MTV Movie Awards Nomination Voting Now Open – Star Trek In 6 Categories |
jump to navigation

MTV Movie Awards Nomination Voting Now Open – Star Trek In 6 Categories March 29, 2010

by Staff , Filed under: CBS/Paramount,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Are you ready for another award show? Voting is now open to determine the nominees for the 2010 MTV Movie Awards, and the 2009 Star Trek movie is being considered in six categories including Best Movie. More details below including links on where you can vote for Star Trek.


Vote for Star Trek

Voting is now open to determine the final nominees for the 2010 MTV Movie Awards. The 2009 Star Trek movie is being considered in 6 categories, with some having multiple options for Star Trek.

Star Trek is being considered in the following categories and you can click the links to vote.

Zoe Saldana is also up for Best Female Performance for Avatar.

Voting will run through 6 p.m. ET on Friday, April 9. After the nominees are announced, voting for a winner in each category will start May 11 and run through June 5. But voting for Best Movie will stay open throughout the awards show itself.

The 2010 MTV Movie Awards are being held Sunday June 6th, aired live on MTV at 9 PM Eastern.

Here is the promo video for voting:

Movie TrailersMovies Blog


Star Trek at 2009 MTV Movie Awards

Last year’s MTV movie awards were held just a few weeks after Star Trek had become a big hit and even though the film didn’t qualify for awards, Star Trek was all over the show. There was a Star Trek gag as part of the show opening and a Star Trek gag about ‘Starf Leet Clown Clown College.’ (See TrekMovie report).  A number of Star Trek celebrities were also on hand, including Chris Pine presenting an award and JJ Abrams appearing (on keyboards) in the hilarious music video "Cool Guys Don’t Look at Explosions." (below). You can watch the whole show at

Chris Pine presenting at the 2009 MTV Movie Awards

As reported on Sunday, Zach attended the MTV Movie Awards. While there Zach got himself onto the MTV 360 photo stage. Go to to play the animation showing a freeze frame of Quinto from every angle.

Zachary Quinto on the 2009 MTV Movie Awards Fashion 360
(Click to see animation)

JJ Abrams appearing in "Cool Guys Don’t Look At Explosions" music video


1. Red Skirt - March 29, 2010

Star Trek was all over the MTV awards last year? Could that have had anything to do with the fact that Viacom owns both Paramount and MTV?

Besides, there aren’t enough Star Trek fans on the planet to make it win a single MTV award. All one has to do is look at last years winners:

Twilight & High School Musical 3 swept the awards.

Not sayin’ it won’t happen, just that it’s not bloody likely.

2. MissDarkFaerie - March 29, 2010

I think it’s great that Star Trek is being nominated for 6 awards…although I’m not too optimistic on what movie’s gonna win (I.E Twilight Saga: New Moon) But you know what, I’m not gonna give up, I’m gonna vote every time I go on to the MTV Movie Awards site. I really hope Star Trek would win this year instead of the certain “vampire” movie, but I’m not holding my breath. So let’s do our best and vote every day…or every time you go on the site. (you have to register, though.)

3. ryanhuyton - March 29, 2010

Well, nominating “Star Trek” for anything at the MTV Awards is moot. We already know most of the awards are going to be “won” by “The Twilight Saga: New Moon”. Oh well! Some recognition is better than none I suppose.

4. Rusty0918 - March 29, 2010

I don’t think the MTV Movie Awards have that much credibility anyways…

5. S. John Ross - March 29, 2010

#1: “Star Trek was all over the MTV awards last year? Could that have had anything to do with the fact that Viacom owns both Paramount and MTV?”

Oh, I’m crushin’ hard :)

6. The Chief Engineer - March 30, 2010

I used to like the MTV Movie Awards until it became the MTV Twilight Awards… sigh… If only 12 year old girls couldn’t vote!

7. philpot - March 30, 2010

•Best Fight

no Kirk v Spock?

that was the one that first came to my mind

8. captain_neill - March 30, 2010

Can I ask why the media make this out to be the only good Star Trek?

9. wll - March 30, 2010

I like good Star Trek.But I think he’s too young.

10. James Cawley - March 30, 2010

#8- because the media has NO CLUE as to what made The Original so great and THE ABSOLUTE BEST TREK EVER.

11. Rocket Scientist - March 30, 2010


Because they can’t handle GREAT Star Trek.

12. Michael - March 30, 2010

I place all my Trek-related votes! MTV Awards are kinda pointless and cheesy…but will keep buzz going for the movie..and create sustained interest in the sequel.

13. I'm dead Jim - March 30, 2010

@10: You know it James! (although I do like me some TNG)

14. Just Another German Trekker - March 30, 2010

Heh, Andy Samberg, Will Ferrell and J.J. Abrams … an “explosive” mixture…

15. Jane - March 30, 2010

#7 “Kirk vs. Spock” wasn’t really a fight….it was more of Spock beating the crap out of Kirk. But it was still cool, don’t get me wrong, just saying.

16. Red Skirt - March 30, 2010

#12, “but will keep buzz going for the movie..and create sustained interest in the sequel.”

Assuming Paramount is able to plant Star Trek cast all over the awards again to remind all their young viewers what they overlooked.

As for sustained interest in the sequel … let’s see, awards for 2009 are over in June 2010, Star Trek wins nothing to renew interest. Star Trek’s last chance to be in the limelight for over 2 solid years. WIth two Summer’s crammed full of franchise favorites, Star Trek will not even be a glimmer in a non-Trek fan’s eye for the next two years.

I suspect the announcement that the next Star Trek will be in 3D will garner some interest for a while though.

17. VZX - March 30, 2010

I’ll vote, but I’ll doubt Trek has a chance to win.

