Exclusive ‘Fan Fact Checking’ Clip From Star Trek Movie DVD & Blu-ray | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Exclusive ‘Fan Fact Checking’ Clip From Star Trek Movie DVD & Blu-ray November 12, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: DVD/Blu-ray,Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek (2009 film),TrekMovie.com , trackback

Both the 2-disk DVD and 3-disk Blu-ray sets for the Star Trek movie (coming out next week) are chock full of special features. Today we have an exclusive clip, with Star Trek co-writer Bob Orci talking about getting help from the fans (here at TrekMovie.com), and also a quick behind-the-scenes moment with two Spocks!. 


Exclusive Clip from ‘To Boldly Go’ Featurette

The following clip is from the ‘To Boldly Go’ featurette, available on both the Blu-ray and 2-disk DVD set for Star Trek.

TrekMovie community makes it to the Star Trek DVD & Blu-ray!
Although Bob doesn’t mention the site by name, the video shows Bob and JJ on bridge the set of the Enterprise during the live chat they held here at TrekMovie.com back in January 2008. Of course, Bob is a regular (and very welcome) visitor to the TrekMovie comments section, making comments and answering fan questions. And apparently he and the team have been taking something away from the back and forth with the fans (and we are happy to offer the service). 

Top JJ and Bob chatting online; Bottom, Bob typing a comment (see comment section for 1/25/08 article # 206)


USA Pre-orders
You can pre-order the regular and exclusive Amazon and Best Buy editions below.

Title Blu-ray DVD
Star Trek 2009 3-disk set

3-disk set w/ replica

3-disk set w/ badges

Best Buy gift set $27.99
FROM $39.99)




1. Daniel Broadway - November 12, 2009

“You’re screwed…ha ha ha ha ha.” :p

2. scifib5st - November 12, 2009

All hale Trekmovie
All hale Trekmovie

You guys are the best!!

3. THX-1138 - November 12, 2009

I participated in that famous on set chat with the film makers. I mean from home, not on the set. Sort of cool to see that on the bonus features.

4. Rach - November 12, 2009

Bob? :D -really wishes he was on right now-

5. Xeos - November 12, 2009

Apparently JJ did a little bit a posting under Bob’s name! Excellent!

6. Zack - November 12, 2009

I LOVE THAT!! “You’re screwed.”

7. AJ - November 12, 2009

We rule.

8. Connor - November 12, 2009

How can I watch the video. Its set to private.

9. somethoughts - November 12, 2009

Love these guys, they get it.

10. Trekluver - November 12, 2009

They had Copies of Star Trek on DVD and Blu-Ray behind the counter at the video store today but not for rental. :( This proves that even the video stores know this video release is gonna be big! I want it I want I want it!!!!

11. somethoughts - November 12, 2009

that shot of JJ and Bob looks like Kirk/Spock, “Hello, there”

12. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - November 12, 2009

Yes. We here at Trek Movie helped with the movie in some small way. Yes we are the greatest!!!!. We are on the Greatest Site of all Time for Anything Star Trek. J.J and the Court are always welcome here. BoB Orci. You Da Man. If we here at trek Movie can help you any further then we are all at your service. So. Please. Do not use Khan in the next Movie. Thank you.

13. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - November 12, 2009

Oh. Anthony. You Da Man as well. Great site and this is the greatest site for anything Trek. Thank you.

14. Paul Fitz - November 12, 2009

Very cool, love it when you get the sense that the guys behind the scenes are fans too, or at the very least that they are not dismissive of the fans.

Would love for Bob to throw around a few theories and ideas on the next film. If it happens, it will happen here no doubt!
Anthony, you should be very proud of the site you have created here, many thanks.

15. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - November 12, 2009

Hey Bob and J.J You should realy give Anthony Pascale a Role on the Next Star Trek Movie. Even if it is a Walk on Role. So I say lets all file a Petition to have Anthony Pascale on the next Star Trek Movie. Who is all in favor.

16. dmduncan - November 12, 2009

This place is like a ThinkTank where you don’t have to pay anyone.

One cool thing about the internet and sites like this is that they’ve enabled the thesis – feedback – adjustment loop to get tighter and tighter.

17. Samuel James - November 12, 2009

This site is SIKK

Letting fans make a difference

18. Sean - November 12, 2009

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I hope all these actors knew what they were getting themselves into when they agreed to do this new Trek movie! Awesome clip, can’t wait to grab that DVD for myself.

19. SciFiMetalGirl - November 12, 2009

These guys are way cool!

And so are we!

20. Commander Crooner - November 12, 2009

At least Zachary Quinto won’t be known as a bad guy now, he’s Spock… …and “screwed!”

21. somethoughts - November 12, 2009

You rule Anthony!

Boborci and team are way cool for interacting with fans also and respecting what came before.

22. CmdrR - November 12, 2009

Bob, you gotta bust Alex for appearing in that clip wearing virtually the same black t-shirt as JJ did. Do both of them root around in Simon Cowell’s dirty laundry?

23. NX-2000 - November 12, 2009

#15 – I agree wholeheartedly!

24. MC1 Doug - November 12, 2009

On a huge and total non sequitor, I was just watching a DVD called “Make the Yuletide Gay,” and lo! and behold who but Gates McFadden is in it in a small but poignant role as one of the character’s mother.

Nice to see her still out there.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program: I canNOT wait for the ST09 DVD!!!

Can someone answer this question? I am close to taking the dive and go Blu-Ray. But is there any real reason to do so when one considers my 27″ TV is 14 years old?… (and until I get a real job no chance of buying an HDTV, it’s not going to happen)

25. Steve - November 12, 2009

So the advert above says that Bestbuy just dropped the price on the gift set from $39.99 to $27.99 but when you click on the link it is listed at $39.99. Anyone know if it really went down to $27.99? I preordered it and they charged me $39.99. That is bunk if they didn’t give me the best price!!!

26. somethoughts - November 12, 2009

#25 Best Buy has price protection, so you should be able to go to customer service desk to point out the price reduction and they will refund you the difference, have your credit card ready if you paid via cc.

27. Steve - November 12, 2009

But if you click on the Best Buy link it still says $39.99.

28. Kayla Iacovino - November 12, 2009

I second the “Anthony Pascale in the next Star Trek” petition!

29. Trekboi - November 12, 2009

“chock full of special features”?

Transformers 2 had an hour more of special features…
So dissapointed.

30. somethoughts - November 12, 2009

#27 print screen and show them the new price, they should be able to refund you the difference, if it’s not worth the trouble, just be happy you got yours guaranteed :)

31. Trekluver - November 12, 2009

All you people buying it early are crazy! I’m gonna go to Walmart the day it comes out and buy it and don’t have to do any pre-ordering! They never run out on big releases, trust me!

32. boborci - November 12, 2009

Weird to see Spocks laugh, no?

33. Justice Boy - November 13, 2009

Yes it is.

I plan on buying both DVD & Blu Ray.

34. Justice Boy - November 13, 2009

@ 28

But those were ‘Transformers’ special features.

These are ‘Star Trek’ Special Features!

Its quality, not quantity! At least, in my opinion.

35. captain_neill - November 13, 2009

To me Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock

Quinto is a good as another version of Spock but to me Nimoy will always be Spock.

Looking forward to seeingthe new movie on Monday.

I’m hoping JJ has no comments on the features about the past Trek that would upset a hard core fan like myself. LOL

I am not a fan of those writers but I enjoyed that clip of discussing the fans

36. Valar1 - November 13, 2009


I think it’s supposed to be 29.99- it’s only if you also buy a ST bluray movie – I got a First Contact copy and this gift set for a total of 45- with store pick up, if you have it mailed to you it’s 3-5 bucks more. I wanted to get the Next Gen box set in bluray but thats not offered with this deal so I figured screw it, the only good next gen movie was First Contact.

37. Syn4Ever - November 13, 2009

Holy crap! They answered a question I had! I thought it was a fake but I always kept faith it was really Orci… awesome! :)

38. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 13, 2009

Wow, I think everyone who has ever commented here at TrekMovie just got a giant rush to their egos!

As anyone who has read my posts know I have mixed feelings about this film. I have the DVD on pre-order on Amazon.com (and I love Amazon’s Pre-Order Price Guarantee, btw) and I will be watching it again shortly after it arrives but I know that it will never match the greatness of the “old” Standard Universe Star Trek, imo.

In any case, it’s great that the producers valued their time here on TrekMovie and I look forward to future visits by them.

15, that would indeed be a nice “thank you” to the creator of this wonderful site.

