fans. It must appeal to nonfans, or new Trek remains unmade.

To the Trek purist, ST2009 might not be Trek. But how many Trek purists are there, really, I wonder?

125. SupremeDalekOnTheBridge - October 25, 2009

Well, that settles it then. 65% want “Star Trek” in the title.

The only reason Batman gets away with it is because he’s been known as “The Dark Knight” for years.

And Ian Fleming never wrote the books as “James Bond and Goldfinger” a la Harry Potter. Plus the giant 007 is a bit of a giveaway. And haven’t the credits always said: “Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming’s James Bond 007″?

Plus Summit Entertainment has added “The Twilight Saga” to New Moon and Eclipse, so the ordinary Joe on the street will know what to expect,

Unless the next one is just called “Attack of the Klingons” or something equally as daft and stereotypically nerd-y sounding, The words “Star” and “Trek” will be in the movie’s title.

126. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 25, 2009

#117. Imrahil

Perhaps, but 2001 definitely did.

2012: A Star Trek Odyssey

127. Hat Rick - October 25, 2009

Potential titles without “Star Trek” in them:

“Federation’s Fall”:

An attempt to repair the future imperils the very existence of the United Federation of Planets.

“The Revenge of the Vulcans”:

Years after the destruction of Vulcan, its greatest hero is resurrected in the minds of surviving members of its race.

“The Guardian”

From beyond the furthest reaches of the Federation, a call beckons to restore the universe — and to save the life of a beloved figure in Earth history.

128. Admiral_Bumblebee - October 25, 2009

I think it would somehow be cool to not have Star Trek in title at all. This would be in line with the new movies taking place in an alternate timeline.

Simply “Enterprise” would be cool. Everyone would know it is Star Trek and it would have the double meaning of the adventure being an enterprise.

129. Hat Rick - October 25, 2009

128, we could even reuse the title, “The Enterprise Incident.” Reusing titles has occurred before in Trek.

130. ChristopherPike - October 25, 2009

The Prime Universe Strikes Back!

Seriously though, everybody I know doesn’t call TESB… Episode V, despite the fact that movie’s titles on every film poster were held within a boundary line containing the Star War logo.

131. Hat Rick - October 25, 2009

The Enterprise Strikes Back

;-)

132. P Technobabble - October 25, 2009

118

“..Everything else is some strange skewed twist of what once was, like some bizziro reinterpretation….”

Yes, except that it is not simply a reinterpretation… Everything has been twisted out of shape because of the actions of Nero and Spock Prime. That is part of the plot, and part of the purpose of this story. I also believe that the theme of the film revolves around this — that your life, the lives of your family and friends, and the lives of everyone on this planet can change to something beyond recognition, in the blink of an eye. Bob Orci mentioned something in an interview about how the destruction of Vulcan was based on memories or feelings about 9/11 (I don’t remember the exact quote, but I think it was something like that). Surely, the events of 9/11 changed our world forever, and it affected how we think. We tend to always fall back into some kind of “normalcy,” but we are IN FACT changed. Permanently.

And so, fictionally, imagine the great and noble Vulcans now homeless as a result of Nero’s actions. Life-altering, to say the least. The surviving Vulcans have been changed forever… just the way our lives have been chaned forever.

Furthermore, I see Trek09 as a continuation of Trek history, in general, which in no way dismisses or devalues that history. Yes, the present has been altered into a strange new world, but I don’t have a problem with that… and I am baffled by those who do have a problem with it.

People don’t like change. Well, everything changes whether we like it or not, whether we are prepared for it or not. There is no reason why Star Trek should not change along with us, and for us. If Star Trek is to be a continuing piece of work, there is no reason why it should continue holding onto some static, unchanging structure. Gene Rodenberry, himself, often said Star Trek would be made and remade far into the future. There is no reason to think someone will be making the same Star Trek 40 years from now. Well, we’re 40 years after TOS, so… this all seems pretty logical to me.

