Lindelof, Orci, & Kurtzman Talk Star Trek Sequel (and Shatner too) | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Lindelof, Orci, & Kurtzman Talk Star Trek Sequel (and Shatner too) October 21, 2010

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

As we recently reported, work on the Star Trek sequel script is finally underway. A new interview with the writing team has some more comments about the process. See excerpts below for what Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are saying about their second Trek.

 

Trek writers on sequel expectations, characters & Shatner

As recently reported by TrekMovie, the writing team of Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof recently agreed on a story for the Star Trek sequel, allowing work of the script to start. In a new interview with NBC, the Star Trek writing team continued to offer no details about the film, but what they are saying is still very encouraging. 

Damon Lindelof talked about the writing process, saying:

Lindelof: It’s a lot of fun. There’s a tremendous amount of pressure because expectations, I felt, were a little bit low the last time. Now they’re high – but that brings its own level of excitement. So, you know, I hope that we do the fans proud

Alex Kurtzman says breaking the story was" “an epic moment for us, of feeling like we finally came to something that meets our expectations.” Kurtzman also talked about dealing with all the fan input and discussions and how he copes with it, noting:

Kurtzman: It’s exciting and terrifying and wonderful, and yet I want to put my head in the sand – all at the same time. I think Bob and Damon and I have to shut the noise out. You do listen to what people are saying, and our antennae are always out for what people are saying and what people want. We take that in, we process it, we adjust it, we talk about it, we debate it, and then we shut it all out and say ‘What are we going to do here? What do we want? What feels right?’”

For his part, Roberto Orci reiterated Damon Lindelof’s recent comments about how the primary concern for the writers is the characters:

Orci: Now we have all of characters in place for the beginning of the movie, so order number one is to make sure we’re taking care of them. The first movie had the benefit of slowly introducing them – they weren’t all there from the beginning. Now they’re all there, and we want to make sure everyone gets what they deserve first before we see who else can fit in.

The article notes that it is "unlikely" that they will write William Shatner into the sequel, but Kurtzman did offer some hope to those who are wishing to see Kirk Prime saying that if they can find a way to "do it right" then they will do it but they have to firstly "protect and make sure that the integrity of Star Trek is kept alive."

[Source: NBC PopcorBiz]

 

 

 

Comments

1. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

Like the approach.

2. Harry Ballz - October 21, 2010

It seems a lot of people here would like to see something along the lines of Doomsday Machine. Not so much that particular story, but it’s flavour of drama.

3. Vultan - October 21, 2010

Oh boy… here we go again. Prepare for another 500+ comments.

4. ShawnP - October 21, 2010

Oh, crap, now I’m gonna start checking this site obsessively again to see if plot points get leaked.

5. Putthetrekbackontrack - October 21, 2010

#2, you said it.

6. Hat Rick - October 21, 2010

And the most important question of all: Will it be released in glorious 3-D?

7. Sybok's Secret Brother - October 21, 2010

I am hoping for some Klingon action!
(Not that kind… wait… on second thought…)

8. Brad - October 21, 2010

Why can’t they get Shat into the movie my making a kind of retrospective movie where Kirk is remembering a certain adventure from his youth? He could be telling a story from his youth to someone else, etc, etc. There are plenty of variations possible. If you use my idea for your new movie, just contact me via e-mail and I’ll let you know where you can send my $10,000 check.

9. Brad - October 21, 2010

You Kirk could get inject with an aging syrum, which speeds up his aging process, turning him into something purely Shat-tastic!! Then we would see Bones and the rest of the crew going on a mission in order to find the components necessary to cure Kirk and restore his natural age. We could get some great one-liners from Scotty about how they need to save Kirk, while Bones rebutts with a “Dammit Scotty!! I’m a Doctor, not a TIME MACHINE!!!” Contact me via e-mail to send me my check. I’m going to have to charge $20K USD for that one though.

10. Bill - October 21, 2010

One can hope for all of those things. But my hope, good action, good plot, excellent character development and perhaps take TVH approach of no heavy. Unlike TFF where the heavy was overblown, but good character development.

Good luck fellas, that is a job I would never want.

11. Harry Ballz - October 21, 2010

8.

One of the key reasons they reset the Trek franchise in an alternate reality is so not to be restricted by us, the audience, knowing the main characters live to old age. If we know that nobody dies, where’s the peril? The drama? This way, in movie number 4, if they wanted to kill off, say, Scottie (not that they would), and actually leave him dead, they have that option.

Makes it more interesting if you know that ANYONE could be killed, doesn’t it?

12. TMMW - October 21, 2010

GIVE IT SCOPE!

13. Chadwick - October 21, 2010

Its nice to hear their views on their approach. I have all the confidence in these guys.

3. Vultan – October 21, 2010
“Oh boy… here we go again. Prepare for another 500+ comments.”

My thoughts exactly, but its good. I thought after the first article mentioning that script writing had started it would be a while before we got to an article with 500+ posts but then we had Damon talking about the idea of villain and now this. 500+ is good.

4. ShawnP – October 21, 2010
Yea, same here. Nothing will get leaked but at least we are all introduced to ideas we had not thought of.

14. Red Dead Ryan - October 21, 2010

I’m guessing that Bob and co. have been watching classic episodes like “Errand Of Mercy”, “Space Seed”, “Balance Of Terror” and “Where No Man Has Gone Before”. I think that their storyline and plot for the sequel will be influenced by those episodes, while they try and do something new, exciting and surprising at the same time. Its a really thin and wobbly tightrope they are walking, and if they fall off, we’re all screwed! :-)

Last time, they wrote the part of Captain Pike with Bruce Greenwood in mind. I wonder who they want in the sequel as a “guest star”?

15. Battle-scarred Sciatica - October 21, 2010

How the hell could’ve “expectations have been a bit low last time”?

That makes no sense.

Did he not feel the immense pressure from us guys alone (not including the rest of the non-geek world) as he started to put pen to paper?

I apologise for describing us all as geeks.
I’m a geek and I’m proud!

Nice to have a bit of news at last.

….and Anthony is not dead….

16. Cygnus-X1 - October 21, 2010

I hope this one has some thoughtfulness and intelligence to it, like TNG was known for. The interpersonal relationship themes are great, but TOS generally had philosophically or politically oriented themes, as did TNG, so it’d be nice if you brought some of that to this film, as the first one didn’t really have any of that.

17. Red Dead Ryan - October 21, 2010

#11

“Makes it more interesting if you know ANYONE could be killed, doesn’t it?”

Except that a great number of fans get upset when a main or major character is killed off. Kirk, Dax, Spock, Trip Tucker, and Yar. There is almost always remorse on the part of the actor, while the writers are criticized heavily for what fans percieve as a slap in the face. And in the case of Kirk and Trip, those deaths were seen as either being unnecessary or an insult or both.

18. Mick - October 21, 2010

The classic live-action and animated Trek series made use of secular humanistic philosophy in episodes like ‘Who Mourns For Adonis’ and the ‘Magicks Of Megas-Tu’. Star Trek: The Next Generation continued that philosophy with episodes like ‘Who Watches The Watchers’ and ‘Devil’s Due’. I’d like to see a new Trek movie that employs that kind of philosophy again. Trek once was a champion of reason and rationality over superstition and zealous passions.

19. Hat Rick - October 21, 2010

Two words: Nine eleven. Allegory.

Okay, so that’s three words. But the first two are the most important ones.

Trek has been about more than pew-pew shoot ‘em ups. In the turbulent 1960’s, it was about the futility of war, the absurdities of racial discrimination, and the senselessness of overtechnologization. Trek was about the human condition, politics, and all else that really mattered.

To most people, Trek means a way of life. Could it be true to itself if it were only a pew-pew palliative, an opiate, as it were, of the sci-fi masses?

To ask is, itself, to answer.

I rest my case.

And it should be in 3-D, maybe it should.

20. Harry Ballz - October 21, 2010

17.

Yes, except this time, if they ever kill someone off, you can bet the story will be a real corker!

p.s. I’d be surprised if they actually kill off a main character.

21. Red Dead Ryan - October 21, 2010

#15

“I’m a geek and am I’m proud!”

Same here, man, same here!

22. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

18. Where were you when I needed you?

23. Red Dead Ryan - October 21, 2010

20

“Yes, except this time, if they ever kill someone off, you can bet the story will be a real corker!”

Corker…..as in exciting enough to uncork a bottle of red wine I bet!

24. Harry Ballz - October 21, 2010

Why, what a good idea! Excuse me while I do that now!

25. Mick - October 21, 2010

Yes, we need to see a return of that 1960s idealism. Gene Roddenberry was a writer with allegory on the mind and an eye looking beyond the sky. He opted to show us how we might survive our self-destructive behavior with exploration, education, science and progressive ethical awareness. I mention in an earlier post that Trek made use of the secular humanistic philosophy (that as a species we must look to ourselves and our own ability to reason to overcome hardships – not grovel before a god or gods). But that’s only one idea that helped make Trek different from other TV shows. Those are the positive things that the new Trek movie might find a basis on. Just do not let Roddenberry’s stateliness infect the rebooted universe. That’s the only gripe against Roddenberry. He let Trek become too formal. The 2009 film had an energy to it that made it feel fresh compared to the prime ‘verse.

26. MJ - October 21, 2010

Hawaii 5-0. Bob Orci, still loving 5-0, and this weeks episode was the best so far. I like the contrast between them basically torturing that guy from the bar and then them being offended at the end by a dog being potentially put down. One nit though — in the opening scene, you have a lady taking a cell phone call while underwater in a submarine. That is pretty much impossible my friend.

27. MJ - October 21, 2010

“The article notes that it is “unlikely” that they will write William Shatner into the sequel, but Kurtzman did offer some hope to those who are wishing to see Kirk Prime saying that if they can find a way to “do it right” then they will do it but they have to firstly “protect and make sure that the integrity of Star Trek is kept alive.” ”

I love the Supreme Court, but at the same time I wish they had the balls to just say no to fat shat so that this issue would go away…we all know Abrams is not going to go for Shat in the movie, so what is served by Kurtzman trying to place the 25% of fandom that can’t lat go of fat shat???

28. MJ - October 21, 2010

meant “placate” not “place”…sorry

29. Trekprincess - October 21, 2010

All I want is a great movie :-) good luck guys

30. Red Dead Ryan - October 21, 2010

27

“…so what is served by Kurtzman trying to place the 25% of fandom that can’t lat go of fat shat??”

“lat”? never heard of that word. I assume that you meant “let”, although lat does rhyme with “fat shat”!

31. Hugh Hoyland - October 21, 2010

Just got Star Trek Countdown and Star Trek Nero, kick butt. Now as far as the sequel story goes, they sound like their confident in what they came up with, and if they are, then I am to, cause these three guys know their stuff.

32. James - October 21, 2010

The doomsday machine was a great episode which had a foe that at the time of watching as a young child scared the hell out of me, a shell shocked commodore decker (to be played by Tom Hanks of course) riddled with guilt at being partly responsible for the death of the uss constellation’s crew. Kirk still getting used to being a starship captain and a blossoming friendship with spock.
A planet killer which unlike v’ger is not looking for a creator – it has one cold purpose: to destroy.
This doesnt even have to be the main plot – it could be various events in this sequel that set it up for the 3rd film (i.e introduce Commodore Decker – the general Patton of starfleet commanders – respected, feared and looked upon in awe. There can be rumours slowly filtering through of distant planets vaneshing etc and Decker being sent to investigate)

33. nuKirk - October 21, 2010

notice they made great note to mention antennae… meaning so far as I can gather I think they might be angling to include or focus on the Andorians…remember awhile back they referred to “Cold Space”…

34. Chadwick - October 21, 2010

31. Hugh Hoyland – October 21, 2010
“Just got Star Trek Countdown and Star Trek Nero”

Nice! I HAD to read countdown before seeing the new movie, I wanted to know how they tied it in, made me anticipate the movie that much more. If they did another comic launch before the next movie I bet it would work.

I also loved the world wide marketing and the viral marketing, it put star trek in the limelight! The huge set up in Tokyo and Germany, world premiere in Sydney. I would love to see the same world wide spectacle when the next one comes out. It just made us trek fans that much more excited to see how connected and excited we all were. The first trek movie I saw in theaters was Star Trek Generations and never has the anticipation and excitement been so elevated and lasting.

35. gingerly - October 21, 2010

@3

lol so true. but they’re fun so why not?

@15

everyone I knew including myself thought Star Trek 2009 would end up being 90210 in space. so yes, expectations were very low. but now that we know what they can do, we’ll expect nothing less than the best.

no plot suggestions from me right now, but I would not mind seeing some of the minor background characters continue in their background roles like TOS did. bring back Madeline, the goldshirt with the Afro, that guy who’s not-kal Penn, etc…

36. Zebonka - October 21, 2010

Middle East allegory. The Vulcans have picked a ‘suitable planet’ to live on, only they totally screw up and end up stealing a planet from life forms they didn’t know were there. Or maybe the planet itself is alive or something. Israel in space. Why not? They did the end of the Cold War with VI.

37. Iowagirl - October 21, 2010

Yes, yes, blah, blah, sure, whatever, what? Well, have to go back to work now – it’s unlikely I’ll do it right if I keep paying attention to this hooey.

38. MJ - October 21, 2010

32. OK, the movie opens, and we have a 10 minute sequence before the title sequence starts that has the Enterprise in action completing TOS episode of the Doomsday Machine…wouldn’t that be cool! I really like this idea in general — the movie could open with a 10-minutes action packed concluding sequence of an TOS episode, then the STAR TREK title sequence pops up, and then the new and original story starts…AKA a James Bond type of opening.

39. DJT - October 21, 2010

Will there be any reference to the books from back in the day?

40. Chadwick - October 21, 2010

33. nuKirk – October 21, 2010
“notice they made great note to mention antennae”

Good call. Ah, speculation.

615 days 21 hours to go

41. gingerly - October 22, 2010

Gotta say, I don’t envy them this task. O/K have to somehow pen an acessible, engaging story, that’s not lacking any depth (aka “less trek”) for being such.

That’s a difficult balance. Not to mention evolving the characters while keeping them authentic.

Also, influences are fine, but I don’t want them to redo any Trek story. If I want I to see a particular episode of Trek, I’ll watch that episode. I don’t need a repeat on the big screen.

42. Anthony Pascale - October 22, 2010

RE: Expectations low
The way I read that is that the last two Trek films were not well regarded by the general public or Trek fans. It had been over a decade since the last successful trek film.

43. Harry Ballz - October 22, 2010

41. gingerly

“have to somehow pen an accessible, engaging story…..that’s a difficult balance”

Bob is on record as saying his favorite TOS episode is Balance Of Terror.

Great, he probably has nightmares every night not to commit a Balance Of Error!

44. the one they call Nate - October 22, 2010

i really hope they have more ship to ship battles. I love fleet actions and was so excited when I thought that I was going to see one in the first movie. Then….everybody died. Although that was awesome and a great lead in to the power of the antagonist. I still wish and hope for there to be some good old fleet battles. The tech is there for it and I just think it would be dandy!!

45. somethoughts - October 22, 2010

Ah I’m bored and need star trek so here I go writing random convos. lol

Kirk: In order for us to go undetected we would need a way to cloak the Enterprise.

Spock: The Federation and Starfleet does not posses such technology, captain.