12, I must agree. Khan should not be in the next movie for several reasons. First, I think that the role of Khan should only be played by Ricardo Montalban, as his performance would be impossible to beat, and because it would be a nice tribute to Montalban. Second, they rebooted Star Trek so they could tell original stories and not be “constrained” by canon (I have serious issues with that argument but I’ll save that for another time) so they should tell an original story. If they wanted to fully embrace canon then they never should have rebooted the franchise. Just look at James Bond, they haven’t rehashed old ideas since the reboot; they’ve moved forward and went their own way. That is what they should do with Trek now that they’ve rebooted it. So long as it remains recognizable as Star Trek I’ll be happy.

39. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 13, 2009

36, I couldn’t disagree more. All the TNG movies were good in their own right. While I agree First Contact was the best TNG film but Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis were all good as well. The only Star Trek film that I’m not fond of is The Motion Picture. It’s just too long and boring with a crappy plot. Although The Final Frontier has a pretty bad plot too but the character moments at the beginning of the film really help the movie, something The Motion Picture is lacking.

31, I used to work at Wal-Mart. You are correct when you say that they don’t run out of these new releases and they do have the best prices in retail. Just remember to be nice to the associates (that’s what Wal-Mart calls their employees), they’re hardworking people who are overworked and underpayed, especially considering all the crap they take from trouble customers.

40. MC1 Doug - November 13, 2009

39: I *so* disagree with you. I still have very fond feelings for ‘Star Trek – The Motion Picture!’ I rank it first or second of all the franchise films.

ST: TMP, to me, was the closest to Roddenberry’s philosophy of what TREK is all about. I am not saying it is perfect, but it is far from being the worst of the TREK films.

I think the film that failed most was, as you mentioned, ‘ST: TFF.’ It’s too bad Paramount sabotaged Shatner’s efforts, although I will say his ideas of TREK were a little far out… it’s little wonder Mr. Roddenberry didn’t like the film.

41. Valar1 - November 13, 2009


I like all the films for different reasons, and own the special editions on DVD, First Contact just happens to be the only one I would pay good money to upgrade to Bluray for, and the new one of course.

For my money the best single distillation of Trek is in the Next Gen episode “Darmok”. It portrays everything I think of when someone mentions Trek to me- they even have a ripped shirt captain coming in at the last minute to save the day, lol.

42. captain_neill - November 13, 2009


your feelings are shared, I enjoyed the movie but i have gripes with some of the changes Abrams made.

I am still looking forward to seeing it again, but I feel th greatest of the prime universe will never be matched.

I am glad the new movie is getting new people to watch the stuff from before.

43. NCC-73515 - November 13, 2009

But why the gre’thor doesn’t anyone from cast or crew post in the official movie forum?

44. DJT - November 13, 2009

Everyone seems psyched this movie is coming out on video soon.

Very cool.

45. CmdrR - November 13, 2009


It’s got a great villain sound to it. Sign him up, JJ, before hollywood casts him as a teen vampire.

46. KingDaniel - November 13, 2009

Anthony Pascale for a cameo in Star Trek XII:

“Captain Kirk, I request a transfer to a more reasonably sized Federation starship!!”

47. AJ - November 13, 2009


Or a washed up Sci-Fi writer driving a limo during the apocalypse.

Sounds better as “Tony.”

“Hey! Tony! I hear some heavy breathing over behind that rock! Why don’t ya go check it out while Spock and I here ask for directions…”

48. HotStove - November 13, 2009

“You’re screwed!” Yeah, and so am I, being happily stuck in this 42 year old love affair with Trek…! :)

49. Trek Nerd Central - November 13, 2009

#32. I just have to ask:

Are u really the guy writing comments on trekmovie in your name?

50. ensign joe - November 13, 2009

Gotta say the back-and-forth has been pretty cool..

51. T'Cal - November 13, 2009

If I buy the 3-disc BD version, does it include a standard DVD version besides the Blu Ray and digital versions?

52. Steve - November 13, 2009

31 and 39, I understand that they don’t run out of new releases but sometimes when you pre-order (like with Amazon or the Musicland companies) you get a price guarantee. Not to mention that this is a special edition to Best Buy only that I ordered as I want the pins that come with it.

53. MC Doctor - November 13, 2009


Tony, your RED SHIRT is waiting…

54. boborci - November 13, 2009

48. Trek Nerd Central – November 13, 2009

My standard answer:

who would impersonate a screenwriter?

55. ensign joe - November 13, 2009


The screenwriter’s intern? hehe

56. Lord Ravenwood - November 13, 2009

Hey Bob! Just wanted you to know, you guys didn’t make a dime off me. My entourage and I got our money back after walking out on JJ’s version of “Star Wars.”

Sorry, but we’re not impressed.

57. Will_H - November 13, 2009

Well to those that hate it I dont think anything will ever make you guys happy except watching reruns of TOS. I loved the movie, I think it was the best produced of the movies but still not my favorite (my personal was First Contact). What this movie failed to give me was the feeling of being connected to that crew. That’s something every other Star Trek (even Enterprise) had, and I hope they get it down in the next movie. More than anything this one was the most fun to watch for me and obviously the most accessible to the non-Trekkie. As for the fact checking bit, its cool to see Trek Movie in the DVD extra, but honestly it didn’t show in the final product. I went through and found 60 some errors with the movie. A few were just production errors, but most were things that any educated Trekkie could have spotted and found a solution for in short time. The transporter taking time to charge up and not being able to lock onto anything that’s not 100% still? First episode of Enterprise shows that to be untrue. Only taking a few minutes to get from Earth to Vulcan…that’s even worse than Enterprise’s 4 days to Klingon space. Obviously I could go on, and there’s probably plenty that others found on here that I didn’t. Point is that if they want to make a big deal out of fact checking, they might want to make sure next time it shows in the final product. They would be wise to hire one of those Trekkies that can quote any episode of any series.

58. Steve - November 13, 2009

56, Too bad you guys left. Maybe the movie would have made $385,000,070 instead of just the measly $385,000,000. =) As for the trip to Vulcan, I never assumed that it was only a few minutes. I’ll have to watch it again next week but to me it seemed like there was some elapsed time that we just didn’t see on the screen. So many nitpickers out there! I have a solution for just about every one that people come up with for STV. The #s in the turboshaft? Scotty said that they had that shaft closed for repairs! Probably to get rid of the prank #s on the wall! =)

59. I am not Herbert - November 13, 2009

TrekMovie.com is the BOMB!

GREAT to have Bob here! (sorry we’re so rough on you sometimes…)

LOVING Fringe!!

60. ensign joe - November 13, 2009

How does anything Lord Ravenwood said add up to hatred or nitpicking? If you’re gonna call him out, call him out for critiquing a movie he didn’t even watch. Sheesh.

61. Clinton - November 13, 2009

Yes, indeed, TrekMovie rules!

62. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - November 13, 2009

Ok. We need to get Anthony Pascale into the Next Star Trek Movie. So Bob and the Court. Make it Happen.

63. boborci - November 13, 2009

56. Lord Ravenwood – November 13, 2009

Yeah you were, and it’s eating you alive inside!

64. Do You Wanna Dance - November 13, 2009

How can I get the Blu-Ray with Badges set for $27.99 as stated in the post? I click it and I’m getting $39.99 listed there.

65. Lord Ravenwood - November 13, 2009

62. boborci – November 13, 2009

No Bob, we really were not impressed. That’s why we walked out on this ill concieved film. You, Kurtzman and Abrams damaged something that was near and dear to a great many of us.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original timeline. Why throw 40 plus years of continuity out the window?

And no, it’s not eating me alive inside. It just makes me sick because I know that you all could have made a better film than this.

I LOVE “Fringe.” What happened with “Star Trek?”

I’m just extremely disappointed.

66. boborci - November 13, 2009

65. Lord Ravenwood – November 13, 2009

We didn’t throw the original timeline out the window. Simply not a fair characterization for numerous reasons discussed here.

67. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 13, 2009

#56 “Just wanted you to know, you guys didn’t make a dime off me.”

Who cares? I saw it enough times to make up for your dimes.

#65 “Why throw 40 plus years of continuity out the window?”

What would you have had them do?

68. Do You Wanna Dance - November 13, 2009

Hi, Bob.

Loved the movie. Wife and kids loved it, too, and they’re no Trek fans by any stretch of the imagination, until now.

Didn’t think anyone could resuscitate a dead horse, but you managed to pull it off in a big way.

If you have any pull with Best Buy (or Paramount for that matter), I’d like to get the Blu-Ray with the badges. ;)

Please, no Khan in 12.


69. Balok - November 13, 2009

Bob, how about Mirror Universe as well as alternate time line? A die hard old-timer like me can’t grumble with that combination…

70. Steve - November 13, 2009

@60 Sorry Ensign Joe, I that whole comment wasn’t directed for Lord Ravenwood. Sorry about the confusion.

71. star trackie - November 13, 2009

I think Lord Ravenwood has been exposed to the Bermanized 24th century for so long that he has forgotten the spirit and feel of TOS. That’s the only rationalization that I can figure out for his mindset of Abrahms “damaging something near and dear.”