18. P Technobabble - March 30, 2010

Who watches MTV anymore, anyway, and what is the percentage of those watching it who grew up with TOS (when it first aired)? I stopped watching MTV when it stopped playing music videos. There are differing demographics for MTV, but it attracts a primarily 12-25 year old audience, supposedly the “big spenders.” These are the people advertisers have their sights on. I don’t know how many people from 12 to 25 would consider themselves Trekkies, but Star Trek is a niche thing, anyway, isn’t it?

19. philpot - March 30, 2010

is it working now?

20. philpot - March 30, 2010

#15 – as opposed to Nero beating the crap out of Kirk.

although the Nero fight did have the great lines ‘I know your face…’ & ‘James T Kirk was a great man…’ evoking the shat

in a way, that was the shatner cameo (along with the Spock Prime line “A trick i learned…from an old friend…” )

21. jezza - March 30, 2010

Mia Wasikowska should win best female breakthrough for Alice in Wonderland.

She’s one of the only normal nominees in her category (along with Carey Mulligan). I mean why is Isobel Lucas nominated for a role that was only about 10 minutes long?

22. Jane - March 30, 2010

#20 Kirk seemed to get the crap beat out of him quite a lot in that movie, didn’t he? Also in the bar….

23. P Technobabble - March 30, 2010

16. Red

“…Star Trek will not even be a glimmer in a non-Trek fan’s eye for the next two years….”

Isn’t that how it was before Trek09 was released?

24. jezza - March 30, 2010

Eric Bana won’t win Best Villain as long as Christoph Waltz is still in the running.

25. British Naval Dude - March 30, 2010

LEONARDO NIMOY: Well, my young, young friends here at NTV…


LEONARDO NIMOY: It is “N”TV as long as “N”imoy is on the screen. Anyway… the award for best movie that young people went to so they can share popcorn, make googely-eyes at each other and, perhaps, just perhaps, cop a feel… well that awkward… I mean “award” goes to… (pause as he reads it)… Goddammit. It should be Star Trek! But it’s not! It’s that New Moon movie! Well- I’ll show you an Old Moon! (drops pants, points butt to cameras)

PRODUCER: Best award show ever! Wait… oh, God! The wrinkles! The wrinkles! Looks like some bad Spam winking at us… all that jelly…

WILLIAM SHATNER: Spock- your butt is mine and not for all the world to see!

LEONARDO NIMOY: Bill, I’m really getting sick of all the K/S sex fiction out there. It’s one thing to dream it up from some nerd’s perversity but it is quite another thing to actually act upon it.

WILLIAM SHATNER: Well, time to make a GILF tape- a Grandpa-ILF tape!

LEONARDO NIMOY: Fascinating. Quite right… with the popularity of MILFS, older women who men download on their computers, well, why can’t we explore the GILF? Come to me, Bill…

SULU: I knew it all along.

MILEY CYRUS: (in audience, having an aneurysm, vomiting) Oooooooo… I’m blind! That’s not the best of both worlds….

LOCUTUS OF BORG: Are you 18 yet? I have a nano probe that’s not so nano.

PRODUCER: Stop the feed! Shut it down! Oh, God… the FCC is going to kill us! Wait is that old, fat dude in a hairwig just going to kiss his… (vomits)

LEONARDO NIMOY: Star Trek has always been a pioneer in social exploration.

WILLIAM SHATNER: Is that why I’m kissing your rear?

LEONARDO NIMOY: I need my Celebrex if I am going to move towards you.

WILLIAM SHATNER: Let’s… JUST… takeanap.

BND: Awwwwwwwwwwwwk! I knew I shoulda’ V-Chipped MTV! Awwwwwwwk!


26. British Naval Dude - March 30, 2010

Oh, I kidz cuz I loves….


27. Christine - March 30, 2010

And we love you BND. xD

I hope that Miley gets assimilated.

Wait — no. That would ruin the Borg forever.

I hope she just gets blown up. (: (Not really, you guys.. geez.. I’m not that mean. xD)

Well, here’s hoping that Star Trek does well, even if it is just MTV. If New Moon wins, I will seriously lose all faith in MTV (RTV? There’s no music here anymore) because that movie was almost worse than Transformers. =/

28. Red Skirt - March 30, 2010

#23, and your point?

29. Phil - March 30, 2010

Didn’t win an Oscar, so let’s vote for an MTV award….you gotta be kidding…

30. ryanhuyton - March 30, 2010


Maybe we can send both Miley Cyrus and her dad Billy Ray into a parallel universe where they can torture the Klingons and Cardassians with their music?

It could be payback for their enslavement of humanity!

31. ryanhuyton - March 30, 2010

#16, 23

I believe there will still be “glimmers” in non-fans’ eyes. I’m still seeing lens flares myself. :-)

32. captain_neill - March 31, 2010


Yea the media does have NO CLUE.

TOS is fantastc, I do love all Trek.

But I do admit that I do feel Trek has lost a part of its identity by having Abrams make it appeal to the mainstream more so than the fans.

But while Abrams missed the deeper meanings that Trek deals with, even though he captured the sense of fun.

I guess the truth is this one is more for the non fans than the Trekkies.

33. iMe - March 31, 2010

Why is everyone mad that Abrams made Star Trek likeable, plus he revived it from almost certain death, people should be thanking him.

At first the audience zone was everyone.

Then in TNG (I don’t know cuz I wasn’t around until much later) but I assume the fans started dropping all the way until Nemesis (I *was* around for that but still pretty little?) where kids didn’t even know who Spock was (me for one until I saw TOS then ST09).

34. iMe - March 31, 2010

Now there’s a big audience and for the first time since Star Wars was made Star Trek has some spotlight.

It’s not the 1940s anymore!!!!

35. iMe - March 31, 2010

or 60s but I heard concepts were first starting in the 40s

36. P Technobabble - March 31, 2010


“…#23, and your point?”