Kirk: Then all maybe lost.

Spock: However, The Klingons are known to have developed cloaking technology over the past few years.

McCoy: Looks worried and looks over at a grinning Kirk, and says, “Just hold on a god dam minute.”

Kirk: Spock, start your computations and calculations, we are headed to the Klingon research station.

McCoy: Are you out of your freaking mind? We would get blown out of the sky.

Spock: Captain, the Klingon research station is protected by 500 Destroyers, 250 Birds of Preys, thousands of cloaked mines and they have a direct link to Qo’nos. This is a highly illogical plan, and I calculate only a .001% chance of success.

Kirk: All we need is one cloaking device.

McCoy: Jim, this is suicide.

Kirk: We will steal the cloaking technology from the mine, Spock, Scotty and Chekov should be able to use it to cloak the Enterprise and we can sneak in and finish our mission.

Spock: Lowers one eyebrow and says, “fascinating”

46. Schiefy - October 22, 2010

Why not figure out a way to bring KirkPrime into the alternative timeline in search of Spock? ;)

Of course, they would still have to explain his Prime Death but I am sure something could be worked out (spin off from Shat’s novels–and give him a nice cut of the writer’s residuals).

There are always possibilities–the question is whether the Supreme Court can (and want to) actually find a way to introduce the Shat so that it has mass appeal (doesn’t over complicate the main story and characters) AND pacifies the nit-pickers (plausibly explains Prime Kirk’s presence)! I agree that a future nuKirk kills (pun intended?) the dramatic tension of wondering if they might be inclined to off Kirk at some point (after all–the killed the whole cast of Lost, didn’t they?).

Should be fun to see what they come up with for the next movie–with or without Shat!

47. somethoughts - October 22, 2010

#46

Kirk Prime said goodbye in Generations, the only way we can see Shatner in the movie is if Pine contracts a aging illness and Shatner can do his thing for 10mins. It would be Shatner playing a aged version of Pine, the Prime Kirk would be too contrived to be in the rebooted Star Trek imo.

48. JOINMEINGORGEOUSDESPAIR - October 22, 2010

He said antennae!!!!! This must mean Andorians! YES!!!!! NOW I’m excited!

49. somethoughts - October 22, 2010

#48

I’ll bet you 1,000 Latinum bars that the next movie will reboot the Klingons.

The surpreme court gets to play around with one of the most iconic adversaries to the Star Trek universe. Klingons had a glimpse of the alternate future, their armada got wiped out. This is a great opportunity for the writers to give the Klingons more depth, get rid of the stupid Viking Klingons and reboot them as the cold war intelligent power hungry soviet communist types of the 60s to 70s. The writers can explore cloaking technology, home world, customs, intelligence, lifestyle of the Klingons.

What was on the screen of the KM test? Where was the Kelvin near when it was destroyed? Who held Nero captive for 25years. All this will tie into the sequel, to me, the obvious choice is Klingons and as a tease to us fans, the Botany Bay will make a cameo at the end to make your hair stand up.

50. JOINMEINGORGEOUSDESPAIR - October 22, 2010

#49
You know that to include Klingons doesn’t exclude Andorians?

51. somethoughts - October 22, 2010

#51

We will see :)

52. somethoughts - October 22, 2010

*50

53. Kirk, James T. - October 22, 2010

Sounds promising I just hope they stay focused on doing a Star Trek that appeals to a broad audience just as the first one did and continues to build on that popularity rather than JUST listening to the fans and making a film for JUST the fans.

54. somethoughts - October 22, 2010

Yea the litmus test will be if my wife likes it, she hates star trek, but liked ST2009.

55. Chris Pike - October 22, 2010

@#3
yes ideed, more noise for Bob and co to absorb and shut out!

56. Yankee Baseball - October 22, 2010

#47–I believe that if they wanted to, the writers could bring in Kirk Prime, Generations or not. It’s sci-fi after all. It’s not like they don’t have the talent to make that happen.

These people made Lost after all.

It’s not a question of “could they bring in Kirk Prime.” It’s a question of “will they.”

The quote about Shatner in this article is pretty meaningless. There’s no way they don’t know something that that major at this point.

Could they tweak the script and change things? Sure. But Shatner’s kind of a big deal. And one thing is certain, they aren’t just going to stick him in for a single scene.

That would be a waste.

They already know if Shatner’s in the movie, and if I were betting, I would say it’s not happening. But I’ll reiterate my complaint.

Get this out of the way early.

57. somethoughts - October 22, 2010

Ill be happy if shatner was a bar tender or had some easter egg cameo, sorta like the security guard in the hulk reboot. Just a quick nod and wink to all.

58. somethoughts - October 22, 2010

#56

It would be possible if kirk prime visted this alternate reality, reboot crew visiting prime reality, hologram, or some freak transporter accident or some contrived idea. See why it wouldnt work? You would need to shape script just for shat and that is why it never happened and won’t.

59. Tom - October 22, 2010

UGHH

Bob if you are here .. how can you be doing this again with shatner?? I know it was a quote from Alex but this is the same stuff that was mishandled on the last film. I still can’t believe that they can’t get him in there. If not then they just need to say that. I really believed that the team really wanted this to happen. I mean there was a scene written(which would have fit nicely) that ultimately got knocked out. Isn’t this around 3-4 years talking about Shatner. This team seems like the are invoved with the writing or creation of half of hollywood tv an movie productions. With all that background they can’t figure this out! They are talking about protecting the legacy when they turned the whole Trek universe on its #@#$$^ head. That was a good thing and it opened up a whole new world of possibilities. It just makes these responses really lame

60. Oh Yeah!! - October 22, 2010

Thank God!
No Shatner.
I like him and he was a great Kirk.
But that was another life.

61. Ran - October 22, 2010

“protect and make sure that the integrity of Star Trek is kept alive.”

What a joke.

62. aboveallinfluence - October 22, 2010

“Ran”

What a joke.

63. What is it with you? - October 22, 2010

KURTZMAAAAANNNN!!!!!! KUUUUURTZMAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!

Kurtzman: “There was a lot of discussion and we even wrote a scene for Shatner, but ultimately it felt like it wasn’t doing service to what he represents to the Star Trek legacy.”

So, it basically means there is no chance for that the beautifully written hologram scene to make it into this movie.

Damn.

Bob (and I think you confirmed it was you who wrote it)…you got robbed on that one. Kurtzman is totally wrong. Having Shatner sum up why they do what they do – and why being a captain was so important to him – doesn’t do service to Shatner’s Star Trek Legacy?

I’ll say it again.

KUUURTZMAAAAAAANNNN!!!!

64. David B - October 22, 2010

If they don’t make Scotty more like Scotty and less like Hot Fuzz Scotty I really couldn’t care if they kill him off in the next film.

65. Ran - October 22, 2010

@ 62

Watch the new movie again and then read the quote, maybe then you will get it.

66. Grump - October 22, 2010

@65
Don’t worry. I understand you. You didn’t like the new movie and now you’re bitter.

67. Jeyl - October 22, 2010

“protect and make sure that the integrity of Star Trek is kept alive.”

What integrity? Star Trek’s integrity has changed over the past 40 years. You think that anyone who ever took on a Star Trek project would ever make a series that had a female captain in it? The original Star Trek series didn’t have female captains in it, and out right said that the Federation don’t admit women as Captains. And that’s coming from the creator of Star Trek mind you. If that’s the integrity you’re trying to shoot for, congratulations. Now Uhura is an incompetent officer who leaves her station on a whim and has her communications duty handed down to Chekov.

You can’t say you’re maintaining the integrity of the ever changing integrity of Star Trek if you don’t explain what you think that integrity is. That’s as vague as saying “We want to make a good movie.” because I know a lot of bad movies were made by film crew that were filled with such hopes.

68. pothead - October 22, 2010

this will be the best trek ever. Nu trek is the future. Old trek is stupid.

69. Ran - October 22, 2010

@ 65

“Disappointed” is the right word.

70. T'cal - October 22, 2010

KLINGONS!!!

You Klingon bastard, you killed my son!
You Klingon bastard, you killed my son!
You Klingon bastard, you killed my son.

C’est le vie

71. Crusade2267 - October 22, 2010

As a New Yorker, I think that the film dealt with 9/11 a lot better than Enterprise did. That scene where old Spock tells Kirk how he just lost his home describes exactly how I felt on September 12, 2001 when I watched F-16s fly over my house. There was so much loss, and death, and pain, and the awful realization that some fanatic had declared war on my country by killing innocent, peaceful people. They really captured that in the movie, I felt.

Do that quality of work again, and it will be a fantastic movie.

72. Captain Kirks Toupee - October 22, 2010

Less lense flash please! purty please…with sugar on top! LESS!!!

73. pock speared - October 22, 2010

“expectations were low”

i remember well the voices of doom that were ready to write off trek09 before anyone had ever seen it. each day brought a new outrage: the enterprise shipyard trailer (“no way! it was built in space!”), the casting of simon pegg (“they’re making a comedy!”), the use of romulans (“have these idiots never seen balance of terror?!”), etc.

the cries of “not canon!” became a running joke (anthony nearly had to 86 it), and some of the most now-supportive voices here at trekmovie were guaranteeing an “epic fail” for the whole project. (and you know who you are). even the phrase “not your father’s star trek” was proof that JJ hated all fans.

low expectations? more like total contempt.

in the end, people just fell back on lens flares and the engine room to whine about (both of which helped define the unique vision of the project – i loved the engine room and its contrast to the bridge, and the lens flares bothered me about as much as the muted tones of the uniforms in TMP, which i now find rather lovely).

74. Harry Ballz - October 22, 2010

Shatner would want a big role, lots of money and it would totally change the “pace” of an otherwise good film.

Shatner will plead to the average fan, “Can’t I be in the next movie?”

My response? To paraphrase from TSFS, “The answer is NO. I am therefore going (to see the movie) anyway!”

75. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 22, 2010

On the next Trek Movie. The #1 thing I want to see is a new and more real looking Engeneering Set. Not a Brewry. Ok that said. Would like to see the Shat but am ok with out him. A great story with lots of action and an emphsis on the big 3. A Great flyby of the Big E would also be great.

76. Hugh Hoyland - October 22, 2010

#34 Chadwick

Yeah Im really glad I got them, even though the movie has been out for quite a long time now. IMO Countdown is a great send off to TNG as well.

77. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 22, 2010

In Trek 09 the most of the Fleet was in a different sector and never explaned why. That can be used in many ways. Maybe a big battle was about to start with Klingons or other Romulan or the Breen or the Doomsday Machine. The Fleet is Lead by Commodore Matt Decker. (Played by Tom Hanks) The Battle is not going to well and the Enterprise is called in to help. They get there and most of the fleet is destroyed with only the U.S.S Constalation remaning under Matt Decker. I bet Bob and the court would have some great Ideas on a story there.

78. William Kirk - October 22, 2010

“Protect and make sure that the integrity of Star Trek is kept alive.”

LOL, funny :-)

79. pock speared - October 22, 2010

“protect and make sure that the integrity of Star Trek is kept alive.”

noble thought. the integrity of trek was well murdered by the pointless death of kirk, the rewriting of picard into a sobbing, ineffectual ahab, the redefinition of data as a flotation device, klingon pimples, a plot involving clones that was in fact a clone of a plot, etc.

the new film gave trek the only integrity it’s had for ages. i

80. Jorg Sacul - October 22, 2010

The balance of power in the Federation is out of whack. With Vulcan all but gone, perhaps Andoria might get the urge to be more “pushy” in UFP policy and politics. This internal bickering could be noticed by the Romulans, who start sending Birds of Prey out to test Federation border weakness…

There, Bob, you have your gateway to Balance of Terror. :)

81. Trek Nerd Central - October 22, 2010

I move to refrain from indulging in all “put Shat in/keep Shat out” discussions, because they’re exhausting, annoying and pointless.

All agreed say “Aye.”

82. AJ - October 22, 2010

Shatner could do a fine pre-credit/opening voiceover similar to the first Dick Donner Superman movie, over a quick visual nostalgia surge.

That way, the canonites assume in Universe 2, that he lives to be at least 79, and we all get that warm and fuzzy feeling before the film kicks off in grand fashion.

83. janice - October 22, 2010

More news regarding the Star Trek sequel–so I’ll just post what’s most important to me—-

I think it’s really important that PIKE not only be in the sequel, but he should be a part of the main story. Not just a token cameo!!
Kirk may be Enterprise Captain now but he’s still very young, and, of course, cocky.. Also, the Enterprise crew is quite young (except maybe for Scotty). Pike has both the experience and the maturity that Kirk doesn’t have as yet. Pike should be guiding Kirk behind the scenes–after all, he was the one to recruit him into Starfleet and the Enterprise was his ship before it was Kirk’s. Pike would have a vested interest in both Kirk and the Enterprise.

Yes—i’m a Star Trek fan that wants to see PIKE (Bruce Greenwood) front and center in whatever story we get–with the rest of the crew.

I’m confident the writers will do a great job and I’m hoping JJ Abrams will direct once more.

84. NTH - October 22, 2010

It seems to be a case of “Here we go again” with regards whether Bill Shatner is in or out.Have no lessons been learned here?

85. Kirk, James T. - October 22, 2010

What could happen is that once you die you appear in this alternate universe with no recollection of your previous life – but in a very FRINGE-ish way, Shatner aka Kirk Prime somehow does remember his previous life…

86. P Technobabble - October 22, 2010

I think Shatner should portray an intergalactic salesman, who’s trying to sell Pine a new motorcycle. He then haunts Pine for the rest of the film, popping up at the most unexpected moments…
SHATNER: Justcomein… and take a test drive. I promise you… it…will…be… a lifechanging experience.
PINE: Why are you talkin’ to me, man?

87. Ear Slugs a Go Go !!! - October 22, 2010

I’m not even going to comment on this !!!

87th ???

88. Trek Nerd Central - October 22, 2010

@84. No.

89. Buzz Cagney - October 22, 2010

#87 whats to say?- and congratulations on nailing that number!

88th?

90. Buzz Cagney - October 22, 2010

oh darn

90th?

91. Buzz Cagney - October 22, 2010

yeh!

92. Thorny - October 22, 2010

26… There were lots of impossibilities in that latest “Five-O” episode. The worst was that amazing spy satellite that defies physics by hovering over Honolulu 24/7.

Mr. Orci, I know Hollywood loves those amazing spy satellites, but they don’t work that way in the real world… not even close. Also, no way in Hell somebody’s going to be working in the CIC or any other classified area (If you can look at spy satellite images, its a classified area) with their cellphone in the pocket. None of these Five-O complaints are as bad as Kirk going from Cadet to Captain in 48 hours, but a little familiarity with things military wouldn’t hurt Five-O. Do what Stargate SG-1 did early on and get a military rep to come in and point out the worst offenders.

93. WSH - October 22, 2010

I think it would be great to have Shatner back, but not as Kirk. Make Shatner young Kirk’s Klingon nemesis. Have a scene where Shatner steals the captains chair and beams it back to his bird of prey…. .

94. NuFan - October 22, 2010

68. Old trek is stupid.

Only most of it. Not all of it.

95. Scooter - October 22, 2010

No Shat. To do some kind of flashback or time travel stunt just to have him in the movie would be pathetic. Keep the story fresh, new and exciting. Also. noooooo lense flare. Good gosh, first movie I’ve seen where I felt the need to wear sunglasses after a while.
I’ve enjoyed almost all the ST movies (ST-V sucked). I’m really looking forward to the new one!