Yes, Abrahm’s Star Trek was RADICALLY different from anything Berman put out post 1987. But as far as representing and respecting Star Trek circa 1966…it was right on the money. Can’t wait fot the bluray!

72. Lord Ravenwood - November 13, 2009

60. ensign joe – 11-13-09:

I saw enough of the movie that I knew it was bad! How much bad plot, bad cinematography and harsh lens flairs does a person have to sit through before you realize it’s a bad movie?

67. Shatner_Fan_Prime – 11-13-09:

“What would you have them do?”

Certainly not a “flashy” episode of the original serie set in an alternate reality.

66. boborci – 11-13-09

“We didn’t throw the original timeline out the window.”

Okay then, bring Q back in the next film. He can reset the timeline and we can all write “Star Trek XI” off as a stand alone adventure. Or a nightmare Ambassador Spock has after imbibing tainted Romulan ale.

73. Bryan - November 13, 2009

That’s awesome that Trekmovie made it into the extras. I have to say that this has become the top pick for Star Trek news and info and I am glad that it’s continued beyond just the movie.

74. ensign joe - November 13, 2009

#70 Steve

No worries mate!

75. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 13, 2009

#72 “I saw enough of the movie that I knew it was bad!”

To you. 95% of the public disagrees, according to RottenTomatoes.com.

“Certainly not a ‘flashy’ episode of the original serie set in an alternate reality.”

That doesn’t really answer the question. If it was more 24th century Trek you sought, no thanks. We’d had enough of that.

76. Lord Ravenwood - November 13, 2009

71. star trackie – 11-13-09:

I have been watching “Star Trek” since September 8, 1966. No “Bermanizing” here.
I didn’t see anything this movie was anywhere near “right on the money.”

It was a science fiction film that contained elements of “Star Trek.”

That’s where the similarities end.

77. Lord Ravenwood - November 13, 2009


Rotten Tomatoes.com? Is that the standard you follow?


78. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 13, 2009

#77 … Yes, you’re in a small minority. And you still have not answered the question: if not the alternate timeline, what did you want to see on screen?

79. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - November 13, 2009

Hey Bob Orce. Lord Raven wood Speaks only for him self and not for the rest of us. I am a Die Hard Trek fan for 32 plus years. I have read over 100 Novels and seen all the Series at least a dozen times over. As a hard core fan I loved al you did for the Story of Trek 2009. Realy looking forward to trek 2011 or 12

80. P Technobabble - November 13, 2009

Hey Bob Orci! Just wanted you to know you my girlfriend and I paid to see the movie twice, and we’ll be picking up the dvd in a couple of days. We enjoyed the film immensely, and are really looking forward to the next one. The fact that Spock Prime was in the film was enough validation of the 40 plus years of original timeline, not to mention every other aspect that lies at the heart of Star Trek. We’re rootin’ for you guys, bring it on!!!!

65. Ravenwood
Aren’t you glad this is an equal opportunity website?

81. ensign joe - November 13, 2009

If you are going to make the “it make a whole bunch of money therefore its good” statement, and Star Trek (2009) ranks 118 on the all time box office list, then you must believe that any movie that ranks above (1-117) must be better than Star Trek(2009)..

Here is a list of a few..
116. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
111. Sex and the City
104. Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
20. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen


82. Lord Ravenwood - November 13, 2009


A continuation of the great adventure known as “Star Trek.” A story set 50 to 100 years after Picard’s Enterprise. Very much like ST: TNG was. A “progression”, if you will.

Anything but the film we were given, which was a “regression” as well as a major disappointment.

83. dmduncan - November 13, 2009

65: “There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original timeline. Why throw 40 plus years of continuity out the window?”

Ad nauseum, discussed this has been. When late to the party you are, why cake there is not is question have you should not.

76: “It was a science fiction film that contained elements of “Star Trek.”

“That’s where the similarities end.”

Which elements did the 2 hours 6 minutes of ST.09 lack that the 60 or so hours of TOS had?

84. ensign joe - November 13, 2009

Of course if you search the box office site for the word “Star” only one on the list doesn’t come up as Star Wars.. and thats Star Trek(2009).. that’s sayin somthin though..

ahh fun with numbers

85. dmduncan - November 13, 2009

82: “A continuation of the great adventure known as “Star Trek.” A story set 50 to 100 years after Picard’s Enterprise. Very much like ST: TNG was. A “progression”, if you will.”

Don’t make me vomit, dude. Nobody wants to see that except you and a few of your online friends.

I never want to smell the stench of Roddenberry’s utopian BS ever again.

86. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 13, 2009

#82 … Well, see, there’s where we disagree. I suppose a new crew might have caught on and been a hit if done well. BUT … there have been five casts of Star Trek shows. I wasn’t interested in a sixth, because after the TOS characters left the screen, I started to lose interest. None of the other crews were ever quite as dynamic.

So I more than welcomed the return of Kirk and Spock. Their original adventures ended nearly 20 years ago, and now they’re back again. The love for those characters is a big part of why the film succeeded.

87. ensign joe - November 13, 2009

#85 “I never want to smell the stench of Roddenberry’s utopian BS ever again.”

Dude I know you didn’t just say that on a Star Trek fan site..

88. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - November 13, 2009

#82. It was only a Disapointment to you and only you. But to the rest of us. It was fantastic!!!!!.

89. Steve - November 13, 2009

@ boborci and Lord Ravenwood

Excellent idea!!! I would love to see Q in a Star Trek movie! I always hoped to see him in a TNG movie but it would be really cool to see him in a new movie as well!! I’d much rather see Q than Khan. Not as sacred of ground and Q brings in a universe of possibilities for adventure!

90. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 13, 2009

Q is a TNG character, so I don’t see that happening. Khan makes much more sense to me. Or even Trelane, although I can’t see a whole movie centered around him. He made for a good episode, but it would be hard to make him work on the big screen.

91. dmduncan - November 13, 2009

87: “Dude I know you didn’t just say that on a Star Trek fan site..”

Brace yourself for impact, Joey. And I had to transcribe this by hand because contrary to what the average dimwit believes, not everything worth reading can actually be Googled.

Melinda M. Snodgrass:

“I came aboard Star Trek: The Next Generation, and within weeks discovered I was bound in a creative straitjacket. The directive had come down from on high — my people are perfect. Star Fleet is perfect. The Federation is perfect. Only the little fuzzie-wuzzies possess flaws, and our mission is to seek them out and set them straight.”

“Most of my Wailing Wall generation…grew up on Classic Trek. We would look back, and fantasize about how wonderful it must have been on the old show. Imperfect people, passionate scripts…”

“And then I read ‘City” and realized it had all been a shuck. Gene was already protecting his place in history, although perhaps not as desperately as he would by 1988. Heaven forbid there should be immorality, and out and out dishonesty on the blessed Enterprise. Perish the thought that Spock and Kirk could fight, and yet still remain friends. In Gene’s universe, love is established by people standing around telling each other how much they love each other, and never doing a damn thing about it.”

I say the more they stick to TOS, the better the film will be. And the more they cater to the brain dead utopian faction of Star Trek fans, the more of a turkey they will be cooking up.

92. Lord Ravenwood - November 13, 2009


No Khan! That’s been done and it was done well the first 2 times. Abrams has already committed too much sacrilege.


Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? If it wasn’t for Gene Roddenberry, you wouldn’t have any “Star Trek!”

93. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 13, 2009

#92 “Abrams has already committed too much sacrilege.”

He brought a franchise a lot of people love back to life. And a more vivid life than it has known in ages. Trek had gone out with a whimper a few years back, or have you forgotten? If that’s your definition of sacrilege, it differs from mine.

94. dmduncan - November 13, 2009

Here is some more; again I had to transcribe it by hand. This is David Gerrold:

“This is why ‘The City on the Edge of Forever’ is such an extraordinary episode. It is the one story in which the problem is never solved; the pain goes on forever. Whether you are reading Harlan’s script or watching the produced version, the impact of Edith Keeler’s death is a devastating blow. Kirk will never be the same. Neither will the audience. Kirk will age a century in a single moment; he can never again have the same adventurous innocence. The last scenes of ‘The City on the Edge of Forever”’are a promise. ‘Don’t ever relax. Nothing is certain. Not in this universe — and not on this TV show.’”

“Unfortunately, it’s a broken promise. Never again did Star Trek startle its audience so brilliantly. When we came back again next week, here was Kirk, no different than before. Edith Keeler was never mentioned. She might never have existed.”

“This is the difference between Harlan Ellison’s view of writing and Gene Roddenberry’s. When Harlan tells a story, it’s about an important event in a person’s life; it assaults that person’s sensibilities, shatters him, forces him to reinvent himself, and ultimately leaves him forever transformed. A Harlan Ellison story is a challenge to festering complacency.”