Trek wasn’t a glimmer in the eye of non-fans (and even some fans) prior to Trek09’s release. If it isn’t a glimmer in their eye for the next two years, it will be once the sequel nears release. It’s all in the marketing and promotion, advance reviews, followed by word of mouth. That’s show-biz. You already know this stuff, right?

37. P Technobabble - March 31, 2010

31. ryan

I have no doubt there are a lot more people who were not Trek fans and — if you mentioned Star Trek to them– they would say, “Yeh, that was a great movie. I never watched Star Trek before that.” I think it’s clear, JJ & Co. presented a Star Trek that was clearly needed, in order to make it interesting to more than just the hard-core Trekkie/Trekker.
In fact, I am somewhat envious of the non-fan who may have never seen any Star Trek prior to “Star Trek.” Those people got to see the movie without any preconceptions about what Star Trek should be, or used to be. They got to see it without a Trekkie-filter in front of their eyes.

38. Woulfe - March 31, 2010

The MTV movie awards is about as mainstream as one can get as far as award shows goes.

How Trek does will tell if it has gone totally mainstream or not.

Avatar will win, as it’s gone mainstream and is more in the general public’s face right now then Trek is currently.

I bet the majority of the people in the audience will be like, didn’t that come out like AGES ago ?

39. Eddie - March 31, 2010

Hate to burst ones bubble but why is MTV still producing these movie award shows? They pretty muched dumped MTV Music as well as VH1. They should also get rid of the VMA’s as well since they don’t show them anymore.

40. Jane - March 31, 2010

I have a firend who had never seen it before, and all she had ever seen was ST09…yeah, she loved it, and she now calls herself a Trekkie……BUT she is about the stuppidest person on earth about Satr Trek, [she called Spock a “falcon”, I corrected her, VULCAN], and after seeing all the new actors new faces, she can’t enjoy the old ones because she says the actors are “too old”

I would rather NOT look like an idiot, how about you?

41. captain_neill - March 31, 2010


How can she call herself a Trekkie if all she has ever seen is the new movie?

If she can not look at TOS or any other of the shows and movies then she cannot call herself a Trekkie.

So the question is qute simple. Has JJ Abrams made new fans of Star Trek? or Has he just made fans of his one movie?

I do hate the mainstream, I really do.

42. boborci - March 31, 2010

See siskel and ebert thread fit discussion of deeper meaning fir those who missed it.

43. boborci - March 31, 2010

Cawley? You the same Cawley we put in the movie no shitting on us?

44. boborci - March 31, 2010


Thank you for saying media recognizes this as best Trek ever. Very kind.

45. boborci - March 31, 2010


Agree that mainstream
media deserves hate. But not about movies. Have you written your congressman or mainstream media even once about their lies about the real world or do you just complain here about movies?

46. P Technobabble - March 31, 2010

40. Jane

Of course, no one wants to be considered an idiot. When you say your friend is an idiot about Star Trek, I wonder if you’re being a bit harsh. Your friend may be uninformed, but that does not necessarily equate with being an idiot.
My girlfriend — who is my age, 52 — was vaguely familiar with Star Trek, in general, when she came with me to see the movie. She loved the movie, and has since watched most of the original cast movies, and she’s watched some TOS episodes. It took her a while to warm up to seeing Shatner and Nimoy, etc., but she’s come to appreciate whatever that THING is about Star Trek that makes it enjoyable. She may not consider herself a Trekkie, but she has more appreciation for it now than she ever did. I think this is one of the great things about Trek09, and how it managed to bring a lot of new faces into the theaters.
I’m sure you don’t expect everyone you know to be a Trek-fan, or as Trek-informed as you may be, nor do I expect it. There has to be room for everyone, in spite of the fact the planet is getting smaller all the time, don’t ya think?

47. captain_neill - March 31, 2010

Mainstream audience tastes are different than mine.


I was commenting on the fact that I wish my Trek got this recognition that the new movie gets.

I was just stating that I wished the Trek I grew up with got this attention, I just don’t want people to forget the Trek’s that came before.

And is it a crime if we prefer TOS over the new movie? I was commneting on the media in general not the movie.

I was commenting that they seem to forget the 40 plus history of Trek before this one movie.

Does that make sense.

God its the same with new Doctor Who. The new run gets more attention than the classic and I love to view both classic and new Doctor Who as one show.

With Star Trek I do view the new movie as a separate entity from the other 5 shows. But thats because it was set in an alternate universe that is parallel to what came before.

48. captain_neill - March 31, 2010

I love Star Trek and I just hate the idea that the other shows will fade.

And people don’t hate me because I think First Contact is a better movie.

Remember I did go in expecting to hate what was done to my fav show with this movie, but I ended up enjoying the film.

49. P Technobabble - March 31, 2010

Several years ago, I wrote to my Governor, Congressmen and Senators (in RI), regarding my dissatisfaction and frustration with the way things were going in the state. I got a form e-mail from one of the Senators and never heard back from any of the others. I was truly touched by their lack of response… Even a picture of them flippin’ me off would’ve been something…

50. Red Skirt - March 31, 2010

#36, yeah that’ what I thought you meant. That wasn’t my point at all. If you go back and actually read what was written, you’ll see I was clearly responding to Michael’s assertion that the MTV awards were going to help keep the buzz going. But what’s Paramount going to do for the next two years? Once the MTV Awards are over, and they will be forgotten like the next morning, there’s not much free publicity to keep Star Trek fresh in the minds of general mainstream audiences.

I never once suggested anything to the contrary about the first movie.