96. Trek Nerd Central - October 22, 2010

@94 – NuFan.

Wow. Troll much?

97. Damian - October 22, 2010

97–Just someone looking for attention. Maybe we need Chief O’Brien to create a special computer program just for him to keep him occupied, like his doghouse on DS9 “The Forsaken.”

98. captain_neill - October 22, 2010

I am sure they will write a good movie.

I know there will be a few things they will do I will not be happy with but that is just the Trekkie in me still trying to get use to the changes they made in the last movie.

Bob I know you will write a fun movie, good luck.

68
It s comments like that that make me hate this site most of the times I am on here. Yes I love the new movie but for God’s sake its NOT the best thing in Star Trek and I would gladly put a number of episodes of TOS and the spin offs above the latest movie.

ALso 68
Are you a new fan who will only watch the new JJ Abrams movie, if so you are missing out on some great StarTrek.

Also the new movie seems to be more like Star Wars than Star Trek, please Bob can the next one go back to the strengths of Star Trek’s ideals

99. captain_neill - October 22, 2010

In regards to 68 and 94

These are the kind of comments that annoy me about this site and the new movie.

It has the Star Trek I love get a bitching while no bad word should be said about JJ Abrams vision. Just hate this mentality.

Seriously Bob good luck with the script.

100. Jeyl - October 22, 2010

“There was so much loss, and death, and pain, and the awful realization that some fanatic had declared war on my country by killing innocent, peaceful people. They really captured that in the movie, I felt.”

Yes, and what better way to end that tale with cheery eyed smiling faces? The way everyone seems to have recovered from this planet wide catastrophe is so mind blowing that these characters can get over just about anything and not think of it as a big deal. We just lost an entire planet with 6 billion men women and children and everyone is smiling with glee at the end. Those Vulcans must have been the most unlikable a#^holes in the entire galaxy and everyone was happy to see them all dead. That’s pretty much the only logical explanation I can come up with since their best take on an Uhura/Spock romance plot was just to have it come from nowhere.

101. Admiral_Bumblebee - October 22, 2010

Prime Kirk as villain who has been resurrected and brainwashed by a greater evil.
Prime Spock and young crew bring back Prime Kirk to the “good side” and fight the greater evil together. Prime Kirk and Prime Spock ride off into the sunset…
Would this be so difficult? :)

To me it seems that they do not WANT Shatner in the movie…

102. CAPT KRUNCH - October 22, 2010

We don’t need a prime Kirk….I still say SHAT should play Tiberius Kirk…Jim’s grandfather….it just make sense and there is no need to force Prime Kirk into the story just to have him there…

103. Jack2211 - October 22, 2010

No allegories please — a mere handful of (mostly weak, clunky, dated and heavy-handed) TOS episodes were allegories. Sure, get some larger human issues in there, but no (wink, wink — this nebula collapse is really about global warming). And no use of TOS plots, aliens, villains, characters simply for the sake of doing so. Oh, and no Kirk and no Khan. The Dark knight gets mentioned a lot in here, and I think it works because it’s set, basically, in the real world… at least more so than any of the previous movies. I’d like to see that here. I’m pretty sure you guys have all this covered, cool to acknowledge the fans… but cater to the characters and the story, not to us — we’re not going anywhere.

104. I am not Herbert - October 22, 2010

PLEASE!!!: NO big fat old bald Kirk (prime)!!

…instead, make Shatner a big fat Cyrano Jones: intergalactic trader and general nuisance to Captain Kirk. Seller of Spican flame gems, Antarean glow water and tribbles!

105. Kirk, James T. - October 22, 2010

The trouble is, is that William Shatner has become a parody of himself so by including him in the next or any future Star Trek production barring a spoof, would really damage the integrity of, in this instance, the 2nd movie.

What we need to realise is this, Star Trek has STILL got alot to do to get to the level of popularity that many other summer blockbusting franchises revel in. Certainly the 2009 movie did a huge amount in putting Star Trek out into the mainstream but what I really hope the writers realise is that, story and plot, characters etc.. aside, we all know they are the most important parts to get right, is that they continue to push for a movie that captures the imaginations of the kids as Star Wars did back in the 80’s and 90’s and which continues to do today…

If the Star Trek legacy is to live on, it’s not the fans that need to be won over, it’s the younger generation that might have dismissed the 2009 movie.

106. Daoud - October 22, 2010

Ah hah… Alex just told us there will be Andorians…

“our antennae are always out”

Since antennae are biological, and antennas are electromechanical… clearly Andorians, yep.

(j/k)

107. Daoud - October 22, 2010

Argh, didn’t refresh first. Observation-joke already made about Andorians. Here’s a better one.

Characters might die? Watch out CHEKOV!

After all, even D. C. Fontana has now killed Chekov off!

108. SirBroiler - October 22, 2010

No Shat.

109. I am not Herbert - October 22, 2010

FULL AGREEMENT w/ Jeyl @ 100, so I don’t have much hope for the next one, but who knows? …maybe they can have a change of heart, instead of pandering to what placates American egos…

110. gingerly - October 22, 2010

@100

Those Vulcans must have been the most unlikable a#^holes in the entire galaxy and everyone was happy to see them all dead. That’s pretty much the only logical explanation I can come up with since their best take on an Uhura/Spock romance plot was just to have it come from nowhere.

It came from hints too subtle for a good percentage of it’s audience to pick up on (both in TOS and the 2009 film) and I’m afraid they’ll go for much more concrete and less classy/savvy indicators in the next film precisely because of this.

I think one main reason people didn’t pick up on it was because they were predisposed to the idea of both characters being solitary. …Spock far moreso than Uhura (despite that fact that canonically Uhura was far more solitary).

People romanticize the untouchable ideal of the more popular character of the two and/or are miffed by the perceived disrupting of Spock’s previous attachments that in TOS were considered to be of significantly more narrative importance, i.e. Kirk and Chapel.

This they do regardless of the fact that canonically Uhura easily out-“loner”ed Spock in that respect. …Being such sexy icon, that she made racists rethink that position just by being a poised and foxy on TV, but got her one and only “romance” in the form of mind-manipulation by Spock’s half-brother.

…Which of course, was dropped after that film.

That I would say is much more illogical than any “violation” of Spock’s character for being with her.

111. Devon - October 22, 2010

#100 – “Yes, and what better way to end that tale with cheery eyed smiling faces? The way everyone seems to have recovered from this planet wide catastrophe is so mind blowing that these characters can get over just about anything and not think of it as a big deal.”

I believe this is how a few episodes of TOS ended. No matter what happened, they were their cheery selves telling corn jokes at the end of the episode. Oh well, the sun still comes up the next day.

112. Devon - October 22, 2010

*corny jokes ^^^

113. gingerly - October 22, 2010

@111

I believe this is how a few episodes of TOS ended. No matter what happened, they were their cheery selves telling corn jokes at the end of the episode. Oh well, the sun still comes up the next day.

The Balance of Terror is a worthy exception to that.

114. Red Dead Ryan - October 22, 2010

98 & 99

“It s comments like that that make me hate this site most of the times I am on here.”

Its the way things work on this site, fortunately and unfortunately. Pothead and NuTrek are just a couple of fans. Not worth it to get all worked up over what they write.

“It has the Star Trek I love get a bitching while no bad word should be said about JJ Abrams vision. Just hate this mentality.”

I guess you’ve never read any of Jeyl’s comments, then? Jeyl has NEVER written anything POSITIVE about the new movie!

115. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

38. MJ – October 21, 2010

I am not sure it will be doomsday machine but something along those lines. I have a feeling we will have another incredible opening sequence which will blow everyone away, a big spectacle but something familiar like doomsday machine or something. I just have this hunch big opening with a not to something from TOS.

116. Damian - October 22, 2010

First, anyone who calls themselves Pothead is not going to garner a lot of serious attention to begin with.

There has been Abrams bashing and new movie bashing. But what I do agree with Captain Neill is that it is in vogue to Berman bash. To me, Berman’s greatest fault was staying on too long. However, he too oversaw a popular period of Star Trek’s past. The 90’s was much like today. You had 3 series and a blockbuster movie (First Contact) right in the middle of it all. Berman kept Star Trek alive (and well) for a number of years. Abrams is doing that today, bringing a 3rd generation of fans into the mix. Some of those fans may decide to check out some of the other movies and shows.

I loved it all and always try to make an effort to thank everyone invovled for keeping me entertained the last 44 years. That is what Star Trek is for, afterall.

117. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

44. the one they call Nate – October 22, 2010

I agree, I am also one for the fleet battles. Starfleet is not primarily about force hence the one on one submarine battles we would always see because Starfleet was usually defending or reducing a hostile situation. But we do know of what the starfleet can do. So for 2012 lets see the battle and not simply the wreckage when the Enterprise arrives. You wanted the Enterprise to look like a hot rod, show us what a fleet of these babies can do!

118. Damian - October 22, 2010

101–There was a great deal of suspension of disbelief involved. I am hoping the next film tones that down a bit. I agree with other posters who have said, some consequence of Vulcan’s destruction to the Federation should be explored. It does not need to be the whole movie, but should play some role. After all, a founding member of the Federation along with billions of people are dead. That has to have political and military consequences, not to mention some emotional impact, even on Vulcans who survived.

119. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

119. Damian
I agree, those consequences should indeed play a role in the new movie but not engulf it.

General note: When it comes to Shatner, put him in the movie or don’t, but enough, I am sick to death of it. If he is not in the next movie it should be a dead topic at the end of it! Cynical because its enough already, I guarantee if he’s not in the next movie people will want him in the third of the new films.

48. JOINMEINGORGEOUSDESPAIR – October 22, 2010
He said antennae!!!!! This must mean Andorians! YES!!!!! NOW I’m excited!”

Or that is what they want you to think. Sneaky sneaky. I would like to think as trek fans they are giving us a very minor nod as to what is coming.

120. Red Dead Ryan - October 22, 2010

RE: Shatner

As Bob Orci has said in another thread

“There will be no announcement.”

So it is evident that the “will Shatner be in the sequel/or will he not be” debate will stay alive for at least another year.

The ball is in William Shatner’s court. The writers will come up with something. If Shatner agrees, great! If not, its all on him and we will have to move on.

121. Exidor - October 22, 2010

I love Shatner’s interpretation of Captain Kirk. But Shatner had his chance to be in the previous movie and balked because it was a “cameo.” The scene that they wrote for him was great! I woulnd’t have thought it was possible before I saw that birthday message to Spock.

In that scene the Kirk character served the story instead of the story serving Kirk. Shatner had his chance with some great material and turned it down. Sail on Enterprise and don’t look back.

122. Jeyl - October 22, 2010

@111 “I believe this is how a few episodes of TOS ended.”

Again, this is one of those “integrity of Star Trek” that changed as the series progressed over the decades. Did Kirk completely recover after the death of Spock? No. Did he recover completely after the death of David? No. Did Sisko or Picard recover the day after the Borg attacked the Federation? No. Did Sisko recover at the end of the episode where Dax died? No. Did Janeway recover fully from her decision to remain in the delta quadrant? No. These sad events were no where near as catastrophic or as tragic as the destruction of an entire planet’s species.

Sure, the sun may come up next day, but did Star Trek really need to start off with such a bland genocidal act of murder and mayhem from a villain who’s motivation is completely determined by what the writers want him to do and not what any ‘thinking’ being would do?

123. Damian - October 22, 2010

121–It seems to me Kurtzman’s comment on the end was pretty definitive. They are not writing a Shatner scene. He left a crack in the door that they would not rule it out 100%, but I take his comment to mean that is not the direction they are moving in.

I’ve noted my opinion before that I believe Shatner is not interested in a 2 minute, adios! scene. Since they are not including him as a substantial role, I think it’s probably safe to assume he will not be in it.

At least as far as I am concerned, the matter is put to rest. You will not get a more concrete answer than was Kurtzman said.

124. sean - October 22, 2010

ST12: SHIT MY SHATNER SAYS

125. Lt. Bailey - October 22, 2010

I think it needs Shatner…but that is just me and my love of growing up with TOS.

126. sean - October 22, 2010

#122

Because no thinking being has ever committed genocide or mass murder for illogical reasons, right? No, that would just be silly.

127. Hat Rick - October 22, 2010

^^^ AUS dollar is, in fact, quite high.

About allegories: Why not? Star Trek IV was even more direct than an allegory — it was basically a message movie. It did very well.

ST: TMP was also an allegorical movie, all about the relationship between man and his creation, on one hand, and between God and man, on the other. It was quite classy, profound, and successful (though a tad slow).

ST VI was an obvious allegory for the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. ‘Twas very well received.

Allegories work.

128. Damian - October 22, 2010

Frankly, I’m glad Kurtzman threw the Shatner comment out there. It more or less puts the issue to rest for me. Yeah, there is still a chance Shatner would be in it, but that is not the angle they are coming from. I think on that issue they were listening to the fans on the site in an earlier thread who said the issue should be put to rest ASAP so we can all move on and wonder what the movie will be about. Thanks to Kurtzman for throwing that out there. I know the writers are loathe to give anything away, but the whole Shatner in or out thing was becoming a virus that I feel was going to start to erode excitement for the film the longer it went on.

Regarding specific plot points, I’ll leave it up to the guys that get the paycheck. The story is set up, now it seems they are moving on to specifics.

I won’t belabor my thoughts I noted on past boards. Bob Orci has posted on those boards so I don’t feel it necessary to keep repeating what I said.

The only things I would ask is no redo’s of prior episodes. Give me a fresh, new story (Oz’s idea notwithstanding about having a teaser sequence from The Doomsday Machine, or another episode). Something where I don’t shout at the screen how they can fix the problem because I saw it before (even in they come at it from a different angle, the jeapardy would be gone because you know it can at least be fixed or solved). I’m glad to hear they intend on working on character development. The cast was great and deserve more development.

The only other thing I would ask is regarding set design. I know this is an alternate universe, I would just ask that the set designers be mindful of how certain places looked in prior Star Trek. For instance, if you had a scene on Andoria, don’t suddenly make it a desert planet (I know that is an extreme example, but just to illustrate my point). Basically, if you have a scene somewhere Star Trek has been before, try to stay consistent with how it looked before. Regarding special effects, I’d like to see more Star Trek like effects, les Star Wars.

Just some minor things. I look forward to what you guys have to deliver.

129. Sebastian - October 22, 2010

#71.

Beautiful post.

On 9/11, I think we were ALL New Yorkers that day.
And yes, I agree; ST2009 DID make a much more pointed analogy of 9/11 than all of season 3 of ENT. The line where Spock delivers the post-destruction-of-Vulcan log entry, you can hear him struggling to keep it together with his unsteady voice. Wonderful acting on Quinto’s part.

I very much look forward to the sequel and I have faith that Orci and Kurtzman will ‘give it all they’ve got!’

; )

130. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

42. Anthony Pascale – October 22, 2010
“RE: Expectations low
The way I read that is that the last two Trek films were not well regarded by the general public or Trek fans. It had been over a decade since the last successful trek film.”

Without a doubt Anthony. Prior to Star Trek 2009 the last Star Trek film I walked out of all pumped up was First Contact. Generations was the first Star Trek movie I watched in theaters, was great, but did not leave excited and pumped up the way the new movie did.