“Gene Roddenberry’s view of the job seemed to be much less ambitious: get the Captain laid and clean up the mess before the last commercial. Nobody gets permanently hurt. Our people are the best and brightest; our people are perfect; they don’t have problems. Everything is wonderful. Everybody is loyal. Nobody ever argues with the Captain.”

“The Captain is always right. Everybody stays in his place. And is happy. Forever.”

I guess the point of my posting these things is to say that I do NOT want the same old Trek. I want it better than what it was. And I think these quotes point the way as to where future Trek should go, which is as far away from the 24th century and the self contained episode idea (without any roots into the past or future) as the Enterprise’s warp engines (and the Supreme Court) will take it.

95. Lord Ravenwood - November 13, 2009


I’m not in a “small minority” either. There are a great many fans out there who do not care for this film.

Just one example: http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/2009/05/full-100-reasons-star-trek-xi-sucks.html

And you’ll find many more links from there!

96. ensign joe - November 13, 2009

#91 “not everything worth reading can actually be Googled”

And yet thanks to you it now CAN be Googled!

Is that the November issue?

97. dmduncan - November 13, 2009


If you haven’t read it yet, pick up a copy of Harlan Ellison’s original “City” script. Except for the pirates (which wasn’t his idea; he put them in to satisfy a network demand that the ship be in danger), I think it’s a superior product to what aired. Because of what Kirk does (or does not do) in the Ellison version, AND because of what Spock says to Kirk in his quarters at the end of the Ellison version, which elucidates Kirk’s choice and was so beautiful that I can’t imagine doing anything to Ellison’s script that would’ve caused the loss of that one line.

Star Trek needs the kind of real emotion that people can relate to in the here and now. Harlan did it in the 60’s for ST, and you guys put a few of those moments in ST.09. THAT is what it needs more of. The sequel shouldn’t just be something you SEE, it should be something you FEEL, something that you walk away from moved by the experience.

98. dmduncan - November 13, 2009

@95: A blog called Star Trek 11 sucks?

“OH HOW will I reSIST the tempTAtion to CLICK,” he said campily.

99. boborci - November 13, 2009

95. Lord Ravenwood – November 13, 2009

You do realize that JJ and Damon started that site to contain and control criticism, right?

100. Ran - November 13, 2009

I didn’t like the movie. There is nothing wrong with that. People here need to understand that not everyone is a fan. Orci may be a great guy, but a lousy writer. I do admire his commitment to this site and his approachable character. Can we all be friends now?

101. Weerd1 - November 13, 2009

Anthony, thanks for providing the venue. boborci, thanks for providing the ear. weerd1, thanks for managing to mention Jolene Blalock as T’Pring in the next film in every thread you post in.


102. dmduncan - November 13, 2009

@100: Dude, I can’t tell if you actually mean to say Bob IS a lousy writer, or that he merely “may” be one. Which is kind of ironic for someone who’s dissing the writing skills of others.

103. No Khan - November 13, 2009

BobOric, Its some of TNG fans that will hate anything thats not a TNG movie. Many of them on the boards are still so pissed they didn’t get a TNG movie. They can’t face TNG & its offspring had run out of steam.

104. Trek Nerd Central - November 13, 2009

54. I know, I just couldn’t resist quoting the screen capture above.

Anyway, even if you have been faking all this time, you’ve been a most excellent stand-in!

105. somethoughts - November 13, 2009


If you really did watch a portion of the film, you would have stayed. The first 10 mins was probably the best 10mins in Star Trek history/Film.

You are entitled to your opinion, just keep in mind you are the very small minority that cannot be pleased.

We are very grateful for what Boborci and Team has done and look forward to their future work.

BTW my wife hates star trek and she said she loved this one, my wife is the biggest film critic and hey she married a Trekker.

I have been watching Star Trek since TNG was running in the 90s on TV and only watched TOS because of the Undiscovered Country and I watched all of them and hey it’s a great series. I just feel sorry for you that you do not share the same opinion as 99% of us who thought the film was wonderful and fantastic.

Live Long and Prosper.

106. Trek Nerd Central - November 13, 2009

Wait, I just read #100. Ran, what the heck are you talking about? “Lousy writer”? Are you kidding?

107. Chris Rod - November 14, 2009

HELL YEA!!! trekmovie.com! we love you!!!! I LOOKED AT YOUR SITE EVERYDAY FOR A YEAR DURING THE MOVIE BUZ – and now this is a staple for a trek home base, which has my heart!

108. Ran - November 14, 2009


I am not. He is a very nice guy though.

109. somethoughts - November 14, 2009


I am sure bob is thinking sticks and stones….that’s the great thing about the internet, everyone can have their own opinions.

110. Svavar - November 14, 2009


i just want to say that i loved the movie, i saw it three times in theaters. I only have one thing i really don’t like about it, i thought the humor was a bit over the top at times (Kirk’s hands and Scotty in the waterpipe). I know that humor is an important factor in the Star Trek films but these scenes were too much i think…. I also would have liked a bit more McCoy in the film.

Thanks for a great movie, looking forward to seeing the 12th.

111. Harry Doddema - November 14, 2009

How come I could buy the DVD (and get it) from a Dutch online retailer last week? Are we a week ahead of the US release? Or did I get lucky and they sent it out too early?

112. Jeyl - November 14, 2009


Here’s one. From what I’ve experienced in his past works, I can say that Bob Orci can write, and writing is a hard task. He’s certainly a much better writer than I am. No question.

But do I think he’s a ‘good’ writer? Not really. I think Bob and Alex’s idea of making things different stems too much on death and destruction. Sure, you destroy Vulcan and kill a lot of Vulcans, but is that really the best approach at making your Trek different? All we get in the end is a Star Trek universe that is now more limited in it’s alien mythology because

1. Vulcan is now gone, eliminating a very unique alien culture and society that we’ll probably never revisit again (Movies can only come out so often)
2. Emphasis on Earth’s importance is now bigger than ever. (The Original Series NEVER gave their modern day Earth a story. Everything was ‘out there’.)
3. Spock is now going to ‘put aside logic’ and be more human so he can rid himself of his unique traits. (In TOS “Arena”, it was Spock who didn’t want to kill the Gorns after they destroyed the colony on Cestus III. Now in Trek09, Spock’s development as a character pays off when he puts aside compassion and just wants to kill Nero. yay…..)

And if you want to convince me that you want to ‘honor’ and ‘respect’ the Trek lore, why not honor the details that made it what it was? I can get passed the 10 minute journey to Vulcan by lying to myself that there was a big time gap between scenes, but Vulcan with blue skies, no defenses, no outworld colonies, and no starships of their own? I also don’t buy that ‘red skies are seasonal’ thing either because I’ve seen the deleted scenes that involve Vulcan. Those mixed in with all the other scenes that take place on Vulcan in different time frames all show blue skies. Quite the contrast to Vulcan having it’s red/orange skies in all it’s previous depictions (The TMP ‘no atmosphere’ Vulcan was corrected in the Director’s Edition).

And that whole “Delta Vega” mess. How do you think that you’re doing a good job at honoring Trek when you say “We moved the planet to fit our purposes” because you wanted to use an established name? What is wrong with making up a new name for a planet that you yourself know is clearly not Delta Vega?

Sigh. But in the end, I think back at what this Star Trek was really meant for. Those who have not seen Star Trek. Makes me think back to the original series and what that show was aimed for. I don’t recall Gene Roddenberry ever saying “We’re not making this new show called “Star Trek” for Star Trek fans.”

113. Buzz Cagney - November 14, 2009

To those posters that are critical of TMP I would say that yes, 30 years on it is quite easy to see TMP’s failings (in fact many noticed the failings then!)- but those old enough must surely remember the anticipation and excitement that you were feeling this time in 1979? I know that i can. I was excited waiting for Trek ’09 but it wasn’t the same. But then I’m not 14 any more so I suppose it wouldn’t be!
I am immensely grateful to the whole crew or reigniting Trek so spectacularly after it being- for me anyway- a disappointment for a good many years now. Can’t wait to get the DVD!

114. dmduncan - November 14, 2009

@112: You want what’s phony. You want it so nothing ever changes, so it’s always the same from episode to episode.

Like the Gerrold quote I posted says, you want the Captain laid and the mess straightened out before the last commercial. You want what’s shallow, without depth, so everybody always does the predictable thing and acts in a predictable way. You want no great losses or costs.

“3. Spock is now going to ‘put aside logic’ and be more human so he can rid himself of his unique traits. (In TOS “Arena”, it was Spock who didn’t want to kill the Gorns after they destroyed the colony on Cestus III. Now in Trek09, Spock’s development as a character pays off when he puts aside compassion and just wants to kill Nero. yay…..)”