But thanks for bringing up that point. Please do elaborate on what kind of sense it makes for Paramount to let 3 years pass from the hottest their franchise has been in 45 years, allowing all of its heat to dissipate and forcing them to spend as much as they did for the last movie to get it back into the general public’s consciousness? Probably even more money, because the media is not likely to be as complicit in as widely reporting it, since a sequel is no where near as interesting as the great re-birth of Star Trek, nor did it do enough business to generate blockbuster “frenzy” reporting like Harry Potter and Transformers. In fact, considering how poorly it did internationally, it’s going to cost Paramount even more to get a bigger presence in foreign markets, assuming they care. Their on-record laissez-faire attitude toward international markets is not encouraging. Yes the CD & Blu-ray sales are going to help, but honestly, after three years, who’s going to remember, except the fans, without another expensive marketing blitz? Not the way to treat a valuable franchise. And frankly, the movie business is broke thanks to major financer’s lack of interest in financing in films due to the recession. That’s why they’re about to open film financing up to the general public. Plus, Star Trek got a lion’s share of Paramount’s advertising money for the year, they bet the farm on it. Few other films got the push Star Trek did last year. And GI Joe suffered because of it. Will Star Trek be Paramount’s top priority the Summer of 2012? No guarantees there.

Then again, JJ is a marketing whiz-kid. So assuming he still cares, and that’s debatable, he may find a way to make Star Trek the hottest worldwide mystery going for the next two years, or he may let it slide like everything else he’s ever been involved with.

51. P Technobabble - March 31, 2010

47. neill

I wonder if you are taking things a bit too personally? When TOS was in its first run, it wasn’t particularly noticed, other than that Leonard Nimoy was nominated for an Emmy three times. Low ratings and lack of sponsors, as well as the eventual Friday night timeslot, killed the show.
TNG fared much better with the critics. It managed to capture something of the original series’ social commentary, and it had Patrick Stewart, a superior actor.
None of the series that followed went over particularly well with critics, either. The original cast movies were considered hit-and-miss, while only First Contact received some critical notice.
The point is, it is not simply NOW that earlier Star Treks aren’t getting any attention. They didn’t get all that much during their runs. Star Trek has always been a niche thing, and the only fans it really had were those people who liked it.
The new film managed to attract a significant degree of non-Trek people, which was something of a breakthrough (only TVH managed to do such a thing before it). The new film, itself, certainly owes something to the Treks that came before, but I think you have to remember those were different times, as well. Today’s marketing and promotional strategies are more intense than they were in the past, like pretty much everything else, and people’s interests and attitudes are different, as well. But Star Trek has to be for TODAY. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what Star Trek was in the past, since the past is gone (well, I’m not speaking in terms of quantum mechanics…). All you can do is enjoy what is left of past Treks… like the way I enjoy all that is left of the Beatles. And what is new today will become all that is left to enjoy when you’re an old man looking back, and a whole bunch of new people will climb aboard the Enterprise to do their thing. This is how I see it…

52. P Technobabble - March 31, 2010

50. I admit, it appears I took your comment out of context, but I think it would be fair to say the comment does fit well within the context of your general negative orientation toward a film you’ve been rather critical of, anyway.
I am clearly not in a position to know what is going on behind closed doors with regards to the scheduling of the Trek sequel. One could just as well ask why some recording artists take such a long time to deliver follow-up albums (Stevie Wonder, Steely Dan, Bruce Springsteen come to mind?). Do you think Paramount or Abrams should deliver the sequel as soon as possible for the sake of staying in the public eye, or should they deliver the best possible sequel they can?
It seems to me that JJ & Co. have quite a few projects on their plates already, and I imagine this has got to have some impact on scheduling the sequel. It takes anywhere from 18 months to 2 years to make a film (from writing to release), and the creative team might have needed 9 months to finish up other projects… I’m just guessing, but this would take us into 2012, so it seems reasonable.
As far as there being less interest in the sequel, and how much it will require to promote it, that is just speculation. (I’m looking forward to the sequel like a kid on Christmas Eve, so Paramount won’t have to spend much to get me to see it). As I recall, Paramount initially expected the new film to open at between 40 – 50 million, but it opened at 76 million. The film did far better than Paramount ever expected, and came in at #50 on the All-Time Domestic Box Office. I see all of this as a positive thing, relative to Star Trek, in general. You may see this as a negative thing, but that is relative to other films that grossed more, which I believe is irrelevant, since Star Trek only has to do well, not better than Avatar, Titanic, The Dark Knight, Star Wars, and so forth. I would say the simple fact that Paramount is going ahead with a sequel is enough evidence that Star Trek did well enough to justify a sequel, apart from anyone else’s book-keeping. If it takes 3 years to get the sequel, and it turns out to be a monster, then Paramount and Abrams will appear to have made all the right choices. If it turns out to be a dud (God forbid!), they will appear to have let the golden goose get away. So, all I can do is shrug and say, “We will see.” Over the course of tv and film history, Star Trek has always had a life, and a few aces up its sleeve. I’m betting on continued success… are you?

53. S. John Ross - March 31, 2010

#47: “God its the same with new Doctor Who.”

Not exactly the same. NuWho has real writers.

54. boborci - March 31, 2010


You crack me up!

55. boborci - March 31, 2010


Correction. Paramount is on the Supreme Court’s timetable. Not the other way around. Understand?

56. boborci - March 31, 2010

Cap Neil,
I totally understand you wanting TOS to get the attention it deserved. And I understand the fear of having everyone forget the 40 years of Trek that came before.

We truly shared your feelings to the degree that we only agreed to do the movie with TOS characters, we pulled Nimoy out of retirement, and we learned Quantum Mechanics to figure out how to come up with an in canon solution to continuing TOS without erasing anything thatCaene before.

I would also point out that no less than Newsweek had Star Trek on it’s cover, celebrating the 40 years of Star Trek when our movie came out.

57. Red Skirt - March 31, 2010

#52, ” I think it would be fair to say the comment does fit well within the context of your general negative orientation toward a film you’ve been rather critical of, anyway.”