I enjoyed Insurrection and Nemesis because I love all Star Trek but never have I left with the feeling in my chest, that feeling when your simply glowing. I guess there was a sense of pride there as well, a kind of “there ya go, see non believers, Star Trek is damn cool.”

For a Star Trek movie it may not have been well rounded especially for those that prefer the “dry” Star Trek but for a fun Star Trek reboot it was PERFECT!

131. Matthew Burns - October 22, 2010

I cannot believe it is now nearly two-and a half years since Star Trek was released in 2009. Cannot believe it…. time has gone so quickly….

I’m hoping for a longer movie actually, and a much less busy storyline to boot.

In history I am not too sure that last year’s Star Trek movie is going to be claimed as even in the top 5 of the movies – of the eleven features so far, I would put 6, 4, 8 and 2; in that order of 4th to 1st best.

In my mind, as it stands, I put Trek’ 09 at fifth best of the 11 movies. I’m one of the few fans who rates Generations as OK and certainly not terrible; its better than Insurrection and Nemesis at least in my opinion, and I think it is better than Trek III (although only a little in the case of TSFS) and most definitely is better than Trek V. I put generations 6th best at the moment for me. Generations was the first Star Trek movie I watched as a kid, and I remember watching GEN and FC on video back-to-back (same tape VHS) years ago so I do admit to having a soft spot for GEN – I honestly like the film. It is not as good as others but it captures the spirit of the series and I like seeing Picard and Co. on that lovely cinematic version of the Enterprise D.

Anyway, the next film should be more dramatic more simplistic. The writiers need to come up with a simple, but really enjoyable story to tell. Its no good making ‘one more’ trek movie just for the heck of it. This is the TWELFE star trek movie and we fans only get a movie every 2, 3 or even 4 years nowadays – the writers need to come up with something really good and exciting, and dramatic – not matter how long it takes! The wait should be worth it if we get a memorable and exciting adventure.

132. mr. mugato - October 22, 2010

As long as they stick to major plot points from TAS we should be OK.

133. NuFan - October 22, 2010

Actually, I was defending some of the old stuff from blanket statements. I used to think it was all nerdy and ridiculous because that is the rep it had with my generation before modern Trek came along. I have discovered that some of it is not.

And even though I can’t help but giggle when you see the borg inhaling and exhaling in the vacuum of space, I figure those movies must have been good for their time or Star trek would not have made enough money to continue.

And that is the all important factor for franchises. Making enough money to continue. We just got lucky that Bob and the court gave us a very fun movie in addition to the big profits.

134. Tom - October 22, 2010

128 Damian

The problem with Kurtzman’s comment is it’s the same crap we have been hearing forever. Shatner was never the whole angle for the first movie.

135. Mayhem - October 22, 2010

Base the new movie on the “Mirror, Mirror” episode.

This time have the whole crew and ship confront an evil duplicate that pits the good versus evil that lies within all of us.

Heck, you could even have the evil crew depicted by all the original series actors still with us.

136. dmduncan - October 22, 2010

Aww, look at that pic. Don’t they say it’s always toughest on the middle child?

137. Harry Ballz - October 22, 2010

Holmes: “I would like to see Shatner in the next film”

Watson: “NO SHAT, SHERLOCK!”

138. captain_neill - October 22, 2010

131

I put the new movie in 6th place

139. Munster79 - October 22, 2010

My hopes for the next movie include:

1: No Khan. Leave that great character to Montalban and Montalban alone.

2: End the Spock/Uhura romance. We had a Kirk/Spock/Uhura troika in the last movie in a bid to draw a female audience into the Star Trek universe I guess. it’s been done once, so let’s restore Trek’s ‘blessed trinity’ to centre stage.

3: Tom Hanks is a massive Trek fan and I think it would be a great idea to throw him into the mix as part of Starfleet Command – but would casting him overshadow the new crew’s bedding into the series? It goes without saying that Bruce Greenwood should also return as Pike.

4: No Shatner. Just let it go everybody. Shatner’s Kirk died (albeit ridiculously) 16 years ago, so let’s move on.

5: No villain: Why not concentrate on the crew, as Meyer did so well in TVH and have them working out some great galactic conundrum?

6: Engineering: it was the only feature of the last movie that just didn’t work at all. So come on Supreme Court, you know what needs to be done!

And finally – Number 7: Depth: The last movie was great fun but it lacked the dramatic depth of Trek at its best. So more depth please!

140. Sotirios Moshonas - October 22, 2010

Bring Back Star Trek:Enterprise. That is all I ask. Still I can watch the adventures of:

1) USS Tamerlane (usstamerlane.com)

2) Nova Trek [FSS Enterprise with Janice Tamera Kirk] (usstamerlane.com)

3) Star Trek New Voyages

Have a great weekend, everyone.

P.S.: Still not interested in Star Trek 90210 Part Deux or the original Star Trek 90210.

141. Dee - October 22, 2010

Oh yes I will wait patiently for “Star Trek 2012 “!…. LOL!

142. skyjedi - October 22, 2010

Star Wreck 2: The Search for more money. LOL.

143. Vulcan Soul - October 22, 2010

You’d think at this time and age, the Shat would’ve more to say about his own obituary than new Trek movies ;)

144. Battle-scarred Sciatica - October 22, 2010

#94.

are you stupid?

old Trek is PRIME.

without old Trek there would be no NuTrek.

You are trolling turd.

Idiot.

145. Trek Lady - October 22, 2010

105: “Certainly the 2009 movie did a huge amount in putting Star Trek out into the mainstream but what I really hope the writers realise is that, story and plot, characters etc.. aside, we all know they are the most important parts to get right, is that they continue to push for a movie that captures the imaginations of the kids as Star Wars did back in the 80’s and 90’s and which continues to do today… ”

OH NOES!

Please no! Do NOT attempt to appeal to the kiddies with Star Trek. The we end up with a mess like The Phantom Menace which had adult political intrigue mixed in with kiddie tripe meant to appeal to 8 year old boys, like farting creatures, little boys flying cool ships and shouting “Yipiee!” and Jar Jar Binks. The result was a film that had no clear target audience and was all over the map!

Keep Trek an “adult” centered francise. Don’t give me a G rated Trek! The kiddies can fall in love with it as they grow older.

I loved TOS as a child, but that wasn’t because it attempted to attract children, it was because I was a clever kid and recognized quality story telling when I saw it. If a child is sophisticated enoughtto appreciate Trek, then fine, but PLEASE don’t “silly” it down for kids!

146. gingerly - October 22, 2010

@139

…let’s restore Trek’s ‘blessed trinity’ to centre stage.

I didn’t know Glenn Beck was a Trek fan! :)

No but seriously, Tom Hanks would be fine under a ton of make-up or in a small unrecognizable role, a’la Winona Ryder, but any other way, it would just be jarring; Tom Hanks in a Star Trek movie. Just like what happened with Madea, -I mean Tyler Perry.

I agree with your 4 and 5, and your 6 to much lesser degree. I liked the location sets better than I likely would have a predictable static-feeling CGI setting.

Your 7 is off though. ST 09 had depth. It just wasn’t dwelled upon or hammered-home, like in previous installments. For some reason, some audiences like to have these things spot-lighted, pointed out, or have moral issues decided for them.

The slow-clap at the end of Undiscovered Country comes to mind as a cringe-worthy example of this.

Ambiguity is a dying art in mainstream film. So, I’d rather any moral dilemma play out in a way that doesn’t scream “THIS IS THE BAD/WRONG THING!” and “THIS IS CLEARLY THE GOOD/RIGHT THING!” (like Enterprise did in virtually every episode).

Heck, even with Nero, I understood where he was coming from. Mind you, he was crazy in the extreme, but I understood why.

What new Trek needs that was lacking in 09 are more tech details, more scientifically accurate dialogue and spaces, and especially, more effortless cool.

That’s the difference between the try-hard and fail of the Beastie Boys Sabotage and the real cool that was the MFing ship rising up from the behind Saturn’s moon.

147. John - October 22, 2010

Since the writers stole from Star Wars IV A New Hope on the the first outing, maybe they should steal from The Empire Strikes Back on the their next?

148. Allenburch - October 22, 2010

“Finding a way to do it right” was echoed regarding the thought of bringing in any of the previous Trek actors, (particularly Shatner), during the writing for ST 2009. They kept saying that the main problem for Shatner was…well…heh…the Kirk is dead… and they didn’t want to look like fan-boys giving him even a cameo forced into the story. I agree.

However, when Nimoy was announced as being in the movie with a significant role…we all jumped through the roof. Then we were worried about how that would work with yet another time-travel mechanic. Glad to say it worked great in spite of the fact that some peeps shouted “They just nuked canon and everything that came before…” (blah blah); The true Trek story followers know all about timelines and multi-universe scenarios.

I will say, though, that the writers seemed stuck on “whenever there is time travel…your actually going to another universe”. I’ll say it again, (and the writers should know this more than most peeps), there is ROOM FOR ALL CONCEPTS. Who’s to say that, for example, the Guardian of Forever doesn’t have control over time travel within a single timeline AND the timelines between different universes.

I say all this because, after the last movie, there is a better groundwork of opportunities to bring Shatner in and “do it right” than there was before. If you want to continue building the “family/team” theme for the crew, you can’t go wrong with the bond between Prime Kirk and Prime Spock, (and the literal real life friendship that exists between Nimoy and Shatner).

“Life…death…life…” that sort of thing.

And to all you folks who say that death is better drama than life…I ask, “Who of you really wants to die?” The greatest quest for both humanity and any individual is to keep living…

149. John Trumbull - October 22, 2010

I love Shatner, but he shouldn’t be in the new movie. It’s time to let the new cast take the training wheels off.

150. Hat Rick - October 22, 2010

131,

That may be because it’s been 1.5, not 2.5, years, at least on Earth.

151. TX81Z - October 22, 2010

Now that we’re definitely in an alternate timeline anything is possible, even this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52o1d7XPni0

152. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 22, 2010

145. Trek Lady. BAM!

153. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

44. the one they call Nate – October 22, 2010

Yea no kidding, I was expecting this glorious battle around Vulcan, this battle I have been waiting years to see. First Contact also teased us with a two minute scene which was cool and was great to see all these Federation ships against a Borg cube (considering we did anything at wolf 359) but I still lacked a Dominion War battle! And don’t use that argument that “its not Star Trek” yes it is. We all know that the writers and special FX people wanted more but time and budget would not allow especially in a TV show. Deliver us one big epic battle and us who crave it will be fine…for a couple more movies.

154. Boborci - October 22, 2010

147. star wars stole it from trek!

155. number6 - October 22, 2010

And there is nothing wrong with Star Trek taking some of it back!!

156. FarStrider - October 22, 2010

!47. Before repeating the tired line that ST 09 ‘Stole’ things from “A New Hope”, please get thee to the library and check out “The Hero With A Thousand Faces” and read the original. . . or at least find Chris Vogler’s book on using the Hero’s Journey in modern screenplays. . .

157. VZX - October 22, 2010

I didn’t like Orci’s statement “..see who else we can fit in…”. This has ALWAYS been the problem in every Trek movie: some of the 7 main characters had barely anything to do and were really not needed to the story. Orci: Focus on the family! Each character should have a very important reason to be in the movie. Just don’t have them do a funny drunk scene or have trouble speaking Klingon for a laugh.

This doesn’t look good for Chekov, Sulu, or Scotty….

158. Basement Blogger - October 22, 2010

The modern movie audience can enjoy smart science fiction. They loved “Inception” and “Dark Knight.” Great dialogue is a staple of Star Trek. Put heart, adventrure and intelligence in the new Trek. I’m very encouraged about the hight expectations. Shoot for the quality of “The City on the Edge of Forever.”

And let’s have our thoughts and prayers for Leonard Nimoy, who’s recovering from surgery. Live long and prosper.

159. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

49. somethoughts – October 22, 2010
“stupid Viking Klingons and reboot them as the cold war intelligent power hungry soviet communist types of the 60s to 70s”

Well said about the Klingons, never thought of it in those contexts. I agree with you because ever since I watched the cut Klingon scene in the special features I was sold on the new interpretation of the Klingons. The Klingon interrogator had a different demeanor of what was traditionally expected of Klingons.

I agree, I would love to see some rich in depth subjects regarding the Klingons in the next movie.

160. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

53. Kirk, James T. – October 22, 2010
“Sounds promising I just hope they stay focused on doing a Star Trek that appeals to a broad audience just as the first one did and continues to build on that popularity rather than JUST listening to the fans and making a film for JUST the fans.” Agreed!

67. Jeyl – October 22, 2010

Well said, Star Trek has been ever changing and always will be, this is as said earlier that this is the 3rd 4th generation of Star Trek depending on how you count it. Everything is ever changing. If people are disappointed with the movie its a matter of personal taste as apposed to Star Trek doing something incorrect. Because of the new breath of life given to Star Trek through this movie the franchise will do just fine which includes reason for a new TV series.
As a life long fan I am excited.

161. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

68. pothead – October 22, 2010
“this will be the best trek ever. Nu trek is the future. Old trek is stupid.”

No no no, don’t say that, watch old trek long enough and it will grown on you. Nu trek is cool and yes is the future a fact the old school trekies and trekkers have to face. I am 27, grew up with TNG, TOS reruns, DS9, VOY. I was 18 when Enterprise stared and though finally a fresh Star Trek, go figure they cut it. I didn’t always like TOS but in my early 20’s I started to love it.

Sorry pothead can’t let you bash any trek. Smoke a joint, watch TOS, and you will find it much more entertaining, I am Canadian!!!, trust me : )

162. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

76. Hugh Hoyland – October 22, 2010
#34 Chadwick
“Yeah Im really glad I got them, even though the movie has been out for quite a long time now. IMO Countdown is a great send off to TNG as well.”

Yea I thought I tied it in nice, with B4 as the captain, Picard is ambassador to Vulcan, Worf and the Klingon fleet, it was well done.

79. pock speared – October 22, 2010
I agree with what you said about the death of Kirk. On a separate note not directed at you but for everyone to think about. How often have the people in charge of Star Trek made choices which fans would call questionable? Well for those complaining about JJ he was not the first. Insurrection was a mess! Before that, killing Kirk. Go back more Star Trek V was a mess. Trek is ever changing, thats all there is to it.

163. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 22, 2010

122.

are you stupid?

You are trolling turd.

Idiot.

164. Chadwick - October 22, 2010

98. captain_neill – October 22, 2010
“Also the new movie seems to be more like Star Wars than Star Trek, please Bob can the next one go back to the strengths of Star Trek’s ideals”

Have you ever seen Star Wars lol? Nothing like it, all these grumpy fans pick the next competition (Star Wars) and compare it to that. There is not one thing in Star Trek 2009 that when I watch it I say, oh reminds me of Star Wars, not even the bar scene or the large monster. Star Trek was doing large monsters and bar scenes before Star Wars. I am just unaware of this constant need for Star Wars referencing. Yea JJ said make it more “LIKE” Star Wars, they didn’t take anything specifically out of Star Wars.

“Go back to the strengths of Star Trek’s ideals” ok fine, but things never go backwards, everything is always going forwards and ever changing, Star Trek as well.