133. Enterprise - October 25, 2009

The Dark Trek

134. somethoughts - October 25, 2009

Here’s my take on the name of the next movie.

Star Trek: The Kingdom of the Dilithium Crystals
Star Trek: The Guardians on the Edge of Forever
Star Trek: Past Present and Future
Star Trek: Cloak and Dagger
Star Trek: Heart of Darkness
Star Trek: Spirits of Centaurus
Star Trek: 2259 Year 1
Star Trek: 2012
Star Trek: Maiden Voyage
Star Trek II Destiny
Star Trek: Kalimdors Revenge
Star Trek Begins
Star Trek: Kahless the Unforgettable
Star Trek: Shadows of Qo’noS

135. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 25, 2009

#133. Enterprise

SPACE: THE DARKER FRONTIER

136. Captain Dingleberry - October 25, 2009

I agree with 37. I would never say such a thing about another dude unless I was gay. It’s a gay comment.

137. Nata - October 25, 2009

He’s so crazy handsome and he’s so strapping with the classic leading man look. I sort of wish I had dirtied him up a little bit, messed his hair up a little bit.

J.J. – I like the way you think. :)
The new movie should have more of the classic TOS elements such as: torn shirts, no shirts, various BDSM gear etc.
You’ve got gorgeous cast all in great shape – come on, don’t be shy, just go for it. :)

138. Captain Dingleberry - October 25, 2009

Yeah…drool over your male cast members a little more obviously next time! Maybe next time you can comment on their shapely buttocks and male camel toe….

::rolls eyes::

139. Hat Rick - October 25, 2009

As far as Bond-style titles, consider:

“From Q’onoS [Kronos] with Love”

“On the Federation’s Secret Service”

“Dilithium is Forever”

“The Man with the Latinum Phaser”

“The Section 31 Agent Who Loved Me”

“PraxisRaker”

“LatinumEye”

“The Universe is Insufficient”

And last but not least:

“Quantum Singularity of Solace”

140. Phil1701 - October 25, 2009

It’s not Star Trek 2 it’s Star Trek 12!!!

141. Dunsel Report - October 25, 2009

Recommended title: “Kirk and Spock.”

Thanks, please send me my WGA membership materials.

142. RenderedToast - October 25, 2009

Thank god none of you are writing the next movie. Jesus Christ.

143. 24th Century Rockstar - October 25, 2009

#139 – “The Universe is Insufficient” Phahahahahahaha!!!!!

God that kills!

Oh, and I’m definitely in the “For the love of crap, MORE BONES” clique, I think Karl Urban seriously did ol’ Dee Kelly proud.

- 24thCRS!

144. Pyork (JE) - October 25, 2009

I’m glad Abrams isn’t calling it Star Trek II since there is one, but the last time Star Trek wasn’t in the title, we got Enterprise and well we all know how that turned out

145. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - October 25, 2009

Someone must know this. Didn’t Harlan Ellison get paid typical 60′s wages for his screenplay/story credit orifginally? If memory serves, most actors and writers and directors got paid upfront back then, and it was sayonara on the steel guitar after that. Some minicule residuals, maybe.

Is he special? Did he sign a different type of contract? Seems like he is just a very squeaky wheel. Is the guy who came up with the drill thralls going to sue next?

146. No one who counts to Paramount - October 25, 2009

124, Yes I know that star trek must appeal to new fans.
That is why I and others pondered that IF Paramount insisted on really great scripts, they might actually get really great scripts.
And I and others do not believe that we are “purists”, espicially by your meaning/use of the word.
And I do not know how many real “purists” there are either.
We all know (or at least I hope we do) that the world of star trek and all else moves on and is NOT static #132.
But others as well as myself do not view this film star trek 2009 as a continuation, even in general of what came before.
I do see your point, I and others do not conceed the point, but I do see it.
While there is no reason to hold onto a static and completely unchanging view, I still believe that a really great script could have been delevoped into the last movie, and at least loosly followed the “continuing condition. maybe more later.
Thank you for being civil about this.