Nope. All on you. You choose to see my comments as negative and you counter-accordingly, to the extent that you make up things to debate me on. I could easily say that your posts are equally as overly-enthusiastic, defending the film autonomically without consideration to its actual merits. But hey, to each his own. I try not to profile. ;-)

As for the rest of your reply, it appears as though 90% of it was some argument you personally wanted to climb up on a soap box and make, rather than a response to anything I actually wrote (again). But by all means, please do demonstrate where I implied I wanted to see Star Trek fail. The mere fact that I question Paramount’s strategy would strongly suggest that I am interested in seeing Star Trek succeed, no?

58. Red Skirt - March 31, 2010

#55, oh Bob, I get all tingly when you manhandle me like that! You’re so big and powerful … ;-)

59. boborci - March 31, 2010

56. Back atcha’ baby!;)

60. boborci - March 31, 2010

I mean 58!

61. P Technobabble - March 31, 2010

57. I’m sure you’ve got a really good handle on all that I imagine, but I’d like to know what, specifically, did I “make up” just so I could debate you? I did not merely “choose” to interpret your comment as negative… there have been threads where you have made negative comments about the film… or perhaps you word things in such a way that they sound like negative comments. I do not “own” your words, I just read them. But I’m open to being corrected, or informed, so please do elaborate.
Further, my remarks were directed quite specifically at your question about what kind of sense it made for Paramount to wait 3 years to release the Trek sequel, and what sort of amounts of money it was going to take to re-heat and get Star Trek back into the consciousness of the media and the general public. My point was that Star Trek did not need to generate the kind of “blockbuster frenzy” as a Harry Potter or Transformers film, and I explained what I meant. I think Paramount was quite pleasantly surprised with the business Star Trek did, and it is not unreasonable for them to expect the sequel to do as well, if not better. Maybe it won’t turn out that way, but I’m just saying what I think. And I tend to note that “this is what I think; this is how I see it; here’s my 2 cents; etc” when I’m offering my opinion.
As for my enthusiasm, I make no apologies for being enthusiastic, and it should be pretty clear where I stand: I thought it was a great movie, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. Where do you stand? I honestly don’t know. But I would like to know what “actual merits” you are referring to? Its merits in the world of sci-fi? Merits in the world of film-making? Merits in the world of… what? What I think would probably be different than what you think, but I’m just guessing that cos we are, apparently, not on the same page. Over-enthusiastic? I wouldn’t say I’m “over-enthusiastic,” since I don’t wake up in the morning with the dvd in my hands, I don’t say a prayer to it before bedtime, and I don’t sleep with it under my pillow. Just because I have strong opinions does not mean I am over-enthusiastic. And I’m just saying what I’m saying. I’ve never said, “Hey, Red (or anyone else), you are just plain wrong.” Yet, instead of answering one of my questions, like “Do you think Paramount or Abrams should deliver the sequel as soon as possible for the sake of staying in the public eye, or should they deliver the best possible sequel when they can?” it seems you’d rather point out (what you believe are) my erroneous perceptions or interpretations, or accuse me of getting on a soapbox. Well, that’s an erroneous perception, cos I’m not on a soapbox anymore than any other poster is. Commenting, responding, offering opinions is what we do here, isn’t it? I suppose I could say nothing at all, but then you’d have no one to debate with, eh? ;-)

62. ryanhuyton - March 31, 2010

Captain Neill

Why do you always have to say the same thing over and over? You’ve made your points countless times. And I don’t think you understand the strategy behind J.J Abrams’ attempt to bring in the mainstream crowd.
Star Trek was overwhelmed by its own canon and desperately needed a reboot. Part of the reason for the reboot was to bring in the mainstream audience so the fan base can expand just like it did when TNG went on the air. I’d say that new blood has been injected into the franchise. New fans have been created. That means the prior ten movies and six (I’m counting the Animated Series) t.v series will be seen by people who previously ignored Star Trek.

While there are things J.J and Bob did that I have qualms about, overall they understood the characters and what makes them special. They also managed to write a decent (though not great) story with lots of action, humor and references to “The Original Series”.

Overall, this reboot has actually made Star Trek as a whole relevent again.
That came from the effort J.J and Bob made to reach out to the mainstream audience. People on this site may hate the mainstream crowd, but they are needed to allow Star Trek to continue to “live long and prosper”.

63. Colonel West - March 31, 2010


Good save Bob because frankly (no offence intended!) the visual of you manhandling yourself is one I can do without! Never mind the “The Schizoid Man” (both Trek & Prisoner) and “The Enemy Within” similarities…

Just swap out “Captain Kirk” for “Bob Orci” and the obscure tenuous reference is complete…..

64. ryanhuyton - March 31, 2010



65. The Disinvited - March 31, 2010

#56. boborci – “..we learned Quantum Mechanics…”

I like you but, COME ON! Given your workloads and schedules I doubt you all had time to take a graduate level seminar in which you all submitted theses demonstrating that.

Far more likely that you all thumbed through a shared copy of something on the level of a QUANTUM MECHANICS FOR DUMMIES.

I’d give you brownie points if you even managed to find a way to submit your QM concepts to a Kaku and managed to get a grunt that you interpreted as accent – but don’t kid a kidder.

66. Red Skirt - March 31, 2010

#61. “but I’d like to know what, specifically, did I “make up” just so I could debate you?”

Case in point. I believe I was very clear about asking why you questioned whether I wanted to see Star Trek fail from what I wrote.

You danced around every other point I made except to answer what I specifically wrote that made you question whether I wanted to see it fail.

And what you specifically made up to debate me about began with your initial inference that I somehow was being unfair to Star Trek by suggesting it will not be a glimmer in the eyes of non-fans in 3 years, when I was merely stating the obvious to support my point that the MTV Awards were going to have minimal impact in terms of keeping the “buzz” going for the next two years.