Sorry man don’t mean to attack lol but ill attack anyone who bashes TOS Star Trek or the new movie, its ALL good! I love variety!

165. dmduncan - October 22, 2010

George Lucas poached all kinds of ideas from literary and cinematic science fiction. Watch Fritz Lang’s Metropolis if you want to see C3P0’s grandma, for instance.

But that’s cool. It still works. And SF writers borrow and then elaborate on ideas of other SF writers too. Star Wars is deservedly called a great movie, and I love it too. It captures an emotion and then harnesses that baby for a wild ride from beginning to end, which is something few movies accomplish; something George himself failed to do again after he made so much money that he could afford to ignore other people’s advice.

Maybe being that successful was the worst thing that ever happened to George. In every interview I’ve seen of him, the guy looks and sounds bored. And it shows in everything he’s done since Raiders.

166. John - October 22, 2010

#18

I’d rather not be preached at, thank you very much. The best Trek episodes let you decide for yourself, not arrive at a conclusion for you. That includes any ALLEGORIES as well.

167. Red Dead Ryan - October 22, 2010

George Lucas also “borrowed” heavily from J.R.R Tolkien. A mystical “force”. An evil dictatorship empire controlled by a master and an apprentice as well as a massive army. Both “Star Wars” and “Lord Of The Rings” featured epic battles and struggles between good and evil. George Lucas, I am certain, must have been partially inspired by Tolkien LOR trilogy of books, and in turn, the visual effects revolution created by the “Star Wars” movies eventually allowed the live action LOR movies to be made!

Also, Bossk the Bounty Hunter was clearly inspired by “Star Trek: The Original Series” own Gorn!

168. John - October 22, 2010

154. Boborci I’m talking about the story ideas, you’ve seen the videos that show the story structure you’ve ripped off from Star Wars Episode IV.

169. somethoughts - October 22, 2010

#168

Inspired is more suitable, kirk gazing at the enterprise being built at dawn with inspirational music played. Yes the tatooine scene, epic moment and im glad they had that in there. Fyi John star wars was inspired by other sources also.

170. John - October 22, 2010

#168

everything is inspired from everything. lesson one of movie making

171. James - October 22, 2010

WW2 heavily influenced star wars (look at the imperial uniforms!!)

172. Red Dead Ryan - October 22, 2010

#171

Yup. And “Star Wars” drew influence from the “Flash Gordon” serials as well.

173. MJ - October 23, 2010

147 — you could do worse. TESB is one of the best movies of all time.

174. Tiberius Chase - October 23, 2010

When it comes to Star Trek 2 in 3d I say leave it out.
Here are my reasons:
My top three movies for the summer of 2012 are
1. Star Trek sequel
2. Avengers (Avengers isn’t really relevant to the post but I included it just in case people wanted to know what my #2 was)
3. Spider-Man 3d
Now let me clarify: I am not a 3d hater, for lack of a better term, but I’ve always had “one foot off the bandwagon”, so to speak. I like 3d, just not for EVERY SINGLE movie. i know Mr. Orci and Mr.Kurtzman are doing Cowboys and Aliens right now and that it will be 2d (For which I applaud Mr. Favreau and the rest of filmmaking team) I also know Mr. Abrams is doing Super 8 in 2d which I feel if it were done in three dimensions, it would be a hypocrisy.
Would the trek sequel be great in 3d? Definitely. Does it NEED to be in 3d? Not really.
The reason 3d is probably under serious consideration (perhaps more so than other movies) is because Spider-man 3 is being released in 3d on July 3, 2012, a Tuesday, while star trek is only going to be released less than a week before that on June 29, 2012. Star trek doesn’t need to go 3d to keep up with Spidey, it’s the other way around.
This is just one fan’s opinion, I’m not trying to force my beliefs on anybody on Trekmovie.com or Mr. Abrams and Co. for that matter. I’m just a diehard fan with a love of all things space opera/scifi voicing his opinion. If anybody thinks I’m being a pretentious douchebag by writing this, by all means please say so (I mean that sincerely and not in an arrogant way).
Live Long and Prosper.

175. somethoughts - October 23, 2010

#174

Wont hurt to be in 2d and 3d.

I want to see it twice, once in 3d then in 2d.

Sci fi space movies like star trek will rock in 3d.

176. captain_neill - October 23, 2010

164

I did not mean to cause offense. I did not mean to say that the last movie was a Star Wars movie, I was pointing out that I felt the new one drew a little more heavily from it. TO me Star Trek and Star Wars are two separate entities.

Star Wars was the pop corn while Star Trek was the meat an potatoes.

It’s what on the blu ray of the new movie where Star Trek is classical music and Star Wars is rock n roll and what Star Trek needed was more rock n roll. And I am a Star Trek fan who likes classical music. DOes that make sense?

Now I love the new movie but I don’t understand why people here consider it the best ever Star Trek ever produced. JJ Abrams was a lot of fun but it was not the greatest ever outing.

Khan and First Contact are still superior films in my view.

I am trying not to sound bitchy because I did enjoy the new movie, but unlike the hardcore fans who cannot accept the new movie, I accept it as a separate entity.

I try my best an enjoy the movie for what it is, yes they did things I hated.

I treat it as separate canon from the Star Trek I love.

I love all five shows. TOS and TNG would be my favs but I also think DS9 was a fantastic show.

177. John - October 23, 2010

First Contact? SUPERIOR movie?

http://www.redlettermedia.com/first_contact.html

178. Tom - October 23, 2010

Guess the Shatner scene from the first one has been permanaently scrapped. Thought there might be a chance it would be revisited. Don’t know if Bob could weigh in on this. Sincew other characters have not been discussed they may not have even have addressed the Shatner conundrum

179. somethoughts - October 23, 2010

#177

Michael Pillar walked away from the script development of First Contact because Berman and co insisted on a central contrived villian, ie. Borg Queen, which was against what the Borg was about, having no central command or leadership structure as pointed out in the series.

So you have the person who wrote one of the best 2 part Star Trek episodes in the Best of Both Worlds objecting to the idea of the Borg Queen idea which resulted in Michael Piller leaving the writing team for that movie. Berman I guess made it up to Michael when he was tapped for the next movie, Insurrection, which was a Star Trek story but not a movie.

I always thought First Contact was good, but could have been a lot better, such a wasted opportunity for the Borgs first and only appearance on the Big Screen.

180. somethoughts - October 23, 2010

In 2008, Empire placed Star Trek: The Next Generation 37th on their list of “The 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time” and cited “The Best of Both Worlds, Part II” as the show’s best episode

181. P Technobabble - October 23, 2010

I truly doubt the writers are taking their cues from Mel Brook’s “The Producers,” with any intention of producing a flop. At times, it seems some of the posters here think Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof are incapable of writing a hit, in spite of the fact these guys have a proven track record of hits. They appear to be the busiest guys in Hollywood, which must mean they’re doing something right. I think they are quite capable of writing “Star Trek: The Next Hit.” Let them do their job. We’ll see the results in 2012.

As for the Star Trek/Star Wars comparisons, I say “so what?” There are plenty of movies that are similar to other movies, plenty of movies that pay homage to other movies, and so on. “Raiders” is an example that “borrowed” from old serial cliff-hangers. So what? Everyone loved “Raiders.” Lots of people compared “Star Wars” to “The Wizard of Oz,” and no one complained about that. TUC had Kirk and McCoy prisoners on a frozen planet, but I didn’t hear anyone saying, “Ooo! Ooo! They ripped that off from “Star Wars!”
It’s in the characters that truly separates Star Trek from Star Wars, not scenes, sequences or settings. And fans are most interested in the characters — their old friends: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. Then a good adventure. That’s Star Trek… IMO.

182. TOY - October 23, 2010

Well I would like to see Shat back as Kirk Prime. But alas I can fully appreciate it could hardly be feasible. Still can’t help but like the idea on a more fitting exit for the guy from Star Trek. It would take a writer/s of some exceptional brilliance to pull that off and I am pleased enough these guys are tackling another film as it is and will look forward to seeing it regardless. Still it’s a formidable challenge. And I don’t doubt Khan will be hinted at, but as I said before these guys like a twist or two so will be interesting to see where they go with it.

183. dmduncan - October 23, 2010

I did not think TESB was nearly as good as A New Hope. Emotionally, I felt TESB was sterile save for Luke/Darth Vader. That’s also where it seems like George Lucas is working out his revisions to the story line in public, making Luke an unsympathetic celibate holy warrior who loved only his midi chloriens.

184. the Quickening - October 23, 2010

As much as I would like to see THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE featured in the next TREK movie, given two of the TREK writers worked on the TRANSFORMER movies, which were also about machines, I doubt it will happen. But, you never know, do you? After-all, this is Hollywood.

185. Vultan - October 23, 2010

As much as I dislike all the “stealing” of ideas going around in Hollywood films, we should keep in mind that Star Trek originally “stole” from Forbidden Planet… as did Star Wars. I mean listen to the terms used in the film: blaster, hyperdrive, and so on. It’s almost like watching a strange prequel to both Trek and Wars.

186. Vultan - October 23, 2010

And the trench run sequence in A New Hope was heavily inspired by the WW2 British film The Dambusters, with some lines of dialogue being lifted from the screenplay.

“How many guns to you think, [Gold Five]?” and so on…

187. Harry Ballz - October 23, 2010

Everybody steals from everybody in Hollywood.

188. Vultan - October 23, 2010

Correction: “How many guns DO you think, [Gold Five]?” and so on…

189. Red Dead Ryan - October 23, 2010

“Stealing ideas” is the name of the game in Hollywood! And the opponents are folks who sue in retaliation! Whoever wins gets a big payday, while the loser walks away with his tail tucked between his legs!

And I hope everyone checks out “Forbidden Planet” on Blu Ray. A classic movie that has been brilliantly restored in beautiful high definition!

190. P Technobabble - October 23, 2010

Forbidden Planet is a fabulous film, ahead of its time, yet totally of its time.
When watching it, I think anyone could easily see where Trek came from. In fact, I was watching it recently and my girlfriend said, “It looks like old Star Trek.”
It’s interesting how Leslie Nielsen made a good space ship commander, but by the time he was doing comedies I couldn’t look at his face without cracking up.

191. CarlG - October 23, 2010

@67: The lady who said that was unbalanced, insecure and bat-shat psycho. Not the most reliable source of info, I always felt. AND it was from a season three episode. *shudder*
Whatever you might thing of Enterprise and/or Voyager, at least Erika Hernandez and Katheryn Janeway kicked that bit of foolishness to the curb.

@185,187: And don’t forget, GR’s original description of Trek: “Wagon Train” to the Stars. Nothing new with all that! :)

192. Vultan - October 23, 2010

Is there any word on the Forbidden Planet prequel that was in the works? Haven’t heard anything about that in quite some time….

Anyway, the original is a classic. It was the first serious attempt at making a serious big-budget science fiction film that was about something more than little gray men in wobbling saucers on strings. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! But FP was inventive enough to put Earth men in the saucer. ;)

193. Boborci - October 23, 2010

168

Give me an example, I’ll show you how it cam from Trek!

194. Boborci - October 23, 2010

168.

And as I’ve said before, even if you could make the case that we ripped off Star Wars, u think that’s easy to do? Even Lucas couldn’t do it again;)

195. Vultan - October 23, 2010

#194

It can be easier than you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tESwX3doaI

:D

196. Tom - October 23, 2010

194 Boborci

Can you rip off that Shatner scene and use it for the sequel. Or would the hologram be considered a ripoff of Obi-wan

197. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 23, 2010

Forbidden Planet did have that same eerie vibe we saw in The Cage and other early Trek episodes. I would like to see some of that brought back in the sequel.

198. sean - October 23, 2010

#195

You don’t know pure, unbridled joy until you’ve experienced Italian Star Wars. Or is that pure, unadulterated misery? I can’t remember.

199. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 23, 2010

Didn’t Star Wars have “cloaking” technology and “deflectors”?

200. Vultan - October 23, 2010

#198

I think it’s a little from column A and a little from column B. :)
And then there’s this one, which is actually a pretty fun movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh8KVG8j68I

Strange how Star Wars inspired Flash Gordon to be made into a film when Star Wars was originally (partly) inspired by the Flash Gordon serials. Same goes for Star Wars and Star Trek: TMP.

201. P Technobabble - October 23, 2010

I recall that when I first saw Star Wars in ’77 I was struck by its quick pace, characters, the core “good vs. evil” story, and the fx. I read later that Lucas was very much into Joseph Campbell’s writings, and he talked about Campbell’s book “The Hero With A Thousand Faces,” and how Star Wars was, like other classic myths, based on the hero’s journey.
Campbell’s writings on mythology are important for writers. What is at the core of various myths from around the world is what resonates deeply within the human psyche. The best stories capture something from these myths, which results in many, many people being able to connect with these stories.
Obviously, Star Wars is not the only story to be based on the hero’s journey. “Star Trek” is also a mythic adventure. It is the story of James Kirk, a troubled youth who takes a step away from his ordinary, yet difficult life and steps into another world. He is forced to grow, and he learns what it means to be responsible and accountable. He becomes a man. And he becomes a starship Captain.
It is also the story of Spock, a hybrid being, uncertain about his own identity. He, too, takes a step away from what is familiar and steps into a new world. And he, too, is forced to grow, and he learns to be a little more comfortable in his own skin. He comes to appreciate Kirk’s human-ness, which leads to a greater respect for Kirk.
As all hero’s journeys come with a mentor, there are two mentors in “Star Trek” — Pike and Spock Prime. Both of these characters give Kirk the kick he needs to do what must be done. And Spock Prime has a few words for Spock that help him to adjust to a life ahead — and a life with Kirk.
Comparisons to Star Wars? I still maintain it’s the characters who are important, not the shot, not the scene, not the setting. The adventures of Kirk and Spock have always been mythic in nature, and that’s why they are important to us.

202. captain_neill - October 23, 2010

Geez dont use the Shatner scene you had written, it didn’t work for me, just felt forced

203. Harry Ballz - October 23, 2010

201.

Excellent post, as always, PT!

204. Harry Ballz - October 23, 2010

Bob

how do you manage to crank out all the “product” that you do, and still have time to come here and read all the posts? What, do you LIVE on your computer? :>)

205. dmduncan - October 23, 2010

@201: Something that George Lucas forgot when he chose to pay more attention to the George Lucas Toy Factory than the words he was writing for his characters to speak. I think you just need a way to stay hungry, because the ache from a hollow belly can be inspiring.

Speaking of which, I need a nice green apple…

206. jas_montreal - October 23, 2010

I think if boborci has used less of star wars reference material, then he has some BSG signatures, such as grittiness, character-focus.

Star Wars was used to the extent, but the aspects of Star Wars used in Trek 09′ were just nostalgiclly similar ideas, such as farm-boy, goes out and discovers how marvelous and large the world outside can be, etc.. I think their a few little things that were taken, but once again, every franchise copies a little bit from each other, thats the main reason why each franchise is popular. Look at the new BSG, it grabbed soo much of what Star Trek Deep Space Nine had done and modified it in a post-modern context. I think Boborci and the team are approaching it similarly, but based on my own personal opinion, I don’t like the star wars references in a Star Trek movie. They annoy me. I think their two seperate franchises and they should remain seperate. Enough references ! like…. “i hope you know what your doing” or “punch it” , blah blah blah….

right boborci ?