I’m a bit weary of the stupid complaints that these characters, the youngest we’ve ever see them, are NOT identical to the characters we were introduced to later in their careers during TOS. Are you serious? That’s the kind baloney you want? Characters that pop out of mommy’s wombs fully formed, in uniform with communicators chirping and phasers at the ready?

If that’s what you call good writing, I’ll take your version of bad.

Sorry to be so hard on the Bird, but for the same reason I don’t want to see obviously fake soundstage planet sets which were the rage of TOS, or phony bridge monitors that held static art, I also don’t want the dramatic mistakes of TOS repeated for the new franchise either. And that means getting away from characters that don’t change from episode to episode. I don’t want Gene Roddenberry’s phony TV utopianism. I want Star Trek to have a dramatic realism that Roddenberry would not allow it to have, and that chance is upon us, and I hope they run with it.

There’s no reason to stay “stuck on stupid” when the bindings have been loosed.

115. BaronByng - November 14, 2009

112 Jeyl —

Logically speaking, was there a need to state this? For instance, Nero’s ship with 24th century technology (and depending on which source you view as canon, Borg-enhanced) and likely overpowered any Vulcan defenses, orbiting space platforms and starships, as they made pretty quick work of the Starfleet task force.

Then again, the scene lays all this out for the viewer to infer what happened. There was the ominous loss of radio contact, Kirk’s insistence that this is an attack, the dramatic tension of whether Kirk is listened to or not, and then coming out of warp into a sea of broken starship hulls….

Taking a moment out of that dramatic flow to insert completely gratuitous expository dialogue might satisfy those who need their hands held and want all the dots joined up for them, but the writers and director decided not to insult their audience’s intelligence, not to wreck the flow of a dramatic scene to satisfy some Trek nerd’s obsessiveness, and instead presume that viewers will have enough of an imagination to infer what happened.

Seriously, I think decades of bad sci-fi TV with loads of expository dialogue and technobabble (I’m looking at you, Voyager and Stargate SG-1) have brought us to this. I weep for future generations.

116. Jeyl - November 14, 2009

@ 115. “I think decades of bad sci-fi TV with loads of expository dialogue and technobabble”

Red Matter. It does what ever the plot needs it to do. That reminds me a lot about Technobabble.

@ 115. “but the writers and director decided not to insult their audience’s intelligence”

That’s pretty easy to do when you consider your audiences doesn’t have that much intelligence. The moment they tell me I should leave my brain at the door, they’ve failed to respect me as an intelligent audience member.

117. Boborci - November 14, 2009


good point. And I get it. I was first a fan of tng.

118. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - November 14, 2009

#117. Bob Orci. As I have stated. Talk to who ever needs talking to and get Anthony Pascale a role however small in the next Star Trek Movie. he deserves it for having this great site where we can all throw out our ideas and even talk to the writers like you on the Trek Movies

119. Trekenstein - November 14, 2009

#115. “Nero’s ship with 24th century technology (and depending on which source you view as canon, Borg-enhanced) and likely overpowered any Vulcan defenses, orbiting space platforms and starships, as they made pretty quick work of the Starfleet task force.”

SINCE YOU BROUGHT THIS UP: why exactly then did Nero need the codes to Earth’s defenses? If his ship was so significantly advanced as to dispatch Vulcan’s defenses so readily, why would he need to torture Pike for the codes, other than for purely dramatic purposes – and there’s inherently nothing wrong with that in a movie – in much the same way the Kelvin was somehow able to remain viable when Nero decimated and entire 25 years-advanced Federation armada in the same amount of time it took to dispatch just the Kelvin (which technically it never did).

120. BaronByng - November 14, 2009


No, Red Matter is a MacGuffin. Like the Mueller Device or the Rabbit’s Foot (from MI:III). It has a very defined in-story function (a kind of matter that condenses into singularities), but its real purpose is to serve as an object of power and stoke the dramatic conflict between antagonist and protagonist.

Technobabble fills time with technical-sounding jargon at the expense of characterization and story.

As to the intelligence level of ST’09, this was not a dumbed-down Michael Bay explosionfest. This was also not an episode of a TV series where you walk in, the characters are well-established, the setting is pre-defined, and thus you don’t have to spend any time explaining that to the viewer.

The “jobs” that ST’09 had to do were the following:

1. Introduce the characters for the first time, to an audience that may largely be unfamiliar with them. (Yes, it’s possible.)
2. Give the characters better-defined backgrounds that helps the audience identify with them (Kirk as acting-out kid without a father figure; Spock in conflict with his dual heritage), humanize them, make them real, and give them emotional starting points for their character arcs.
3. Provide a narrative framework that shows how the characters meet, conflict, grow and change (continuing the character arc)
4. Help the contemporary viewer suspend their disbelief by making the world “realer” as a projection of the future from our 21st-century vantage point

and the biggest job it had to was:
5. Deal with the issue of decades of accumulated, conflicting and constraining canon which means nothing to a new viewer;
a) Providing an in-universe explanation for a “reboot” (altered timeline)
b) Major deviations from the prime timeline that definitely show that we’re not in Kansas anymore (destruction of Vulcan) and therefore in a fresh world where we don’t know what the outcome of the characters is
c) but maintain some things as core to the world and characters (for instance, Kirk cheating the Kobayashi Maru test, planets, races, basic technologies, character essences)

All of this in the confines of a two-hour movie that also had to be exciting, fun, leavened with moments of humor, memorable, and a summer tentpole film that would make or break a franchise. I doubt anyone else could have pulled it off with such deft sophistication.

121. BaronByng - November 14, 2009

118 I think it’s clear from the movie itself that while Nero’s ship is much more powerful and seems to be self-repairing, it’s not indestructible. It’s also possible that Vulcan was just caught unaware and Nero’s first strikes took out any potential defenses. Vulcan seems to have largely demilitarized since the pre-Federation era anyway (we mostly saw them as scientists or diplomats, not warriors, nor did we have mention of a particularly powerful navy…)

Earth, as the home of the Federation and Starfleet, is likely to be much more heavily defended / shielded.

122. Closettrekker - November 14, 2009

#82—-“A continuation of the great adventure known as “Star Trek.” A story set 50 to 100 years after Picard’s Enterprise. Very much like ST: TNG was. A “progression”, if you will.

Anything but the film we were given, which was a “regression” as well as a major disappointment.”

You and your “entourage” are not enough to justify something that most people, quite frankly, had no interest in seeing (especially if they had to pay for it).

No matter what they chose to do, someone was going to be disappointed.

I’m just glad it was you instead of me. I’ve been waiting more than 20 years for Star Trek to just get back to the far more romantic 23rd Century (alternate or otherwise), and to telling stories about the original characters. At least in Trek feature films, that’s what works. The numbers do not lie.

Even the most successful of the TNG-era films, First Contact, grossed about $13 million less than STIV: TVH——despite the latter being released a decade earlier!!!

ST:TNG and the other spinoffs were a “geeks only club”. The original characters just have more crossover value, and they always have.

There is a difference between a “geek icon” and a “pop icon”, the former being worth alot less money at the box office….:)

123. Jeyl - November 14, 2009

@121. “There is a difference between a “geek icon” and a “pop icon”, the former being worth alot less money at the box office.”

Always the sales pitch approach.

Here’s what can make the most money > Here’s what can make a great story.

Ever stop to think that maybe, just MAYBE a good story is enough to bring in the crowds? I also seem to recall that Star Trek Nemesis took the ‘non-trek fans’ approach when they ignored virtually every important detail regarding the characters and what they have all been through.

And don’t assume that I think the makers of the movie should go out and say ‘we’re making this for the fans’. Even attempts like that have failed miserably even to the fans (ENT: These Are The Voyages).

Remember. Star Trek started out with nothing. It had no fans, no outside opinion and no expectations. The end result is a franchise that has since formed a strong fan following for what it is. But oh no! Now Paramount wants to make as much money off of this franchise as it can, so anything that made the original Star Trek appealing to people should be put aside and replaced with action, action and more action. No cadence, no break time, no nothing. If we’re not moving the hollywood pace train fast enough, people will get bored.

Following Star Trek II as the high point of Star Trek my aunt phanny. That movie has less action and more ‘slow pacing’ than any Trek movie that’s come after it.

124. dmduncan - November 14, 2009

Just saw 2012. What a typical Emmerich mess. It was almost as bad as Star Trek was good, on every level bad, except for the CGI.

But DID get to view the new Avatar trailer, and if the film is as good as the trailer makes it seem, it’s going to be mind blowing. I’m starting to feel bad for Trek’s chances at the Oscars for anything after Avatar comes barreling through.