And what do I care if Abrams and Paramount don’t want to strike when the iron is hot? Correction: just the Supreme Court (according to Bob Orci they are calling the shots) … all that extra marketing expense comes out of the producer’s pockets, so the Supreme Court ultimately pays for it anyway. Did I ever say it would be a flop? Nope, those were your words. Will it cost more the re-ignite the flames? Probably. The last film wasn’t a flop and the sequel likely won’t be either. Will it do better? Probably if only because I expect it will be in 3D. But, I don’t understand where you would get from anything I have written that I would consider Star Trek’s measurable success as a negative? And I never compared it to other higher grossing films except in terms of getting free news media coverage. That’s what I mean about making stuff up to debate. I have no interest in debating any of those things, as I never brought them up to begin with. And I never suggested that they rush something to screen that isn’t ready. It’s a tired straw man that gets thrown up here whenever a diehard fan of this film wants to tow the Supreme Court’s line.

But I can tell you that delivering the best possible sequel they can, and striking while the iron is hot are not mutually exclusive concepts. Do you think that team churns out bad episodes of Fringe each week, because they have a deadline to do it and ratings to maintain? Why would the same feat be impossible with Star Trek? Especially, when you consider they are working on far more than just Fringe, and Bob Orci still finds time to come here and hob-knob with the fans. It’s a matter of priorities. And we’ll see whether The Supreme Court or Paramount make it one over the next two and half years.

67. ryanhuyton - March 31, 2010


Have you ever thought that it might be difficult to come up with new ideas after about 700 hours of Star Trek have been produced? Did you even consider that The Supreme Court and Paramount don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past, such as putting too much Trek in theatres and on tv all at once? I don’t think you grasp just how difficult a job Bob and Alex have trying to deliver a script and story that is unique, entertaining and yet remaining true to the spirit of Star Trek. And they are under a lot of pressure to come up with a movie better than their first one. Just because Bob likes to chat with us online doesn’t mean that he is wasting time and not working on the script. The sequel isn’t scheduled to hit theatres until summer of 2012. Its still fairly early. Now, if Bob and Alex don’t have a script done by the end of the year, then maybe we should be concerned.
But right now they have said they are in the early stages of script development. The hard part for them is coming up with an idea.

Personally, I’d rather have the Supreme Court take the time needed to write an awesome script rather than see them rush a half-assed version just because some nobody named “Red Skirt” is getting impatient and wants her Trek right now.

And if you haven’t noticed, Star Trek is still in the public eye. There may be no new shows right now and the sequel is still in development but there are other things to keep us going. Such as novels and comics. Star Trek movies and shows on dvd/Blu Ray. Star Trek on tv. Action figures and other merchandise.

“Striking while the iron is hot” may sound good in principle, but in reality it can lead to “franchise fatigue” such as what happened during the latter years of Rick Berman running the franchise. I applaud Paramount and CBS in recognizing sometimes its better to give “too little” so the fans stay hungry rather than “too much” so the fans become full and decide to move on.

Yes, I’d like to have something in the form of an animated series or some direct-to-dvd movies featuring some of the other casts. But that isn’t likely to happen. At least not until after the sequel comes out. You’d just better accept it and move on, because this is the way things are being done from now on. Its not worth losing sleep over. So get over it.

68. Red Skirt - March 31, 2010

#67, when you actually address anything I actually wrote in one of my posts, we’ll chat. Until then, you just keep making things up to debate with yourself and pretend I wrote ’em. Yeah, I’m losing so much sleep over this.

69. ryanhuyton - March 31, 2010


I understand damn well what you wrote. I got the gist of it. I think it is you who doesn’t understand what you wrote. Your response proves it.
You don’t understand why Paramount won’t strike the iron while its hot. You seem to think Bob is slacking off when it comes to writing the script to the sequel. You seem to think the mainstream audience is going to forget about Star Trek and that Paramount will have to spend more than the $150 million they spent on this movie just to bring people back. And you have said Star Trek isn’t a priority for Paramount right now. I disagree.
It obviously is. They didn’t spend $150 million for just one film did they?
No, they spent that amount to ensure the movie is successful enough to bring in new fans. They succeeded. Maybe more work is needed internationally. But you can’t always expect immediate results. Sometimes it takes a few years. Star Trek didn’t become popular overnight. It took a few years after the original series ended to become popular.

This is the problem you always have in regards to what you post. When you post something, and someone disagrees with your opinion, you act like the rest of us are idiots who don’t get what you write. Or that we go off on another tangent. And your constant negativity and cynicism in your posts is getting tiresome.

70. P Technobabble - March 31, 2010

“…I believe I was very clear about asking why you questioned whether I wanted to see Star Trek fail from what I wrote…”

Alright, if yer gonna call me to the mat:
I wrote: “Over the course of tv and film history, Star Trek has always had a life, and a few aces up its sleeve. I’m betting on continued success… are you?”
You responded: “But by all means, please do demonstrate where I implied I wanted to see Star Trek fail. The mere fact that I question Paramount’s strategy would strongly suggest that I am interested in seeing Star Trek succeed, no?”
Since what I wrote there was the only reference I could find regarding success and then asking you if you were betting on success, no, your response that “the mere fact” of questioning Paramount’s strategy “strongly” suggested your interest in seeing Star Trek succeed was not necessarily “very clear.” Your questioning Paramount’s strategy could suggest a lot of things, but you could’ve been clearer (and more direct) by just answering my initial question with a “yes, I’m betting on success” or “no, I’m not betting on success.” But I’m not holding that against you.

You: “…And what you specifically made up to debate me about began with your initial inference that I somehow was being unfair to Star Trek by suggesting it will not be a glimmer in the eyes of non-fans in 3 years, when I was merely stating the obvious to support my point that the MTV Awards were going to have minimal impact in terms of keeping the “buzz” going for the next two years.”