207. jas_montreal - October 23, 2010

@ 206..

sorry, grammer typo… my first sentence should be: “i think boborci has used less star wars reference material, then he has BSG signatures, such as grittiness, character-focus, etc… “

208. Vultan - October 23, 2010

#206

Yeah, I agree. Pike’s “punch it” line was a bit too much. I halfway expected to see Chewie in the driver’s seat instead of Sulu.

209. lostrod - October 23, 2010

121;
“I love Shatner’s interpretation of Captain Kirk. But Shatner had his chance to be in the previous movie and balked because it was a “cameo.” The scene that they wrote for him was great! I woulnd’t have thought it was possible before I saw that birthday message to Spock.”

Yes it would have been great. However, my understanding is that the scene was written but never presented to the actor. So Mr. Shatner cannot be blamed for turning down a role that was never offered to him.

Some folks here post like they know what Mr. Shatner thinks.

If I’m wrong about the role being presented to Mr. Shatner and him turning it down then someone who actually knows the facts can chime it. Please.

It gets old having folks who make assumptions and allegations with nothing to back them up.

210. dmduncan - October 23, 2010

Well if they DO get Shatner in the next movie, I hope it goes a little something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

211. Chadwick - October 23, 2010

114. Red Dead Ryan – October 22, 2010

“I guess you’ve never read any of Jeyl’s comments, then? Jeyl has NEVER written anything POSITIVE about the new movie!”

Great observation.

212. Danpaine - October 23, 2010

Would love the Shatner hologram scene in there.

Think I’ll watch 09′ again.. Right now.

I have faith you fellas will do it right, again.

213. Danpaine - October 23, 2010

1. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 21, 2010
Like the approach

—————————————————————————————————-

That pretty much sums it up.

214. CJ - October 23, 2010

Star Trek – 2009 Movie was alive, more so than any other Star Trek Movie. From the moment it started to the grand finish – it was running at maximum warp! Especially encouraging was the bar scene that actually felt like a real bar. As long as the next movie keeps building on that passion, that energy that makes the characters and locations and plot feel alive – they can have another great Hit Movie !
Keep Up the Lively Good Work !

215. Brian K - October 23, 2010

@ 209

I believe the scene was written, but by then Shatner had clearly stated he was not interested in doing a cameo for the new film. Either a substantial role or nothing was his stated position. Basically, he wanted the film to revolve around him. So the scene was never offered to him. At least that’s my understanding. So, chicken or the egg?

216. jas_montreal - October 23, 2010

Mr. Shatner is awesome. He was my hero growing up. But his character died in Star Trek Generations and the team was loyal to continuity, so they decided not to put him. BUT that scene offered was pure genius, but Shatner sadly refused the part. Now Mr. Shatner denied himself the only chance he had to be included into JJ’s trek-films. Its over now for him ! Why is this issue even being debated over and over again?

217. Closettrekker - October 23, 2010

#216—I am no fan of the idea that Star Trek needs William Shatner going forward, but you are incorrect. No role was offered to Mr. Shatner. The idea for a scene was simply discussed among the members of the ST09 “Supreme Court”, and it was ultimately decided that such a scene was not to be…It never reached the “offer” stage…and that is quite old news.

In any case, ST09 did not need Bill Shatner—anymore than Bill Shatner really needs Star Trek at this point.

218. Cygnus-X1 - October 23, 2010

Apparently Trek fans and writers are no longer interested in the kind of philosophical and political topics that were the staple of TOS. Perhaps it’s a sign of the times, where things are becoming increasingly shallow and superficial.

It’s really a shame, because it’s clear from the TOS and TNG episodes that such thematic material was of utmost importance to Gene Roddenberry.

219. Chadwick - October 23, 2010

123. Damian – October 22, 2010

Well said, I feel its time to put the Shatner issue to rest. If they bring any aspect like that into the second new movie I feel like it will be moving backwards. I love TOS, I love TNG, I love all Trek but I want to see what this iteration of Star Trek can do on its own, no crutches, no training wheels, that means Mr. Nimoy sent it off and there is no need for Shatner. Mr. Nimoy felt like what he did felt right to continue and pass the legacy. And he did it humbly saying many many times the “next movie should stand on its own” and he sees no reason why he should return. The only reason to return is for adoring fans and in a way those who feel that are a bit bias. “I want Nimoy and I want Shatner” rather than letting Star Trek move on? Its like a 7 year old who still has parental separation anxiety. When DS9 and VOY were over I was hoping to see a movie with both crew and some TNG cameos. Nemesis had the nice Jainway cameo which was just right. It was short, sweet, and it was relative. To have the second new Star Trek film with another Nimoy cameo or even Shatner I have to go with my gut and not my heart, its time to move on. I say the movie should have someone famous outside the Star Trek family. Look at the sheer names, variety and number of famous people who are trek fans.

Barack Obama – 44th President of the United States
Steven Spielberg – Writer, Director
George Lucas – Writer, Director
Harrison Ford – Actor
Tom Cruise – Actor
Tom Hanks – Actor
Colin Powell – 65th United States Secretary of State
Arnold Schwarzenegger – Actor, Governor of California
Quentin Tarantino – Director
Frank Sinatra – Actor, Singer
Isaac Asimov – Author, Professor
Tom Bergeron – Game show host
Stephen Harper – 22nd Prime Minister of Canada
Martin Luther King, Jr. – Clergymen, activist, leader African-American civil rights movement
Chris Jericho – Professional Wrestler
Daniel Craig – Actor
Al Gore – 45th Vice President of the United States
Sir Richard Branson – Entrepreneur, Philanthropist
Ben Stiller – Actor
Eddie Murphy – Actor
Kelsey Grammer – Actor
Jason Alexander – Actor
Sara Silverman – Actor

Just to name a few. Granted not all alive, and there are many that I would never want in a Star Trek film *laughs* but there are a few that do stick out. hmm hmm?

220. Red Dead Ryan - October 23, 2010

#211

Thanks! I was telling it like it is!

#218

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. The nature of a two-hour movie makes it difficult to balance fast paced action alongside a thoughtful, philisophical character driven plotline. Star Trek’s true domain is television. It started there, it thrived there and it will one day return there.

221. Red Dead Ryan - October 23, 2010

#219

Don’t forget King Abdullah of Jordan. He is a fan, and appeared on an episode of “Star Trek: Voyager”.

222. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 23, 2010

214. CJ -“Star Trek – 2009 Movie was alive, more so than any other Star Trek Movie.”

It was. TOS was a great and dynamic series. Some episodes were serious, others light-hearted, some were socially relevant others pure fun. It was sexy and clever and relied on brains and brawn. At times it was even preachy or violent or simply great sci-fi. But no episode had it all. This movie was no exception. It was fun and fast and touched on the familiar and the unexpected. It brought sexy back to Trek and had great character moments. And no it was not perfect, in some places unnecessarily so. Still it was faithful to the original in many ways and I can’t wait for the next installment. Godspeed gentlemen.

223. Chadwick - October 23, 2010

131. Matthew Burns – October 22, 2010

Wow, extensive detail lol! The first Star Trek movie I saw as a kid was The Undiscovered Country. I was eight years old and one of my fathers friends gave me a VHS tape with three movies on it and Star Trek VI was one of them, watched it over and over. I watched the TV series but until I saw Trek VI I had no idea there were Star Trek movies lol, never saw them on TV. My favorite is VI fallowed equally by TMP, TWOK, FC, and the 2009 film. III, IV, and V are wonky at best. I would lump Generations with Insurrection and Nemesis, not bad like V but not good either. To be honest even though I love TMP and don’t really care for the crap lousy whales, the common popularity is reversed. So in the most objective reality possible there are four good (not popular) Star Trek movies II, VI, FC, and 2009. As much as I love TMP its a bore to people. As popular as the Voyage Home was it was still cheesy and tasteless. As much as most of us have a place in our hearts for all the movies we need the good Star Trek movies to keep rolling to outweigh the duds.

224. Chadwick - October 23, 2010

221. Red Dead Ryan – October 23, 2010
#219

Don’t forget King Abdullah of Jordan. He is a fan, and appeared on an episode of “Star Trek: Voyager”.

Yes I know, good call, I was making the list and thought of him but brain fart and did not put him on. Thanks for mentioning it.

225. Red Dead Ryan - October 23, 2010

Don’t forget about Frank Langella. He appeared in the first three episodes of “Deep Space Nine” season two. His name wasn’t in the credits though (I think he wanted to surprise his kids, something like that, I’m not really sure). There is Whoopi Goldberg of course. As well as Stephen Hawking.

I’m not sure if any of Kirsten Dunst, Terri Hatcher, Terry O’Quinn or Ashley Judd are fans though. But it is interesting how “The Next Generation” launched the careers of a few big-name actors and actresses!

226. Red Dead Ryan - October 23, 2010

There was also Michelle Forbes (True Blood, also guest starred on “Lost” and “Battlestar Galactica”) of course. There are probably others I can’t remember right now.

227. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 23, 2010

218.

Where were you when the TNG movies were descending into unrelenting stupidity and became increasingly shallow and superficial?

228. Red Dead Ryan - October 23, 2010

Oh wait, there is also Daniel Dae Kim, former “Lost” star and current “Hawaii Five-O” cop who appeared on an episode of “Voyager” and as a M.A.C.O on “Enterprise”.

229. Cygnus-X1 - October 24, 2010

—-220. Red Dead Ryan – October 23, 2010

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. The nature of a two-hour movie makes it difficult to balance fast paced action alongside a thoughtful, philisophical character driven plotline. Star Trek’s true domain is television. It started there, it thrived there and it will one day return there.—-

The Wrath of Khan managed it well and lived up to GR’s vision of ST, wouldn’t you agree?

—-227. DeShonn Steinblatt – October 23, 2010

218.

Where were you when the TNG movies were descending into unrelenting stupidity and became increasingly shallow and superficial?—-

Probably sitting right next to you in the theater, hoping for the best and then wincing at what we actually got.

230. P Technobabble - October 24, 2010

Didn’t we know Kirk was from Iowa way before Star Wars ever came around? It was in the famous Whitfield book, “The Making of Star Trek.” Living in Iowa means it’s no stretch that Kirk lived on a farm — therefore, a “farm-boy” (by the 2200’s we’d have re-discovered the significance and importance of farming). So, that means Kirk was on the farm way before Luke Skywalker.
As Bob said, give an example. Star Trek was there first.

231. P Technobabble - October 24, 2010

229. Cygnus

As I recall, Roddenberry wasn’t too happy about TWOK. He certainly wasn’t happy that Paramount pulled Trek away from him. He wasn’t happy about the new costumes, the militarization of the fleet, amongst other things.
I am also of the opinion that TWOK is not a very fast-paced film. There were a few sequences of space battles, but apart from that, the rest of the film is more tension than pacing.
I do agree, however, that, eventually, Star Trek will return to tv in some form.

232. Disinvited - October 24, 2010

Anytime I stumble across a thread that mentions Mel Brooks, William Shatner and STAR TREK V, I’m always left pondering how the Federation deals with certain gaseous anomalies and how the camping scenes would play with a certain “blazing” Brooks touch?

233. Hugh Hoyland - October 24, 2010

#231 P. Technobabble

I read that as well. And if what I read is factual, Roddenberry and Meyers may have butted heads at times. The story also claimed that GR didnt care to much for Star Trek 6 TUC either.

234. Hugh Hoyland - October 24, 2010

#231 P. Technobabble

I read that as well. And if what I read is factual, Roddenberry and Meyers may have butted heads at times. The story also claimed that GR didnt care to much for Star Trek 6 TUC either.

235. Boborci - October 24, 2010

218. Don’t think that’s fair. As far as politics goes, we went with Obama vs Bush (Spock/Kirk). As far as philosophy goes, we went with nature vs nurture. In other words, are you the same soul in a parallel universe. As far as science goes, we wet with many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

236. Jai - October 24, 2010

“I agree with you because ever since I watched the cut Klingon scene in the special features I was sold on the new interpretation of the Klingons. The Klingon interrogator had a different demeanor of what was traditionally expected of Klingons.”

I haven’t seen the cut scene myself, but if the Klingons do form a major part of the next movie(s), it might not be a bad idea for Bob Orci and his team to show the main Klingon characters having a familiarity with classic human military/political texts such as Sun Tzu’s The Art of War and Machiavelli’s The Prince.

After all, there are several precedents for Trek villains deliberately quoting from classic human writings when dealing with Kirk & co (Khan and Chang being the most obvious examples), and it would make sense that Klingons in the “alternate universe” of PineKirk would also have been thorough enough in their research about Earth to be very well acquainted with Sun Tzu etc (as would Kirk himself, of course) — especially as they would no doubt have their own Klingon equivalents, considering the emphasis that Klingon culture places on warfare and the “martial ethos”.

All this would also add more weight to the depiction of the Klingons as being superb at grand strategy, rather than just the “brutal barbarian thugs” stereotype.

237. dmduncan - October 24, 2010

235. Boborci – October 24, 2010

Oh say it ain’t so! Obama’s not that logical, and Bush’s not that smart!

Actually, I don’t get it either. Maybe some fans are just accustomed to slow motion delivery of ideas that anything above that pace just seems like pure action.

Well, maybe I do get it. I saw Inception once and followed the logic all the way down and back up on my first viewing. But ST.09 did confuse me. It was less obvious, more cryptic than Inception, but all the clues you needed where there. But then that also undercuts the claim that ST.09 was “dumbed down.” If anything, it was “smartened up” because it really did rely on you to make connections that it didn’t do for you. So in that way it reminded me of Shutter Island in the expectations the film had of its audience, although — obviously — the movies were totally different.

238. dmduncan - October 24, 2010

where = were

239. Boborci - October 24, 2010

237. Agree. I think perhaps some have issue without the style In which the issues were dealt with. But the issues are in the DNA of the movie.

240. dmduncan - October 24, 2010

And also, people come to movies with their habits and prejudices, so if they are used to fun movies being ONLY fun, I think they tend to be more passive and to watch it that way.

ST.09 was kind of a tricky film in that regard.

241. dmduncan - October 24, 2010

239. Boborci – October 24, 2010

And until I saw what you guys did, I myself never thought of Star Trek in that way. In my own fantasy about how it would come back to life I was thinking in terms of what NIcholas Meyers had achieved in terms of action and tempo.

So when I saw what you guys did — when I finally GOT it after my third viewing — I was surprised that it could be done. Pleasantly. It really did remain Star Trek, but it picked up the pace and expected me — the audience — to keep up.

I appreciated it.

242. Boborci - October 24, 2010

241. Too kind. Thanks uncle Robau;)

243. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 24, 2010

239.

Absolutely! Rapidly presented information is not superficial or dumbed down. And ponderous does not equal deep and meaningful.

They’ll get it eventually.

244. Jai - October 24, 2010

“There was also Michelle Forbes (True Blood, also guest starred on “Lost” and “Battlestar Galactica”) of course.”

Michelle Forbes would actually make a superb Starfleet captain in the new movie(s), either in a heroic role or (especially) as a negative character. If the latter runs the risk of typecasting, she’d make a perfect non-human villain too. Either way, she does charismatic-and-absolutely-terrifying very well; readers who saw her outstanding performance as Admiral Cain on “Battlestar Galactica” will know exactly what I’m talking about, although her portrayal of that lunatic demon-woman in “True Blood” was also brilliant.