125. P Technobabble - November 14, 2009

100. RAN
I’m sure your comment about BobO being a “lousy writer” was either the ramblings of a depressed drunk or you just wanted to stir things up a bit, hmm?
What writings have you had published? What films have you written? I’d like the opportunity to decide what kind of writer YOU are, so be a man and supply a list.

It drives me insane that some alleged human beings have no problem at all being rude, insensitive clods.

119. BARON
I agree with your observations completely, including how the film was pulled off — quite brilliantly. If these guys could accomplish all of that in the first film, I can’t wait to see what they come up with next.

126. dmduncan - November 14, 2009

123: “Ever stop to think that maybe, just MAYBE a good story is enough to bring in the crowds?”

No, it’s not enough. You also have to tell the story well, you have to cast it well, act the parts well, create believable SPFX and production design, you have to score it well—all of which ST.09 did waaay better than I imagined it would, primed as I was to expect failure after a series of disastrous TNG movies that destroyed what Kirk and crew built.

And in it’s style, action, writing, and intelligence, Star Trek reminds me very much of Raiders of the Lost Ark, a film I dearly love and is the high watermark of it’s genre. If you had asked me last year this time if I would be comparing ST.09 favorably to Raiders, I would have laughed. I didn’t think it had a chance to be so good.

127. Ran - November 14, 2009


If you write for a character you do not understand nor respect, then anything you will come up with will be lousy. I don’t have to be an artist to appreciate art. I was just giving my opinion, like you did.

128. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 14, 2009

75. Shatner_Fan_Prime espoused “95% of the public disagrees, according to RottenTomatoes.com.”

You’ve cited RT before so I must conclude that you continue to give its numbers that masquerade as data far more credence than it deserves. But surely if you’d give your rational thought processes half a chance you’d realize that even with their unscientific methods and its lack of mathematical rigor that there’s no way they could sanely claim that 100 percent of the planet’s over 7 billion populace visited their site and voted? They’d be richer than Google!

And even if by “public” you meant some smaller subset surely you realize that not every member of that “public” that visits RottenTomatoes.com bothers to vote there?

It’s excessive hyperbole such as this which I cite as an example of how ST is over-hyped.

129. Jason P Hunt - SciFi4Me.com - November 14, 2009

I’ll put in my two cents and say again that I was extremely disappointed in JJTrek. To the point of anger. I was angry when I walked out. I felt insulted, and I’m certain that the TREK I grew up watching is gone forever. JJTrek was a string of coincidences that don’t even hold up to the movie’s own internal logic, such as it was.

This was not STAR TREK. This was a roller coaster ride with cheeky characters who had no respect for each other, and they just called it STAR TREK.

I had hopes after seeing the [i]Kelvin[/i] scenes. I thought maybe they got it. But after that it was such a long list of cliches that I wanted to walk out. If I hadn’t been writing a review for my site, I very well would have.

130. Jeyl - November 14, 2009


As an honorable man once said, “It will not be the same. The Enterprise I knew is gone. Those were good years, but now it is time for me to move on.”

And what did he do? Went on to DS9 and had a ball. I still have my TOS/Animated/DS9 sets and all the movies I can look back on. This NuUniverse and it’s cast of mostly a**hole can continue on without me. I will not miss them (Except for you Zoe & Urban).

131. Trekenstein - November 14, 2009

#128 – the RottenTomaotes.com review data is right there next to the ratings. Basically, Star Trek currently carries a 91% popular favorable rating out of 6,894 votes cast. That represents less than 1/64 of a percent of the almost 54 million tickets sold. However, the box office results are undeniable.

Granted it is hard to cite such things as evidence of a film’s artistic merit. After all, Transformers II carries a 54% favorable rating out of a similar 6,922 votes cast, yet has earned well over twice as much.

132. somethoughts - November 14, 2009


You really think Paramount will fork out millions of dollars for a sequel with the same team who did 2009 if it was as bad as you thought it was?

Just be thankful it did very well at the box office and garnered great reviews world wide, which allows for more of Star Trek. It’s a scary to think what you would have deemed good, anytime I go back to see a movie more than once in the theater, I know they nailed it.

133. Jeyl - November 14, 2009

@132: “Just be thankful it did very well at the box office and garnered great reviews world wide, which allows for more of Star Trek.”

Once ever few years you mean.

134. dmduncan - November 14, 2009

129: I just visited your site and read the review posted there for Terminator: Salvation, which you appear to have liked:

“Overall, I give it a 7.5-8 out of 10. I liked it better than I liked Star Trek. This is the way you rejuvenate a franchise – with a good story that actually hangs together and gives the actors something substantial to work with.”

Hahaha. WHAT story would that be? It was a noisy piece of junk with no emotion and nothing to care about from beginning to end. The high points of the movie were a) seeing Arnold as the Terminator again, and b) Moon Bloodgood in the role of eye candy. It’s hiLARious that you are complaining about Star Trek while praising that piece of crap, which is easily one of the worst SF movies of the year. Really, I thought it would take bottom honors, but I saw 2012 today and, as usual, Roland Emmerich just refuses to let anyone underachieve him in the art of storytelling…so, it was the NEXT to worst SF movie I’ve seen this year.

Star Trek was vastly superior to T:S in every way: believable characters whose conflicts and pains I felt, exciting action, great acting, great musical score, great SPFX, fun, several varieties of humor (fans of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton agree: slapstick is not a symptom of stupidity) and a very clever plot that sets the stage for a brilliant new future for these characters.

135. somethoughts - November 14, 2009


I agree and would even go as far as saying Transformers ROTF was better than that grainy sad boring Terminator Salvation pos lol yes I said it.

I saw 2012 today and it was what it is, a popcorn film away from all the day to day stuff.

136. dmduncan - November 14, 2009

I would put money on this. Roland Emmerich has a computer program for cliches. He starts out with an initial situation (this is the hardest part of the whole process, because he actually has to think of something) and the program shows him all the possible cliches that could come next, along with possible cliched dialogue. He then makes his choice and a new flow chart of cliches opens up, he makes the next choice, and a new flowchart of cliches opens, etc, etc, etc, and in 15 minutes he has a complete two hour movie to pitch.

I mean, you want your intelligence insulted, go to any Roland Emmerich film and every frame practically screams at you that you are too stupid to know that any of what you are seeing is bull. And it goes way beyond taking poetic license—the poetic license taken in ST.09, for example, to alert you that someone is coming through the black hole via the device of a lightning storm in space at least has a functional purpose in what is a visual medium of storytelling—no, Emmerich just makes up his own science and dares you to know better.

137. somethoughts - November 15, 2009



The whole neutrinos heating up the earths core/water without bursting humans into specks of vapour/fire balls was pretty funny.

That microwave idea would have worked if it had affected the earths atmosphere first, then have a domino affect on the planet.

The writer was a douchebag he killed the 2 pilots that saved this 1 in a billion lucky family’s lives and allowed some fat smuck to be leader when the president decided to stay back, lead and live. The absence of a godly figure also was stupid, no God/Aliens helping? yea right, what about the underground tunnels with the grays and nevermind. So many prayers were left unanswered and only answered with death and tidal wave after tidal wave of death. Very convenient also to run out of fuel and land in China and attribute it to the miracle of tectonic shift lol odds of that one happening to that 1 in a billion family is maybe 1 in a zillion and then being picked up by a monk who has connections on getting his rag tag team onboard one of the ARKS LOL at miracles. I forgot to mention the odds of that Limo zipping through Cali in perfect setups after setups and having enough time to take off in some family sized airplane where the step father knows how to fly rofl. The president also would have been siezed by special forces onto air force 1 and would not have had a choice to stay back. It was almost like I was watching a cheap Hollywood Movie, oh wait a second.

138. jonboc - November 15, 2009

114- ” And that means getting away from characters that don’t change from episode to episode.”

But we dont have that luxery in a film series that MIGHT come around every three years if we’re lucky. Episodic TV an a 2 hour movie are apples and oranges.

139. P Technobabble - November 15, 2009

Every version of tv Star Trek had its good and bad. TOS on film was more successful, IMO, because the characters had an earthiness and warmth that the later characters did not have. As I have stated before, I LIKED the casts of post-TOS Treks, but none of those characters had the warmth of the TOS characters, and when they tried it came off forced or artificial. From TNG on, the characters were mostly cut-out characters. While Patrick Stewart brought the best performances, IMO, he did not always have much of a role to sink his teeth into. People standing around discussing quantum paradoxes, or phase inducers, etc. is not much to perform with. The TOS actors also brought more of the “western” type of grittiness to their roles. This is not to say TOS didn’t have some forgetful moments, as well, but, overall, the TOS characters had the advantage of being more human. Post-TOS characters tended to be a bit bland, for my liking. Alright, that’s my 2 cents.