I didn’t make anything up. Originally, I said Star Trek 09 was in that very position prior to its opening… Star Trek (the franchise) wasn’t a glimmer in almost anyone’s eye. You are presuming that this 3 year wait means it will (again) not be a glimmer in the eyes of non-fans. You may be right or wrong, but you are not stating the obvious… yes, you are supporting your point (and I completely agree, MTV’s impact is non-existent), but that support is entirely based on an opinion, which is not, necessarily, shared by everyone who might be looking forward to the sequel. And I wasn’t inferring that you were being unfair to Star Trek… I said, specifically, that your comment seemed negative, and I based that upon your, generally, critical attitude toward the film.

You: “…Did I ever say it would be a flop? Nope, those were your words.”
No, I never claimed that you said it would be a flop, nor did I say it would be a flop, nor could I even find the word “flop” used in our exchanges. I said: “If it takes 3 years to get the sequel, and it turns out to be a monster, then Paramount and Abrams will appear to have made all the right choices. If it turns out to be a dud (God forbid!), they will appear to have let the golden goose get away…” I think this is what you were referring to, but nowhere did I say these were your words, nor did I imply that you said the film would be a flop. If there is a specific sentence uttered by me that says, “You say the film will be a flop,” please point it out to me.

You: “…But, I don’t understand where you would get from anything I have written that I would consider Star Trek’s measurable success as a negative?”
I’m not saying you considered Star Trek’s success as a negative. It’s the movie, itself, you seem to have a negative, or critical, attitude towards. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you have made a number of critical, or sarcastic, comments about the film following its run, comments that suggest you are not really a big fan of the film — which is another matter altogether than considering the “measurable success” of that film.

You: “…And we’ll see whether The Supreme Court or Paramount make it one over the next two and half years…” (referring to Star Trek becoming a priority).
What does this sentence mean? Considering that Viacom, Paramount and the Supreme Court acknowledged Star Trek was a home run for them, I have no doubt it is a priority for them…. (Hey, Bob Orci, would you say Star Trek is a priority, or will it become one soon, if it is not?) And, no, delivering the best possible sequel and doing so while the iron is hot are not mutually exclusive concepts, but can we presume to know what all the party’s are up to? Do you think there is a good reason why Star Trek will have to wait for a 2012 release, a reason we know nothing about? I don’t know, myself, but I’m gonna have to give them the benefit of the doubt and say, “Yes, there’s a very good reason why they have a 2012 release date, even though I have no knowledge as to why.”

There, I’ve given it all I’ve got……..

71. boborci - March 31, 2010

65. True. I exaggerated. I’ve been studying the subject since astronomy classes in college. Didn’t learn it just for this movie.

72. captain_neill - April 1, 2010

Look I know the mainstream was needed to make Trek big again.

All I am saying is that by doing that you are marketing it to people who don’t know or give two fraks for Star Trek.

So therefore it does lose something of its ideals in the movie. Yes it does capture the fun of the film but it made a few changes from the way I like my Trek.

And they need to do a stronger story next time and please I will go loopy if you put Khan in there. One thing I am tired off are redos and remakes.

73. ryanhuyton - April 1, 2010


Change is neccessary for the good of our beloved Star Trek. It doesn’t take anything away from the “old” Trek. In fact it preserves it while allowing for new story ideas.

Look, maybe the new “Star Trek” didn’t have the same ideals the others did, but that was due to the fact it was a reboot and the characters had to be introduced. I think the next movie will have some of those “ideals” you think were missing from this movie.

And just because they decide to do Khan doesn’t mean it will be a remake. Things are going to happen a bit differently in this timeline because of incursion of Nero. Sure, Khan will still be drifting in space, but its no guarantee that it would be the Enterprise that finds him.

74. boborci - April 1, 2010

72. Not logical.

It was previoulsy marketed to non fans when it was new and original.

75. captain_neill - April 1, 2010


When it was new and original it did not have a fan base.

All I am saying is that mainstream tastes do not match with mine.

The movie is great in keeping Trek alive but i feel better that the movie is a door into the other stuff as well for those newbies.

Nothing wrong with Star Trek being a fun movie but where as Star Wars was the popcorn, Star Trek was the meat and potatoes.

But based on your quote on the blu ray of the movie as much as Trek needed a bit more rock n roll I have to admit I like my classical music a lot.

Now please remember Bob that I do love your movie, I gave it a good rating. I just dont want the other 5 shows to be forgotten.

Hope this makes sense.

76. captain_neill - April 1, 2010

Look bottom line I DO NOT, repeat DO NOT hate the new movie.

I love it , I really do. Idid like Chris Pine as Kirk a lot more than I thought I would.

But can you blame for feeling a bit sad when I hear the new kids prefer Pine over Shatner and Quinto over Nimoy.

For me the original actors will always be those characters, the new actors are good but to me they just cannot take the place of the originals.

Even though his interpretation of Scotty was way off from the Scotty we know, Simon Pegg was still good fun to watch. The best one was karl Urban because he honoured the great De Kelly. Now De Kelly is and alway will be the real McCoy but Urban was great in the new film.

remember in my review I gave Trek XI 8 out of 10, I think this is a great rating for the film.

77. boborci - April 1, 2010

76. captain_neill – April 1, 2010

You’re right! Sorry. Feeling punchy last few days;) I’ll leave you alone! And thanks.

78. P Technobabble - April 1, 2010

76. neill

“…For me the original actors will always be those characters, the new actors are good but to me they just cannot take the place of the originals. ..”