147. Hat Rick - October 25, 2009

You’re more than welcome, 146. Civility is to be expected, after all, among Trek fans. :-)

I am searching my memory as to the last time that a blockbuster hit of the year had a truly intelligent script, however, in the highest artistic sense of the word, and I really cannot think of any at the moment. You have period dramas like “Howards End,” which are intelligent, surely, but hardly blockbusters. Even “Shakespeare in Love,” despite its Oscar performance, was hardly all that well-written, IMHO.

This is not to say that we cannot have a more meaningful Trek movie than we saw in ST2009. We surely can. But I think that ST2009 served a vital function — it reinvigorated the box office performance of the Trek franchise. And for that, I think, Trek fans ought to be eternally grateful.

148. S. John Ross - October 25, 2009

#147: “This is not to say that we cannot have a more meaningful Trek movie than we saw in ST2009. We surely can.”

Something with the intelligenge, action, sensitivity, insight and fun of something like Spider-Man 2 (for example) would be satisfactory, IMO.

Hope springs eternal, even when faith fails :)

149. Hat Rick - October 25, 2009

Consider, too, that as JMS would say, faith manages. :-)

150. I am not Herbert - October 25, 2009

148. S. John Ross: “Something with the intelligenge, action, sensitivity, insight and fun of something like Spider-Man 2 (for example) would be satisfactory, IMO.”

I’ll second that. Actually, perhaps closer to Iron Man might be good also…

151. Canon Schmanon - October 25, 2009

#136 & 37 – Your comments are sounding rather homophobic. You wouldn’t be complaining if JJ had praised the beauty of his female cast members. One man admitting that another man is good looking doesn’t make a person gay. Even if he is gay, does it matter?

Take your adolescent attitudes and ignorant prejudices somewhere they belong. This isn’t the place for it.

152. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 25, 2009

145.

Special? That depends on whether you think being smart enough NOT to sign away his copyrights in a standard work for hire Hollywood contract makes one special. I think it just made him smart. Especially with regards to the studios:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/08/29/Harlan_Ellison_Wants_Paramount_To_Beam_Up_Royalties_For_Star_Trek_.htm

153. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 25, 2009

#142.

The sequel’s title is JESUS CHRIST? And I thought Shatner had chutzpa!

154. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 25, 2009

#147.

I’ve been debating whether I was going to be a stickler about this. I think I am. It only reinvigorated the MOVIE franchise.

155. S. John Ross - October 26, 2009

#154: To be fair, he did say “the box office performance,” which would logically exclude anything other than the cinema portion of the franchise (which is itself, in turn, only the corporate sliver of the totality of Star Trek).

And I agree with him that fans of that portion of that sliver should be grateful.

Meanwhile, there’s the rest of it.

156. ckw - October 26, 2009

Definitely more McCoy! Please!

IMO I don’t think the name of the movie is going to be as big of an issue as people make it out to be.

If you were interested in the new one, chances are you’ll be on the look out/ have your interest piqued when the next one comes out.
However, as far as naming goes I’d personally prefer Star Trek + Subtitle.

And please just leave Khan dead, ok?
This is a NEW time-line, a NEW start.
Get creative and make new problems (be they humanoid, alien, cosmic disasters or whatever).

157. Hat Rick - October 26, 2009

Regarding the issue of what, exactly, was reinvigorated, I will say that 155 has set forth a reasonable summary of what, at minimum, has occurred. I could even go further and say that with the interest in cinematic Trek is associated a broader fascination with the entire franchise, as is evident in Star Trek Live and so forth.

Regarding further suggested titles, I would imagine that the following could be considered:

“Federation and Empire”:

The Federation faces its greatest threat as internal forces overthrow its governing Council in the shadow of Vulcan’s destruction. The Enterprise crew stands between the ways of the Federation and the necessity of a war without end.

“The Destiny of Tyrants”:

Vulcan survives in the Mirror Universe. An alternate Spock reaches out from beyond the final frontier with the offer of assistance — at a price. Will the Federation sacrifice all to save one of its own from destruction?