You can also imagine her as a subtly-intimidating Klingon or one of Khan’s senior hench(wo)men.

“I agree with other posters who have said, some consequence of Vulcan’s destruction to the Federation should be explored. It does not need to be the whole movie, but should play some role. After all, a founding member of the Federation along with billions of people are dead. That has to have political and military consequences, not to mention some emotional impact, even on Vulcans who survived.”

I agree completely; I’ve made exactly the same point myself a few times. A disaster on that scale would have huge repercussions throughout the Federation. Neither Starfleet, nor the Federation government, nor the Federation’s citizens in general (especially on the major planets such as Earth) would be “shiny happy people” after a catastrophe of that magnitude.

As I’ve said on an earlier thread, it’s the equivalent of New York actually getting nuked on 9/11; the cultural and political impact on the West (and the US most of all) would have been even more seismic than the attack on the Twin Towers, and the same principle applies to the Federation after the total destruction of Vulcan and the associated act of genocide. At least if the new Trek movies are intended to depict a semblance of realism.

I can also imagine some of the more hot-headed Federation citizenry along with the ‘hawks’ in Starfleet irrationally demanding a pre-emptive/retaliatory war against the Romulans, along with the expansionist Klingon Empire aiming to exploit the scenario of a weakened, vulnerable Federation as much as possible. And Section 31 would definitely not be above retaliatory genocide or targetted assassinations of Nero’s ancestors, given their focus on “safeguarding the Federation against all threats” whilst conveniently ignoring the Federation’s laws and core humanitarian principles.

245. dmduncan - October 24, 2010

242. Boborci – October 24, 2010

After the first viewing, they said I was babbling something about the ship being in danger and needing to evacuate the theater before the film reels reached critical mass…

But the next day I was fine, and I went on to see it 4 more times.

246. Jai - October 24, 2010

One final point:

There have obviously been a few recent discussions on this website about political conspiracies (JFK etc), along with some suggestions by some people (eg. me) that this might be a good angle for the new Trek movie too. Given Bob Orci’s obvious interest in such things, I can imagine the possibilities for the next film potentially being a really gripping, thought-provoking political thriller. With some exciting action thrown in for good measure, of course.

On that note: Bob Orci, there were a couple of DS9 episodes exactly along those lines which you’d definitely enjoy seeing if you haven’t done so already, and which may serve as good inspiration for the next movie(s) if an explosive political conspiracy was what you had in mind:

– “In the Pale Moonlight”: Basically, Sisko initiates an extremely dangerous high-level Starfleet conspiracy to trick the Romulans into joining the war against the Dominion. This is an absolutely brilliant episode (regarded by many fans as one of the best Trek episodes ever, and certainly the best one of DS9, with the possible exception of “The Visitor”), full of unpredictable plot twists. I think it would actually have been a fantastic theatrical movie if they’d managed to lengthen the plot accordingly, but it was still superb. It’s also full of numerous brilliant lines of dialogue, along with outstanding acting from the main protagonists, especially Avery Brooks and Andrew Robinson. The extent of Sisko’s reluctant ruthlessness and rulebreaking in the interests of minimising further Federation deaths and defeating the Dominion is best shown by this famous monologue from the episode:

“So… I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all… I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again – I would. Garak was right about one thing: a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it… Because I can live with it… I can live with it…”

Fantastic stuff ;)

– “Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges” : The title is obviously a quote by Cicero – “In times of war, the law falls silent”. This episode focuses on Dr Julian Bashir, with another high-level Starfleet conspiracy involving the Romulans, this time also directly involving the shadowy Section 31. Superb acting by Alexander Siddig, whose tough and calculating Bashir has come a very long way from the naive young doctor at the start of DS9. This is another very unpredictable episode, full of crosses and double-crosses — and the political angle is also fundamental to the story, as it involves Starfleet and “black ops” intelligence organisations engaging in plots to ensure the Federation’s long-term supremacy in the Alpha Quadrant (along with possibly “the next war”) even though they haven’t won the war against the Dominion yet. There are some pertinent references to the Romans too.

Anyway — Mr Orci, you’ll love these episodes; and in terms of the conspiracy angle, if properly executed then this sort of thing would be perfect for the next Trek movies if you wanted to take matters in that direction.

247. AJ - October 24, 2010

Boborci:

If Spock/Kirk is Obama/Bush, how far from the dour “stack of books with legs” of TOS is the James Kirk from the new Trek timeline? They share the characteristics listed by Pike in the Iowa bar. They seem to be similar upon viewing your last film.

But Kirk in TOS knew his US Constitution by heart. Is your Kirk more “Christine O’Donnell-esque” in his lack of intellectual depth, or has he, off the top of your head, also gone heavily through the books, but on his own time?

248. Red Dead Ryan - October 24, 2010

235

“As far as politics goes, we went with Obama vs Bush (Spock/Kirk).”

So, you based Kirk and Spock on two of America’s most incompetent presidents? Two “leaders” who may be remembered for contributing to your country’s possible “Soviet Union-style” collapse? Right.

Maybe you should have just stuck to the JFK comparisons. He was the better model for both Kirk and Spock. Kennedy stood up against the Soviets and Cubans, just like Kirk stood up against the Klingons and Romulans. JFK, just like Spock, also believed in diplomacy and the exploration of science and space.

249. Harry Ballz - October 24, 2010

235. Boborci

“As far as science goes, we wet with many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics”

Sounds like any female physicists who came out to see the movie got pretty excited!

250. P Technobabble - October 24, 2010

My girlfriend and I watched “Star Trek” again last night. As the film started she said, “This time I am not going to cry.” Needless to say, by the time George Kirk was ramming the Kelvin into the Narada, her eyes were full of tears. Then she said, “I swear I’m not going to cry next time.”
You shoulda been there…

251. Harry Ballz - October 24, 2010

So, the writing team was able to “wet” yet another way! Fascinating!

252. Red Dead Ryan - October 24, 2010

Uh, never mind my post (#248), Bob. You obviously wrote the movie BEFORE Obama got into office, and Kirk and Spock’s personalities were based on Bush’s and Obama’s personalities NOT policies. My apologies.

On the other hand, maybe Anthony can delete my post at #248?

253. dmduncan - October 24, 2010

250: “My girlfriend and I watched ‘Star Trek’ again last night. As the film started she said, ‘This time I am not going to cry.’ Needless to say, by the time George Kirk was ramming the Kelvin into the Narada, her eyes were full of tears.”

Haha! I say the same thing. With the same result. Prefer to watch it alone now to avoid the teasing.

But really, one of the most powerful and lyrical scenes of ANY movie I love, and one of the reasons Star Trek finally became bigger than it’s fan base.

254. CarlG - October 24, 2010

@250, 253: Impossible. That scene = insta-tears. I blame / praise Chris Hemsworth* and Michael Giacchino** in equal measure.

*Seriously, pretty damn good on him to make us care about a guy we just met 10 min ago!

**I can’t even listen to Track 3 on the soundtrack CD without getting a lump in my throat.

255. dmduncan - October 24, 2010

Yeah that would be a good gag in another movie…or Big Bang Theory…Sheldon trying to perfect his ability to watch first ten minutes of Star Trek without tearing up.

256. Rick - October 24, 2010

I have to say that the new Star Trek movie was Fantastic! I don’t think anyone could have done a better job! Please continue. Well Done!!
By the way we love those Enterprise swooping in “guns a blazing” scenes!

PS I love Shatner But he does not have to be in the next movie.

257. DarthTrekkie - October 24, 2010

I think the new direction they are going with these films are amazing but it would realy be overkill to add Shatner to the sequel. Having Nemoy in the first was enough. Just for kicks I wouldn’t mind seeing Mark Hammil have a cameo though.

258. Cygnus-X1 - October 24, 2010

—-231. P Technobabble – October 24, 2010

229. Cygnus

As I recall, Roddenberry wasn’t too happy about TWOK. He certainly wasn’t happy that Paramount pulled Trek away from him. He wasn’t happy about the new costumes, the militarization of the fleet, amongst other things.
I am also of the opinion that TWOK is not a very fast-paced film. There were a few sequences of space battles, but apart from that, the rest of the film is more tension than pacing. I do agree, however, that, eventually, Star Trek will return to tv in some form.—-

GR may not have been happy with control being taken away from him and how his ego was thus affected, but I doubt that he was unhappy about the thematic treatment in TWOK. Whether or not he liked the costumes isn’t really of much significance to me.

You’re right about TWOK not being a fast-paced film. And yet it is the most beloved, emotion-evoking ST movie of all time. So, what does that tell you?

It tells me that while people are immediately impressed by chasing and shooting, human connections affect us more deeply and permanently.

259. Cygnus-X1 - October 24, 2010

—-235. Boborci – October 24, 2010

218. Don’t think that’s fair. As far as politics goes, we went with Obama vs Bush (Spock/Kirk). As far as philosophy goes, we went with nature vs nurture. In other words, are you the same soul in a parallel universe. As far as science goes, we wet with many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.—-

The issues that you mention can be inferred in the film—especially if one has the advantage of having read/heard you discussing them—but they weren’t themes treated throughout the film in the way that, say, Revenge was treated in TWOK, or Parricide was treated in TNG’s “I, Borg,” or Torture was treated in TNG’s “Chain of Command,” to name but a few.

You never mentioned anything in the film about the actual, physical nature of the alternate universe; you simply had it identified as an “alternate reality,” and there the theme of Nature vs. Nature that does logically flow from it was also just a passing mention. You didn’t really explore that concept. It’s not as though one of the characters had to deal with a struggle arising from his awareness of or the existence of his alternate self. It’s not even as though one of the characters was juxtaposed with his alternate self or an alternate of another character, as in TOS’s “Mirror Mirror.” Basically, if the audience happened to know that the “alternate reality” was in fact a consequence of the way that events happen, as described by QM, then they might infer that the Kirk & Co. in your film had similarities and differences to the Kirk & Co. from TOS for significant reasons that relate to the aforementioned QM—events, probabilities, etc. But I’d hardly call such a passing and tangential part of the story a treatment of a philosophical theme in cinema.

TWOK was about Revenge. Star Trek ’09 was not about Nature vs. Nurture.

Neither was Star Trek ’09 about Quantum Mechanics nor The Multiverse nor really was it even about Alternate Realities (in the way that TNG’s “Parallels” “Cause and Effect” “Time Squared” or “Frame of Mind” were about Alternate Realities) though your plot was premised upon all of those things.

And I have no idea what you mean about Obama vs. Bush in Spock/Kirk. Do you mean that one of them is logical and one is emotional? I’ll have to watch the film again and look for what could be interpreted in that way. But I certainly didn’t come away with a rich treatment of Obama vs. Bush or any other political theme bouncing around in my head. And just to preempt (there’s a Bush theme for ya) the argument that my lack of appreciation for the themes you’ve mentioned is due to my being a moron, let me tell you that I’ve watched the film with people who would generally be regarded as intelligent and none of them got those themes out of the film, either.

Like I said before, your *Relationships* approach is a good one –Kirk/Spock, that worked great. But your film felt different from a Star Trek film in that it was missing a central theme of the variety for which TOS and TNG were fondly known. To put it simply, your film had plenty for the heart and more than enough for the senses, but not enough for the mind. It had plenty of craft and artistry, but not enough Art.

I’d love to see you take more influence from the TOS and TNG episodes, specifically the thematic treatments, in your sequel film.

260. MJ - October 24, 2010

Bob Orci, still loving 5-0, and this weeks episode was the best so far. I like the contrast between them basically torturing that guy from the bar and then them being offended at the end by a dog being potentially put down. One nit though — in the opening scene, you have a lady taking a cell phone call while underwater in a submarine. That is pretty much impossible my friend.

261. Red Dead Ryan - October 24, 2010

258

Yes, “The Wrath Of Khan” delivered a theme as well as some action. It is my favorite along with “First Contact” and just a notch above “Star Trek”. However, it is a slower paced movie that appeals to mainly the Trekkies. It just doesn’t register as much with the mainstream that other films such as “Star Wars” and “Raiders Of The Lost Ark” do. And as much as I love the previous Trek films, arguably none have felt more cinematic than the new movie. Movies like TWOK and “The Voyage Home” put more emphasis on story, theme and character than visual effects and action.

But that was a long time ago. Today, audiences need to be thrilled with action and visual effects, WHILE writers deliver a thematic plot and character arcs. J.J Abrams has delivered a film that perhaps isn’t as theme-heavy as the prior movies were, but he still remembered what makes a movie work. A fast-paced movie doesn’t always mean a plain, indistinguishable, dumb action flick. “Star Trek” is proof of that indeed an action movie can have great thematic and character moments.

“The Wrath Of Khan” will always be a favorite with most of us fans. But doing a movie today the way Nick Meyer made his almost thirty years ago just isn’t feasible. Movie-making and storytelling and audiences’ tastes have changed so much over that period of time.

262. boborci - October 24, 2010

“You never mentioned anything in the film about the actual, physical nature of the alternate universe; you simply had it identified as an “alternate reality,” and there the theme of Nature vs. Nature that does logically flow from it was also just a passing mention. You didn’t really explore that concept. It’s not as though one of the characters had to deal with a struggle arising from his awareness of or the existence of his alternate self. It’s not even as though one of the characters was juxtaposed with his alternate self or an alternate of another character, as in TOS’s “Mirror Mirror.” Basically, if the audience happened to know that the “alternate reality” was in fact a consequence of the way that events happen, as described by QM, then they might infer that the Kirk & Co. in your film had similarities and differences to the Kirk & Co. from TOS for significant reasons that relate to the aforementioned QM—events, probabilities, etc. But I’d hardly call such a passing and tangential part of the story a treatment of a philosophical theme in cinema.”

————

Not the case. Kirk asks Spock Prime if in the other universe, his father lived. The answer being yes thus makes it text that the Kirk you are following had to live a different life without a father, YET ENDED UP IN THE SAME PLACE.

Young Spock also notes that whatever their lives might have been, their destinies have changed, making it text that the situation applies to all.

———

“but they weren’t themes treated throughout the film in the way that, say, Revenge was treated in TWOK”

——–
Can you point out the thematic meditation you are referring to regarding revenge from TWOK? Is it K’s endless restating of how much he hates Kirk?

—–

“TWOK was about Revenge. Star Trek ‘09 was not about Nature vs. Nurture.”

——–

Trek 09 was about many things, including nature vs nurture. But according to you, unless someone mentions the phrase, “Nature vs. nurture” then the theme is not in there. Glad Khan said “revenge” in TWOK enough times for you to realize what it was about.

—————

“Neither was Star Trek ‘09 about Quantum Mechanics nor The Multiverse nor really was it even about Alternate Realities (in the way that TNG’s “Parallels” “Cause and Effect” “Time Squared” or “Frame of Mind” were about Alternate Realities) though your plot was premised upon all of those things.”

————-

True, in a sense. Trek, for me, is ultimately always about the characters. But QM and parallel worlds are not incidental to the story — THEY ARE NECESSARY.