140. P Technobabble - November 15, 2009

127. Ran

And how, specifically, do you come up with the notion that these people did not understand or respect the characters? BobO has said more than a few times that he, also, grew up with Star Trek (mostly TNG, I guess), which was the Star Trek Gene Roddenberry wanted to make. And he has said more than a few times he is a Trek-fan. You can’t be a Trek-fan if you don’t dig the characters, since Trek is mostly about the characters.
To imply that someone is a “lousy” writer is simply YOUR opinion, it is not a statement of fact. The fact IS that BobO has had a pretty successful career, and that, in itself, deserves at least a bit of respect, don’t ya think? No, you don’t have to be an artist to decide what you like and what you don’t like, but you don’t have to state your opinions in a callous way, do you? BobO has been one of the most gracious people I’ve ever seen, coming in here to hang with the fans when he really doesn’t have to… and he’s put up with an awful lot of shit from some people who don’t seem to possess the decency to just be decent. I’m tipping my hat to the guy just because he’s showing us he’s one of us!
So, if you want to say “I didn’t like this” or “In my opinion, blah blah,” that’s fine, and I’m sure even BobO would respect that. But to say he’s a lousy writer is just shitty, and it makes me wonder how humanity will ever grow up and become the sort of Trek-ian people we all seem to admire.

141. dmduncan - November 15, 2009

138: “But we dont have that luxery in a film series that MIGHT come around every three years if we’re lucky. Episodic TV an a 2 hour movie are apples and oranges.”

That is false. Casino Royale begat the lovelorn vengeful Bond that we saw in Quantum of Solace, and that’s actually what we got with ST 2, 3, 4, and 6. So don’t say it can’t be done in the movies. It’s already been done. In TUC we see a Kirk still hating Klingons because they killed his son (TSFS), and we also see him grow beyond his hatred to finally support peace. Or in TSFS we find a Kirk breaking EVERY rule to resurrect Spock; he commits one criminal act after another to do it, and only by saving the Earth in TVH does he save his ass for what he did in TSFS.

(And Kirk returning to Earth after breaking every law in the book, while Starfleet is getting the branding irons red hot, only to find an opportunity for redemption through an alien vessel unleashing chaos on the Earth is a convenient coincidence, by the way, I have yet to hear anyone complain about).

It’s just too bad that Roddenberry wouldn’t allow that to happen in TOS. I LOVE TOS. It’s my favorite. The best. But that doesn’t mean I want to see its flaws repeated. Why make the same mistakes when no one is making you repeat them? Or you have a budget that allows you to do and show things you never could before?

So, for instance, if we see Klingons in the next movie, why show them all wearing the same uniforms and all having the same hair styles? Does everyone on Earth look the same the way all Klingons apparently do from TNG?

Of course not. Hell, all humans serving in the military do not even wear the same clothes when they are from the same country: The Marines have their own digital camouflage uniform pattern which is different from the one used by the Army, and every branch of the services have multiple versions of dress uniforms, each one completely different from the dress uniforms of the other services. So how do you show believable Klingons, Klingons with depth, when they all appear to be cut from the same lone template?

One of the cool things about Star Wars was the incredible visual depth George Lucas gave his universe. How many different Storm Trooper uniforms were there? And the Emperor had his own special guard, not just typical Storm Troopers to save money. Tattooine had more than one native form of intelligent life. Things like that.

And although I think the SW series went downhill after after the first movie, you DID see permanent character changes throughout the series, related to what came before.

142. P Technobabble - November 15, 2009

I’m pretty sure 2012 was based on the novel by Whitley Streiber.

143. dmduncan - November 15, 2009

And by the way, this young crew we saw in ST.09 was NOT the same crew we grew familiar with in TOS (and some, like Uhura, were actually BETTER than TOS, a fact which this film’s detractors don’t seem to notice). They were younger, and they acted that way, as if their characters were not yet formed. Kirk struggles against a tendency toward delinquency, rebelling against authority, and wasting his potential; he vacillates between good and bad self esteem. Spock struggles against his emotions and is less successful in that struggle—fitting, given that he is much younger—than we have ever before.

So if this young crew is EVER going to become the crew we saw in TOS, then yes, they HAVE to change, and I am really looking forward to and hoping we get to see what happens that forces them to mature.

(Whatever happens, it should be something that turns this crew into something more than a bunch of cadets cobbled together by chance and circumstance; it should be something that brings them together as a cohesive whole, with the awareness dawning that they make the best team in Starfleet.)

And give credit where it is due: One of the remarkable feats this cast pulled off was to take familiar characters, and keep them familiar while making them believably younger, which means different and yet recognizably the same.

144. dmduncan - November 15, 2009

@140: I think some segments of humanity are devolving, particularly in the online gaming sector, where words like “f***k” (and its many derivatives) and “bitch” constitute every third or fourth word spoken; consequently, they have the conceptual range of an adult chimp.

So you can’t expect much more ingenuity out of these folk than “YOU SUCK.”

145. P Technobabble - November 15, 2009

144. DM

I’m forced to agree with you, but I hope we are both wrong.

146. Trekenstein - November 15, 2009

#145, is that why you don’t have the decency to censor your use of the word “sh*t” on a forum which surely draws a large number of pre-teens, or otherwise use a more intelligent adjective to express your disapproval?

147. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 15, 2009

#131. Trekenstein observed “However, the box office results are undeniable.”

And yet what do they say undeniably? That it performed within a margin of error for the number gathering of 1980 of at least as well as that film which launched the film franchise? And yet, 2009 still failed to perform as well as STAR WARS which was Paramount’s supposed initial metric.


Much hay is made about what the studio thinks as a mark of success but studios don’t give a any credence to critics. CinemaScores mean more to them.

If critical acclaim was some meaningful metric to Paramount then ROTF and GI JOE would never have been released.

#132. somethoughts queried. “You really think Paramount will fork out millions of dollars for a sequel with the same team who did 2009 if it was as bad as you thought it was?”

As things get extended into the future it is hard to predict what Paramount as an organizational communal intellect might do. Right now they are giving such a long hard look at PARANORMAL ACTIVITIES’ ROI that it wouldn’t surprise me that they might come up with some scheme to cut budgets on productions and improve the ROI. And who could blame them?

148. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 15, 2009

#95 … “I’m not in a ‘small minority’ either. There are a great many fans out there who do not care for this film.”

Oh yes you are. No one cares what a few geeks on the internet think. As I already said in post #93, JJ brought a moribund franchise back to life, and not only that, he gave it mainstream & critical success it hasn’t known in many years. You can go by the ranting blogs of a few geeks if you want, I measure a film’s success by box office, good reviews, awards, little stuff like that. And Star Trek has garnered plenty of all those, whether you like it or not. I know you wanted a movie set 50 years after Picards’s time. You didn’t get it. JJ & co. chose to go with what’s proven and popular: classic TOS characters. Too bad for you, but I and many others are glad to have those characters back.

#147 “And yet, 2009 still failed to perform as well as STAR WARS which was Paramount’s supposed initial metric.”

That’s ridiculous. Where do you come up with this stuff? Star Trek is NEVER going to be Star Wars, anyone with sense knows that. Star Wars has set the standards for a blockbuster franchise from day one, and few series can match that kind of performance. Why would you even make such a dumb comparison when Nemesis made a measly 40-something million in 2002 and got critically trounced, and now we have such a big hit? JJ worked wonders, whether you like it or not.

149. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 15, 2009

#148. Shatner_Fan_Prime

You show your lack of knowledge of history. I didn’t “come up with this stuff” Paramount of the 1980s did as an excuse to boot Roddenberry from the sequel and fans of 2009 have used it to claim TMP a “failure” ever since, i.e. that TMP “failed” to live up to 1980s PARAMOUNT’S STAR WARS expectations for it.

150. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 15, 2009

#149 … Huh? That post is almost unreadable.

151. P Technobabble - November 15, 2009

146. Trekenstein

Your point is noted and I apologize if you are offended.
At the same time (being a step-father who was around pre-teens, teens, and whatever else), young people today use profanity more than any other generation, the “F”-bomb being tossed around like “uh,” and “like,” and “y’know.” HECK, I’ve seen movies with young kids in them who speak profanity cos that’s what was in the script (and I assure you, I didn’t write those scripts). The sound of words does not affect me very much, so I don’t really care. But again, I’m very sorry if I upset your sensibilities.
I am FAR more offended by mean-spirited people than words.

152. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 15, 2009


“It’s often forgotten nowadays that STAR TREK (THE MOTION PICTURE) was basically Par(amount)’s response to Foxes “Star Wars,” which had opened in May 1977.” – Derek Elley, VARIETY, December 24, 2001


153. Trekenstein - November 15, 2009

#146. I simply think it is ironic that you accuse those with the very lack of respectful language yourself. But I have observed people seem to get far too worked up on this board. I accept your apology in the spirit it was given. It is not so much that my sensibilities were offended, but rather shocked to see that kind of language where it truly doesn’t belong for any reason. Your point was well made about how others cannot seem to adhere to common decency in their remarks. But don’t get pulled down to their level.