158. S. John Ross - October 26, 2009

#157: “Vulcan survives in the Mirror Universe. An alternate Spock reaches out from beyond the final frontier with the offer of assistance — at a price. Will the Federation sacrifice all to save one of its own from destruction?”

Featuring Leonard Nimoy with a grey goatee as Mirror Universe Spock Prime and Zachary Quinto as Alt Mirror Universe Spock :)

If it spins off an alternate alternate timeline (in accordance with the most successful and modern scientific theories on “red matter”) they could advertise at as “Not Your Slightly Older Brother’s Star Trek” :)

159. Hat Rick - October 26, 2009

Think of the possibilities! Mirror Vulcan taking the place of good, decent, but all-too-destroyed Good Vulcan.

Mirror Vulcan, having been subjugated by the Terran Empire in the Mirror Universe, finds a quite different place in the Alternate Universe as the new villains of the piece. The fate of the Federation has never looked so dire….

160. Hat Rick - October 26, 2009

Meant to say: “Mirror Vulcan taking the place of good, decent, but all-too-destroyed Regular Vulcan.”

161. andrea - October 26, 2009

there is a great little explanation in the last few episodes of fringe about two alternate universe meet the other one… i hope mr orci will use this kind of stuff to come back to the prime universe at the end of a star trek trilogy! i hope i don’t spoiler nothing we don’t know guys!

162. captain_neill - October 26, 2009

Thank God he is not calling it Star Trek 2, there already is a Star Trek II.

I hope he and the writers will make the next one more of a Star Trek film.

I know that we are now in an alternate universe, running parallel to the Trek Universe we know and love, but I would hope that it continues to play to Trek’s strengths.

I hope that the story for Trek XII will be stronger than the one they had for XI

Now I liked the new movie but I believe the next one can be better, and more back on Trek to the strengths of Trek.

I still think the best two Trek movies are Wrath of Khan and First Contact.

163. Closettrekker - October 26, 2009

I didn’t get to vote in the poll for “more screen time”, but I definitely cast mine for more “Bones”….

164. Closettrekker - October 26, 2009

#162—-”I still think the best two Trek movies are Wrath of Khan and First Contact.”

That’s a vaild opinion for sure. I’ve been a Star Trek fan for over 30 years, but I’m not afraid to say that ST09 is my current favorite of the eleven feature films.Some of that is probably because it still has that “new car smell”….

1. ST09
2.TWOK
3. TMP
4. TVH
(big drop off)
5. TSFS
6. TUC
(another drop off)
7. FC
(monumental drop off)
8-11. Take your pick: TFF, GEN, INS, NEM

165. Closettrekker - October 26, 2009

#136—Captain Dingleberry – October 25, 2009 said:

“I agree with 37. I would never say such a thing about another dude unless I was gay. It’s a gay comment.”

And what an appropriate screenname for the submitter of such an immature and insecure post.

Did you mean that you wouldn’t say it, even if you thought so….or did you mean that you wouldn’t think such a thing because you happen to be heterosexual?

IMO, any fool can see that he is handsome…and being gay is the only thing that makes a person gay…certainly not pointing out the obvious. Anyone who would refrain from making such a comment on that basis (because he is not homosexual) is probably just afraid of being perceived as such…..Obviously, (the happily married heterosexual) JJ Abrams is not. Good for him.

Give me a break.

166. captain_neill - October 26, 2009

I place the new movie in 6th place

JJ Abrams made a good film I will be happy to add to my collection but he did a feew stupid things and changes I was not happy with.

I recently rewatched First Contact and it holds up well and to me is miles better than the new movie.

This is my opinion.

167. captain_neill - October 26, 2009

Also why are the Trek fans who don’t like this one as much as other fans getting penalized for not liking this film.

I thought we all liked Trek on this site.

168. captain_neill - October 26, 2009

165

Your point raises the question, is the new one only peoples favourite at the moment because its new and shiny?