I feel for you, I really do. In my mind, too, no one will ever take the place of the originals, but this is just a normal, human response to change.
To put it in Star Trek terms, the film TUC was precisely about things changing, even more than its metaphorical plot about the fall of the USSR.
Kirk’s line, “How can history ever get past people like me?” and Spock’s take on the painting of the Garden of Eden, “It reminds me that all things end,” are wonderful lines about how life is.
I do not begrudge young people who are just coming to Star Trek by way of the newest movie. I also understand they may have preferences for the new actors over the original actors. But guys like you and I will always have our attachment to TOS, and we will always have our memories. I have great memories of seeing Star Trek when I was 9 years old, and it was the coolest thing I’d ever seen. I’d like to think today’s 9 year olds can look upon the new Star Trek as something really cool, cos if they do, then Star Trek is going to be with them for a very long time. And, as I mentioned somewhere else, they, too, will grow older with these actors/characters and a whole bunch of new people will be taking the reins from JJ & Co., and this new cast, and the next generation will be off on their own newer versions of Star Trek. I think this is precisely what Gene Roddenberry had in mind, in his hope that Star Trek would go on forever.
PS: Before anyone has a chance to mis-interpret anything I haven’t said about the new cast — I love them. The casting job the Supreme Court did was remarkable. The new cast are completely worthy inheritors of the characters. That’s my opinion, and I’m stickin with it.

79. captain_neill - April 1, 2010


I agree

By the way why would anyone on this site want to penalise people for preferring the originals?

Just because I have a differing view on the new movie I still love Star Trek

80. P Technobabble - April 1, 2010

79. neill

Do you really feel you are being penalized for preferring the originals?

81. captain_neill - April 1, 2010

I don’t think so

But it does sometimes when I prefer other Trek over the new movie even though I do like the new movie.

82. Andrew - April 1, 2010

I hope Star Trek 11 and Avatar win, cause if they don’t i’ll scream: “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!” LMAO

83. dmduncan - April 1, 2010


Been away from the threads for a bit so it’s good to see you (post-wise) again. Took your advice and checked out the Siskel-Ebert thread, and WOW!

Brought a tear to my eye, watching you crack skulls like that, bro! I’m so proud of you! High five!

Remember, Siskel gave thumbs down to TMP while Ebert gave it thumbs up. I agree with Siskel, and disagree with Ebert, and I think Ebert is inconsistent as a critic. Just compare his Star Trek review to his Avatar review and ask yourself if he’s really being a fair judge of both movies.

And when you wrote in the other thread:

“I have no pride to injure. I believe all of the entertainment industry to be a distraction from things that are truly important.”

It’s just good to see that said by someone amidst all that stuff. I actually went out there to be a screenwriter when I was 18, and coming from NYC with how I grew up I just could not adapt to the illusory nature of that world. I ended up joining the Marines and then getting lost in college philosophy afterward, consistent with my own personal search for truth and knowledge.

I’m glad that you’ve found a way to cope. If you can’t stay grounded in the real world I don’t see how any of that crap would be worth it, because the price really is your soul and integrity.

So bravo, compagno. Bravo.

And looking forward to this culture war mention. Are you about to pull a Jerry Maguire? Or smash some idols?

84. jezza - April 4, 2010

I would like Trek to sweep to but Eric Bana won’t win Best villain for 2 reasons

1. Christoph Waltz is hard to beat

2. All the Johnny Depp fans will be voting in their billions for Helena Bonham Carter

85. captain_neill - April 4, 2010


Also dont forget that despite Eric Bana’s performance I do think Nero was not a particlarly great villain.

As I said in earlier I did give the film an 8 out of 10, one thing I cannot forgive the writers for in this film is destroying Vulcan.

86. captain_neill - April 4, 2010

but despite hating the decision to destroy Vulcan it is still a god film

87. jezza - April 5, 2010

I have a sneaking suspicion Christoph Waltz will win Best Male Breakout Star too. Here’s the logic

1. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto will probably split the Star Trek vote

2. Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms will probably split the Hangover vote

3. Rob Coddry and Clark Duke will probably split the Hot Tub Time Machine vote

4. Anthony Mackie and Jeremy Renner will probably split the Hurt Locker vote.

5. During awards season Christoph Waltz was winning awards left right and centre, for portraying The Jew Hunter. The most feared villain since Heath Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker.

88. jezza - April 23, 2010

I don’t think Zoe would have won Best Female Breakout Star if she was shortlisted.

Why? 2 words: Mia Wasikowska

Last year 3 of the Best female breakout nominees were Disney Hoes (Miley Cyrus, Vanessa Hudgens and eventual winnner Ashley Tisdale).

This year there are none shortlisted, however the same demo who voted for those 3 punks may start voting for Mia Wasikowska, knowing that she was involved with a certain Tim Burton movie released by Walt Disney Pictures.

89. Eric - May 7, 2010

I agree with Jezza

Firstly, in a way, because the Disney tween/teen crowd now know who Mia Wasikowska is, they will vote for her.

Secondly during last year’s MTV awards the Disney tween/teen crowd had three big campaigns going simultainiously (Miley Cyrus, Vanessa Hudgens and Ashley Tisdale). This year the same crowd who got those three loonies nominated (with one of them winning) could unite as one giant force and start voting for Mia Wasikowska, knowing that she was in the Disney produced, Tim Burton directed Alice in Wonderland.

90. Eric - May 8, 2010

Other demos probably voting for Mia Wasikowska are the three Facebook groups of Wonderland.

The Loyal Subjects of The White Queen
The Loyal Subjects of The Red Queen
The Disloyal Subjects of The Mad Hatter

I wouldn’t be suprised if The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) beats The Jew Hunter (Christoph Waltz), Nero (Eric Bana) and Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) in the villain category.

I also wouldn’t be suprised if Zoe lost to Anne Hathaway!

91. Ambrose Judge - May 25, 2011

I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Superb work! is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.