154. Trekenstein - November 15, 2009

#147 – I just saw where “2012” made a whopping $225,000,000 this weekend worldwide and $65,000,000 domestically in a mere 3 days. I believe that’s quite a bit better than Star Trek did, but I could be wrong.

I bring it up because several have commented so negatively against it on this particular thread. What I find truly fascinating about that opening is that over at Rotten Tomatoes, the Critics have panned the film with a 23% favorable review. But the 732 general audience reviews give it a 60% favorable review – it will be interesting to see how that number changes. Unlike Transformers, 2012’s box office will not be driven by kids, but a much more general cross section of action film movie audiences like Star Trek’s.

What I found most interesting was this quote from Sony pres. of worldwide distribution Rory Bruer: “The opening number says that Roland Emmerich is an incredible filmmaker whose work resonates everywhere. He has truly set a new bar with this film in regards to the amazing images and special effects, as well as the story,”

Humorously he’s making the same argument that many on here make regarding Star Trek.

155. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 15, 2009

Son of a Maui Portagee…

In an earlier post, you said Star Trek 2009 “failed to perform as well as STAR WARS.” And in response to that I said, “Duh!” Of course Trek is never going to reach Star Wars levels. Star Wars pretty much defined the term blockbuster and has always had a huge following among children. So regardless of what Paramount hoped for in the 70’s, I still say it’s wrong of you to compare the two.

156. Charla- Trek KUDOS to JJ, BOB and ALEX!!! - November 15, 2009

I applaud J.J. Bob and Alex for rescusitating an otherwise dying franchise- they told a wonderful story that emulated Gene’s vision of optimisim, comradary and valor beautifully. The work that went into this movie is amazing, and the results are incredible. I appreciate the efforts made by each of the participating members of this new crew.

From the musical score to the special effects, the casting, the writing, the editing and I’m sure the directing (though we don’t get to see it :) ) Star Trek is absolutely the best movie I have seen in many years. I can’t see how it could have been any better.

J.J. Bob and Alex, if you see this, please know that you have made many more people on this small blue planet happier than you have disappointed. Your movie was a delight to see, especially in this era of apocolypic doom “entertainment”, which is so prevalently portrayed in many of the films shown today. Star Trek 2009 was a breath of fresh air.

I appreciated the new crew, the new look while maintaining the “old school” mentality of the characters, while not just imitating them. The new cast was allowed creativity with their characters. I watched Star Trek as a young child and can tell you that you hit it dead on. I loved watching these characters evolve and cannot wait to see them grow in the next installments.

Please take the negative comments lightly and know that the majority of people LOVED the movie and wait in high anticipation for the next ones. Thank you so much. Oh and to me, it ranks right up there with Star Wars-

As for the nay-sayers and haters, I say this: “I dare you to do better.”
(as said by Captain Pike)

157. sherlockfreak - November 15, 2009

Just gotta say, watching the Nimoy/Quinto scene was a real treat.

Seeing Leonard in full Spock getup and just talking and laughing… that gave me goosebumps and put a big, stupid smile on my face.

All I could think– “….. That’s Spock. That really. is. Spock.” :D

158. dmduncan - November 15, 2009

154: “I bring it up because several have commented so negatively against it on this particular thread.”

Yeah, that would be me. And what does how much money a movie makes have to do with how good it is? You think good movies make good money, the best movies make the best money, and only the worst movies deservedly flop?

This is not a Pixar cartooniverse.

And what else is Sony going to say? We’re real glad this piece of junk is doing so well at the box office? Please.

2012 sucked. It was worse than Terminator Salvation by the distance of the Earth’s crust to it’s iron core liquefied by the magical neutrinos emanating from the doomsday sun. It was stunningly ditzy. And FUNNY at all the wrong moments.

Emmerich is a Euro Cowboy who knows where his herd is, how big it is, and how to steer it mooing into the box office. Keep them doggies rollin’ pardner. Yeehah.

From now on, for me to go see anything that man comes within a mile of, someone ‘s going to have to pay me to go see it, and then only if I don’t have something more pleasant scheduled, like a root canal.

159. Trekenstein - November 15, 2009

#158. “Yeah, that would be me. And what does how much money a movie makes have to do with how good it is?”

Actually, I was referring to somethoughts’ posts as well … his (or hers) #137 being the first post to catch my attention on the subject.

Nevertheless, you have clearly restated my point – I have observed many on this site often cite how much money Star Trek made as a measure of how good it is. Which of course has nothing to do with anything and best left out of anyone’s evidence in order to make their point about Star Trek’s worth as a film.

160. Ran - November 15, 2009

@ 140

In case you didn’t notice, I only post MY opinions under MY real name.

161. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 16, 2009


As a point of clarification, I’m not the one who introduced it. The fans of ST 2009 did when they claimed TMP was a failure because of 80s Paramount supposed reasoning to that effect with regards to box office returns.

Personally, I believe it was trumped up by the Paramount suits of then solely as a method to cover up their responsibility for running up expenses in constantly waffling over whether it was going to end up a TV series, TV movie or motion picture, and to make Roddenberry the scapegoat because he wasn’t properly subservient to their “suggestions”. An example of this is the often vaunted $42 million cost of TMP figure those executives invented by ascribing the costs of the previously aborted production attempts to TMP’s budget. That was poppycock “accounting” then and it still is. Call me a stickler but I think every time Paramount changed direction in the 70s that those course corrections were each new productions that they wrote off, and it takes some fairly skewed accounting to try and hang all those costs on the TMP film’s head.

“Space battles, space battles, space battles, that’s all the studio ever wants is space battles. Space battles, that’s not what Star Trek is about.” – Gene Roddenberry

The only thing I’m guilty of is pointing out that STAR WARS was the metric used to claim that failure and asking those that would use it against TMP to hype ST09, to be consistent.

162. P Technobabble - November 16, 2009

153. Trekenstein
I want to reiterate my point, which is not about people using offensive language… I’ve seen profanity on these boards, and the profanity itself doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is mean-spirited people. I do not believe I’m bringing myself down to their level simply by swearing, nor do I find swearing to be specifically disrespectful, in and of itself.
This site is here for Star Trek fans, primarily. When I see posts coming from people like BobO, or David Gerrold, or Rick Sternbach, etc., I think of them as guests. When some of the people here blatantly insult them, well, this is what I find to be the most offensive act. I’m embarrassed that such guests have to put up with that sort of crap when there is nothing obliging them to post anything here, other than that they are Star Trek fans too.
People can certainly disagree, dislike, or even despise a piece of art. But to blatantly insult the artist simply on that basis is just plain ignorant, IMO.
And I promise to watch my tongue in the future…

160. Ran
You are right. I did not notice that Ran is your real name, but then again I didn’t know Ran is your name. I’m assuming you are indirectly commenting about my “board” name (which most people use one anyway). But you may not have noticed my board name has a link which would enable anyone to find out my real name. If you are not inclined to follow the link, my real name is Michael Gabriele, and I have no problem with anyone knowing that. Also, I’ve never given an opinion in here that would require me to hide or be ashamed of saying, so the board name is just a bit of play, really (for the record, I started out using “MikeG,” but then someone else appeared using that name, so I changed to “P Techno.”)… I’ve never said anything negative about Star Trek, or BobO, or pretty much anything else regarding the film or the people who made it, so I’m not hiding behind a screen name. I just don’t approve of “bashing,” or “trolling.” I do not think there is ANY reason to insult our guests. Is it such a crime to simply be nice?

163. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 16, 2009



“…those course corrections were each new productions that they wrote off,…”

should read:

“…those course corrections were each new productions that allowed them to write off the previous one,…”

164. P Technobabble - November 16, 2009

I saw “Pirate Radio” yesterday. My girlfriend and I both enjoyed it very much. It was funny and had some great moments and great music! I don’t know how much it cost them to make it, nor do I know what kind of numbers it will do, but it is a movie worth seeing.

165. dmduncan - November 16, 2009

159: “I have observed many on this site often cite how much money Star Trek made as a measure of how good it is. Which of course has nothing to do with anything and best left out of anyone’s evidence in order to make their point about Star Trek’s worth as a film.”

We agree then. How much money a film makes has little to do with how good it really is. Star Trek was a good movie. The only reason for concern about its popularity and how much it makes, from this fan’s perspective, is whether it makes enough to justify further movies, which I want to see

166. Christopher Boebinger - April 21, 2011

Wow that was unusual. I just wrote an very long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t appear. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Anyhow, just wanted to say excellent blog!

167. portable air conditioner reviews - April 21, 2011

I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you design this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz answer back as I’m looking to create my own blog and would like to find out where u got this from. appreciate it

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