How will it hold down the road.

First Contact is an excellent movie and I believe it is better than the new one.

169. Closettrekker - October 26, 2009

#168—-”Your point raises the question, is the new one only peoples favourite at the moment because its new and shiny?

How will it hold down the road(?)”

I think it’s probably unfair to evaluate it in comparison to films we’ve all been watching and rewatching for years…even decades…so I’m not sure that’s a question which can be answered right now. It would be interesting to see where it ranks ten years from now among lists of fan favorites.

Its sequel may be even better. My favorites have always been TWOK, TMP, and TVH—–3 very different kinds of films. New car smell or not, ST09 is in that category for me.

“First Contact is an excellent movie and I believe it is better than the new one.”

Like I said, that’s a valid opinion.

My own opinion is that FC tends to be overrated because it is surrounded by pure garbage (the other 4 TNG-era films). I never found it to be special, aside from the fact that it is the only TNG-era film I can stomach. I actually felt that Picard looked rather silly trying to play the action hero, but once again, FC is far better than any of those other movies (and better than The Great Trek Turd Of ’89).

Of course, it’s not hard for me to understand why a TNG fan would regard it as one of the best. I just never felt invested in those characters as you probably are—-so it doesn’t mean nearly as much to me. To me, FC is just the best of the TNG movies, and that doesn’t really say alot…since GEN, INS, and NEM were so absolutely unwatchable to me.

170. somethoughts - October 26, 2009

Here is mines in order of favorite. I only started to watch TOS because of TNG and what got me hooked to TOS was The Undiscovered Country.

1. The Undiscovered Country
2. ST09
3. First Contact
4. Wrath of Khan
5. Voyage Home
6. all others tied for last, TMP, SFS, TFF, Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis.

171. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 26, 2009

#155.

B.O. is exactly my point, i.e. the one that’s debatable. Forget the focus on this one movie, I’ve quoted the Slate article enough to show that while B.O. is being used by Hollywood in general to create the illusion of a “better than ever year” this year, the truth is attendance is down (especially when population growth and inflation are accounted for.) and B.O. profits are down due to the increased costs of producing blockbusters.

I’m willing to concede that some sort of Paramount STAR TREK movie franchise invigoration has taken place over there as they are willing to make another in less than 6 years.

However, the Trek merchandising, publishing and home video revenues never lagged for Paramount in the intervening years leading to the current movie no matter how many pundits were willing to claim it dead. Even, NEMESIS still sold/sells on home video.

And the television series most definitely has not been invigorated. In fact, many would use the movie as excuse to keep new TV Trek “dead”.

172. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 26, 2009

#171

Point of clarification:

I meant never lagged for the historic Paramount which is the CBS of now.

173. dmduncan - October 26, 2009

168: “Your point raises the question, is the new one only peoples favorite at the moment because its new and shiny?”

What you are suggesting, really, is that people are caught up in some emotional euphoria over the film, and that when it fades in time it won’t be looked at so favorably.

In my case, however, that does not apply because I was largely unhappy with the film after my first viewing. But upon following viewings it got better and better as I grew less emotional about my own unreasonable expectations.

I then experienced the same sort of discovery for the film that I experienced when I perchance happened to watch an episode of TOS in reruns and I thought wow, this is cool stuff.

And I also think far too many people had unreasonable expectations as I did. I think they expected this one film to accomplish more than anyone could have done. It’s main purpose was to show how the crew gets together while freeing their future from our own expectations so that in subsequent movie episodes the characters could go in new and unexpected directions while at the same time drawing from the TOS past we all know and love.

I don’t think Bob, Alex, and JJ meant for anyone to infer that every sequel would be exactly like the introductory episode. Because Roddenberry’s little morality play style doesn’t exactly mesh with the kind of story this film tried to tell, especially in a two hour movie, which was more like a document of the TOS crew’s assembly. If they had made a three hour movie then maybe that could have been woven in somewhere, but it was pretty damned loaded and moving at warp speed already, AND that’s with cutting out some scenes that I think probably would have served the movie better if they had left them in—such as the explanation of how Kirk beat the Kobyashi Maru, which simultaneously would have explained Kirk’s relationship with Gaila, and why she appeared so pissed in the background during his hearing.