————-

“And I have no idea what you mean about Obama vs. Bush in Spock/Kirk. Do you mean that one of them is logical and one is emotional? I’ll have to watch the film again and look for what could be interpreted in that way. But I certainly didn’t come away with a rich treatment of Obama vs. Bush or any other political theme bouncing around in my head. And just to preempt (there’s a Bush theme for ya) the argument that my lack of appreciation for the themes you’ve mentioned is due to my being a moron, let me tell you that I’ve watched the film with people who would generally be regarded as intelligent and none of them got those themes out of the film, either.”

————–

I guess none of your friends work for these publications:

http://www.rtvchannel.tv/capt-kirk-american-icon-new-frontier-renewed/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34213127/ns/politics-white_house/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-_Star-Trek__-From-Mr_-Spock-to-Capt_-Kirk-87625802.html

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2009/05/07/obama_spock

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/3173/newsweek-plays-up-the-spock-obama-connection

263. dmduncan - October 24, 2010

259: “You never mentioned anything in the film about the actual, physical nature of the alternate universe; you simply had it identified as an “alternate reality,” and there the theme of Nature vs. Nature that does logically flow from it was also just a passing mention. You didn’t really explore that concept. It’s not as though one of the characters had to deal with a struggle arising from his awareness of or the existence of his alternate self.”

Explore it how? Like it was explored in Nemesis, which also had a nature vs. nurture theme, and was an utter piece of verbal diarrhea?

You can take the same ideas skillfully hidden in a beautiful poem and express them bluntly and without skill in a few paragraphs of bland prose that explain everything very clearly. That was Nemesis’ approach.

I prefer the poem. That was ST.09’s approach.

And I hope for more of the same.

264. Harry Ballz - October 24, 2010

A poem?

“Only Orci can make part three”

265. Red Dead Ryan - October 24, 2010

263

How many glasses of red wine did you need to come up with that? :-)

266. Vultan - October 24, 2010

#261

Lens flares over ideas? I’m pretty sure Christopher Nolan would disagree. His films certainly have a faster pace than Meyer’s, but I always feel more intellectually stimulated after seeing one of his than say… Abrams. Well, really though… it all comes down to the script. Isn’t that right, Mr. Orci? ;)

But you are right about modern audiences, RDR. A perfect example of this is “Master and Commander,” a film which more or less had the same pace and tone as TWOK… and pretty much sank at the box office. Sad times indeed.

267. Harry Ballz - October 24, 2010

264.

Five.

268. Red Dead Ryan - October 24, 2010

265

I agree about “Master And Commander”. Great film. Poor box office revenue. No sequel. Terrible tragedy.

266

Good, good! Carry on!

269. Red Dead Ryan - October 24, 2010

OOPS! Looks like that punk Bob Orci “budged” in line and bumped us down a notch!

So my statements should be aimed at 266, 277

270. Red Dead Ryan - October 24, 2010

No that should read

“So my statements should be aimed at 266, 267!

Damn, its getting late!

271. Jai - October 25, 2010

“As far as philosophy goes, we went with nature vs nurture. In other words, are you the same soul in a parallel universe.”

Re: #235

If the “Mirror Universe” episodes of TOS, DS9 and Enterprise are anything to go by, I guess the answer (as far as Star Trek’s internal philosophy is concerned) is “Sometimes Yes, sometimes No. It depends on the specific individual, and it depends on the specific parallel/alternate universe”.

For example:

– Same soul in Prime Universe and Mirror Universe: Spock, Ben Sisko, Jadzia Dax, Jennifer Sisko, O’Brien, Quark, T’Pol.
– Different soul: Kirk, Kira, Worf, Ezri Dax, Nog, Leeta, Archer, Hoshi, Phlox, Malcolm Reed.
– Unclear: Garak, Bashir.

272. captain_neill - October 25, 2010

It is a shame that plot has been sacrificed in films these days to give audiences excitement. Moreso these days I think.

Shame that plots have to be sacrificed. Yes Star Trek XI was a thrilling movie but it was a shame that story had to be sacrificed to make it appeal to mainstream.

I love the new movie but the more you think about the film the less sense it makes.

273. P Technobabble - October 25, 2010

I don’t see how people come away from Trek09 without getting the theme. I believe the film contained numerous thematic aspects, but the main thing I got was “everything changes.”
Since the film is primarily about Kirk and Spock, we can follow their character arcs and clearly see that both of these characters change, not just from childhood to adulthood, but from cadets to officers — and not just in the literal sense, but metaphorically, as well.
And the story is about change in the sense that the universe has changed! It is not the universe we all knew so well. Everything has been turned on its side, so that there’s something familiar about it, yet it is not the same. And it’s not going back. Just as 9/11 still left us in familiar territory, we were changed forever, and there is no going back.
And the film itself is about change. It is not “our father’s Star Trek.” It is not TOS in the sense that it just carries on from that point. It is new, it is different.
I think this thematic aspect of the film — about “change” — is as clear as day. And the film was not just an action pieces with lots of “chasing and shooting.” There were plenty of character pieces. There were plenty of sequences that reflected both the beauty of space and the dangers in it. Just because the film had a fast pace does not mean it was just a “shooter” film.
I’m willing to bet the next film will even be different than the first. As the Court has indicated, the first film had the task of putting everyone and everything in place. In that sense, it had to be a rather restrained film, with numerous limits on it. The next film will be more like TVH — the “training wheels” are coming off.

274. P Technobabble - October 25, 2010

“Star Trek” plots:
The story of a brash young James Kirk and a confused young Spock, and how they become friends.
The story of a mad Romulan from another reality, who sets out to destroy Vulcan and the Federation, whom he blames for the destruction of his home-world.
The story of young, inexperienced Starfleet cadets who must stop a mad Romulan from destroying the Federation.
The story of Spock Prime, also from another reality, who must try to set things “right.”
How much more plot does this film need???

275. Cygnus-X1 - October 25, 2010

262. boborci – October 24, 2010

—-Not the case. Kirk asks Spock Prime if in the other universe, his father lived. The answer being yes thus makes it text that the Kirk you are following had to live a different life without a father, YET ENDED UP IN THE SAME PLACE.—-

I don’t disagree with you, but you’re kind of making my point here. I suppose that the scene you described is a juxtaposition of the two Kirks, but it’s only a passing thing. You treat it basically as an afterthought. The story wasn’t “about” the different possible life-paths of the two Kirks. The story wasn’t “about” the relationship between Nature and Nurture in how the two Kirks’ lives unfold and in the choices that they made. Nature vs. Nurture was not a main theme of your story. It wasn’t even a secondary theme. It was an interesting little tease that you threw in at the end and left largely untreated and unexplored. It wasn’t like the life choices made by Picard affecting the “tappestry” of his life, in the TNG episode of that title. THAT was a central theme. THAT’S what that episode was “about.”

—-Can you point out the thematic meditation you are referring to regarding revenge from TWOK? Is it K’s endless restating of how much he hates Kirk?—-

It’s not just his reiterations of his hatred for Kirk; it’s how his hatred has consumed him and dominated his life, and how it continues to do so throughout the film, eventually leading him to destroy everyone who “loved” him, i.e. his faithful crew, and everything that he had worked so hard to achieve, i.e. forming a society and surviving to make it off of the planet on which they’d been exiled—making it out of the desert, if you will. Khan’s first officer even pleads with him that he has everything that he wanted, he has Genesis so forget about Kirk for now, but Khan simply cannot hear those words. His hatred of Kirk has him on a collision course that will end in total loss. THAT’s what TWOK was about. And there’s a difference between that kind of thematic treatment and throwing in a line at the end of the story about the Kirk of the other Universe.

—-Trek 09 was about many things, including nature vs nurture. But according to you, unless someone mentions the phrase, “Nature vs. nurture” then the theme is not in there. Glad Khan said “revenge” in TWOK enough times for you to realize what it was about.—-

I appreciate your wit here. But, you’ve got me wrong. I wouldn’t want to hear the name of the theme being treated, but I would like to see it treated. I would like to see it developed. It’s not Khan saying “revenge” that impressed me; it’s that THE MOVIE WAS ABOUT REVENGE AND THE COMPELLING HUMAN EFFECTS THEREOF.

You seem to want to believe that the only difference between the themes we’re talking about from your story and the themes that I cited from TWOK and TOS and TNG episodes is that yours were more subtle. Well, that’s not the difference that I’m talking about. Yours were less obvious largely because they were less developed. I appreciate your rebuttal about Kirk asking of his alternate Universe doppelganger, but as I said that was a line thrown in at the end of the story. Hardly comparable to the central theme of Revenge that drove the whole story of TWOK.

—-True, in a sense. Trek, for me, is ultimately always about the characters. But QM and parallel worlds are not incidental to the story — THEY ARE NECESSARY.—-

And I appreciate that. And I take no issue with that. I like your character approach and look forward to more of it. But there’s a difference between a concept being an almost entirely unmentioned structural or plot device and it being a developed theme of the story. In the TNG episodes that I cited, alternate realities were (again) what those stories were “ABOUT.” Your story was not “about” QM or parallel worlds and how they affect people, how people deal with them, and so forth. Again, there’s a difference. Which is not to imply that using a neat Scientific concept as a structural or plot device is somehow a bad idea. But your having done so does not satisfy the need that I was expressing regarding historical ST theme types vis-a-vis your stories.

—-I guess none of your friends work for these publications:—-

You’re right, they don’t.

And, sure, you can find Kirks and Spocks in the greater society at large. But that Bush and Obama can be viewed as analoguous to Kirk and Spock respectively does not make that a political theme of your story. Your story was not “about” Bush vs. Obama and the various differences (and some similarities) in their political ideologies, world-views or characters; nor about how those two men each acceded to the presidency in largely diametric ways; nor about any other political issue germane to Bush vs. Obama.

I guess the overarching theme here is that the aspects of your story that you’re offering in satisfaction of my complaint—QM, Nature vs. Nurture, Bush vs. Obama—are insufficient. There were a lot of good things about your story and about the movie, but the bits of your story that you’ve mentioned here were superficial; they were not substantially developed themes, which is what I’m asking you to consider.

The best answer, in terms of theme, to the question “What was your story about?” is that it was about Revenge. But the Revenge theme of your story had two ailments: (1) The Villain’s motive/rationale for revenge was weak—sure his home planet was destroyed, but it was never established how Nero could rationally believe that this tragedy was the fault of Spock, the would-be savior of Romulus who failed despite his best efforts. So, what we were left with was basically an irrational, berserk villain out to make someone pay for his anguish, and he finds Spock to be the best candidate for his retribution; and (2) which is not to say that a berserk, irrational villain couldn’t be explored and developed as a theme—I’m sure you’d agree that there’s no shortage of irrational, angry people about—but you never really explored Nero’s irrationality. You didn’t really develop that theme. You just offered it as a given that this guy’s super pissed-off and now everyone’s gotta deal with it.

And that’s basically what your story was about. A super-pissed-off, irrational villain wreaking havoc on galactic civilization and the group of heroic, yet unlikely comrades that comes together to defeat him.

I’m asking you to, when writing your sequel, keep asking yourself, “What is this story about?” And then try to make it about the kinds of things that we loved in TOS and TNG, those kind of themes—philosophical, political, Scientific themes. Give it a try. Throw us a bone. If you do it well, while retaining what you’re already doing successfully, the result could be a classic. Not just an ST classic, but a classic.

276. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 25, 2010

All the complaints of the movie concerning canon are examples that they are in a new universe. How can we say we don’t like the changes and claim there is no evidence that their reality has changed?

277. denny cranium - October 25, 2010

what I liked about Trek 09- was that it was the same as the “old trek” but different at the same time.
It was like when I went to England recently.
It was the “same enough” as home to make it feel familiar but “different enough” to be exciting at the same time.

Bob Orci- Kirk got to be Captain based on what Pike said to him in the bar.
“the look before you leap”
It would be great to see that quality of Kirk- get him into trouble this time. It also sets up an opportunity for some great “kirk/spock/mcoy and sulu? moments.
TEST Kirk to the limits (beyond?) and make him a better Captain for it.
Make the situation/dilemma he faces be the villain.

My two cents-

278. dmduncan - October 25, 2010

265. Red Dead Ryan – October 24, 2010

The language of film, when it’s a good film, is like poetry. You don’t need verbal exposition. When Stanley Kubrick cut from a bone tossed into the air to a spaceship in orbit having the same shape, he expressed a whole web of ideas without uttering a single word. How our species evolved and survived, how we got the knowledge to do both…so much is implied in the leap through time that Kubrick makes there.

When Leon presents Stansfield with a gift “from Mathilda” (the pulled ring of a grenade), it means much more than that Stansfield is about to be blown to bits. At ground zero of that fiery explosion was love.

When Manny (Jonn Voight) heads toward the end of the line in Runaway Train with his nemesis, Ranken, handcuffed in the cab below, we are really watching good and evil locked in an eternal struggle, with good willing to sacrifice itself to destroy evil. I won’t tell you how it ends, but seeing the train crash is unimportant.

279. Luis Marroquin - October 25, 2010

One option to consider for incorporating William Shatner… Remember Old Spock is still around. So perhaps the Young Spock or even Young Kirk somewhere in the new sequal’s story line seeks Old Spock for advise. And perhaps Old Spock has some type of memory clip that he shares with one of the new characters that shows Old Spock and Old Kirk. Or, Old Spock responding to the advise, relates a moment from his history that as he shares it, a re-enactment, Old Spock and Old Kirk played by William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy appear together.

This would work because the audience already accepts the fact that Old Spock is alive and in line with the new story and crew. He is the link for allowing a spot for William Shatner. If we accept Old Spock in the new alternate world, then we will accept linking history or memories linking both story lines.

**Someone has to let William Shatner know that for many, we would prefer to see him one last time on TV or the big screen as Captain Kirk even if its only for 30 seconds than to see him appearing on lame commercials or on the TVshow series he’s promoting Bleep My Dad Says. He is worth more as a person and as an actor and deserves a better level of entertainment that where he is currently at.

280. denny cranium - October 25, 2010

279-
I don’t think Shatner would do a cameo.
He’s already joked about if “the money were right” he would do it.
I bet he’s been offered the cameo on the Supreme Courts terms and not Shatner’s terms.All he has left with to bargain with is how much he will be paid.
So if/when its revealed a part was offered each side will say-“We just couldn’t reach an agreement”
Shatner has mentioned that he’s met with JJ- I wonder if it was his ” story pitch” to JJ so that Shat could steal the movie.

I hope JJ just tolerated him out of respect if that was the case.

I’m not against Bill Shatner personally. I admire the career he has enjoyed and most of the work he has done. I hope to be as vibrant as him in my 70s.

I’m against Bill Shatner being in the next Trek. I feel he would try to hijack the picture to his own benefit

281. Allenburch - October 25, 2010

262. boborci – October 24, 2010

Commendation for the great work and I think we’re all glad that the stress from Star Trek 2009 is over because it has successfully opened up the creative landscape. Rock on!

282. Boogybum - October 27, 2010

11. Harry Ballz – October 21, 2010

One of the key reasons they reset the Trek franchise in an alternate reality is so not to be restricted by us, the audience, knowing the main characters live to old age. If we know that nobody dies, where’s the peril?

Why care about the fate of alternate kirk, spock, scotty, and the rest of them, at all if the Prime characters are still safe and sound in their prime universe? It makes no sense. I honestly don’t care about the alternate characters. They mean nothing to me.

283. Stanky McFibberich - October 28, 2010

Shatner should stay away from that movie like the dead skunk in the road that it is.

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