So yes, I think it’s unfair to compare this story to the stories we got out of Star Trek with a crew that has already been firmly established and needed no introduction.

174. Phil - October 26, 2009

An alternative would be to not have Star Trek in the title at all (like ‘The Dark Knight‘).

Mother of god, No!! I’m guessing the purists are all lighting their torched and heading off to Paramount to burn the place down as we speak…

175. CarlG - October 26, 2009

@174: What, like they do every day and twice on Tuesdays?

Cause that’s when the torches and pitchforks arrive…. Tuesday.

176. dmduncan - October 26, 2009

Looks like St. John Ross has been removed to the penalty box again. Keep it clean Ross.

177. S. John Ross - October 26, 2009

#176:

Beg pardon? I’ve never been in “the penalty box” that I’m aware of (and I’ve been posting regularly for about a year or so).

And I always keep it clean and celebratory of Star Trek.

178. dmduncan - October 26, 2009

@177: Actually, my fever is making me delerious. I thought I was on the Orci thread for a moment too long.

Back to bed….

179. 790 - October 26, 2009

No Flashbacks to the last film, No Flashbacks!!!!!!!!!! ;-O

180. P Technobabble - October 27, 2009

146.
You mentioned several times that Paramount should be looking for a “great script,” but I wonder how on Earth one actually knows something that is entirely subjective. What I think of as “great” may be entirely different than what you think of as “great,” and there are sure to be plenty of others who might either agree or disagree with us, and so forth.

No writer, producer, director, or studio sets out to make a bomb. Everyone always works to the best of their ability to create something that (hopefully) many people will like. If the movie is a huge hit, does that inherently mean there was a “great script,” or if the movie was a flop does that inherently mean the script wasn’t “great?” I’m not sure how one comes to determine what makes something great other than one really liking it… If you didn’t like something, you wouldn’t tend to say it was great anyway… It’s a purely subjective matter, IMO.

181. Leo - October 27, 2009

It would be a mistake by Abrams to not include “Star Trek” in the title. Rick Berman tried it with Enterprise and people freaked out.

182. Lando - October 27, 2009

You mean the hardcore nerd fans freaked out in their basements and the normal people living under the sun didn’t care for it, no matter what it was called.

183. Lando - October 27, 2009

180. They knew while filming that Nemesis was going to be the last TNG movie. They were dismantling the major sets even during filming. Had Nemesis been a success, there would have been a demand for a sequel. But since Paramount wanted to get rid of Berman, they made sure the movie bombed. The script sucked and everybody knew it. The director was unsuited for science fiction, and everybody knew it. The final movie sucked, and everybody knew it.

184. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 27, 2009

180.

You obviously have not been exposed to the experienced producer Mel Brooks’ commentary to the contrary in his several productions of his THE PRODUCERS.

185. S. John Ross - October 28, 2009

#183: “The script sucked and everybody knew it. The director was unsuited for science fiction, and everybody knew it. The final movie sucked, and everybody knew it.”

To this day, all I know is that the trailer did not appeal to me at all, because I stopped there. :)

186. Closettrekker - October 28, 2009

#185—I didn’t even know there was another TNG movie coming out until it had been in the theater for a couple of weeks. I never saw a trailer at all.

Like the other TNG movies, I watched Nemesis on one of the movie channels.

I never bothered to see any of those movies in the theater.

187. CarlG - November 5, 2009

@185: Wise choice. I’ve never spent an entire movie mentally screaming “You deserve BETTER!” at the entire cast. It’s quite the experience.

188. JMD - November 19, 2009

Wrath of Khan
Voyage Home
Undiscovered Country
Star Trek
First Contact
The Motion Picture
Search For Spock
Insurrection
Generations
Nemesis
The Final Frontier

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