Abrams: Star Trek Sequel Has ‘Really Cool’ Story | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams: Star Trek Sequel Has ‘Really Cool’ Story November 8, 2010

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

At the premiere of his latest production Morning Glory, JJ Abrams talked a little about his Star Trek sequel, giving an enthusiastic endorsement to the story the writers have come up with…but no details of course. Video and photos from premiere below. Plus in other Abrams news, some are wondering if JJ will return to his TV roots.

 

Abrams: Star Trek 2012 has cool story

At the New York City opening of Morning Glory, which he produced, JJ Abrams talked to EPIX about the Star Trek sequel, giving a short update on status and his assessment of the story: 

We are working on it now. The script is being sort of fully outlined and then the writers will start working on the script. But, the story is really cool!

Well that’s not much, but what do you expect from JJ Abrams this long before production starts? If you want to see him say it, watch the video at the Epix Facebook page.


Click to see video of JJ at "Morning Glory" première

On the subject of a possible Alias movie, Abrams didn’t seem interested, telling  TheCheapPop.com "I don’t know, I feel we sort of did it – that story".

Premiere Photos


Producer J.J. Abrams and wife Katie McGrath attending the premiere of “Morning Glory” at the Ziegfeld Theatre on November 7, 2010 in New York City


Abrams and actress Alexandra Wentworth


"Morning Glory" star Harrison Ford


"Morning Glory" star Diane Keaton


"Morning Glory" stars Rachel McAdams and Jeff Goldblum

Morning Glory, a comedy produced by JJ Abrams and starring Harrison Ford, opens this weekend. And if you are wondering what Morning Glory is all about, here is a trailer/featurette explaining the film.

Does JJ need to return to his TV roots?

As reported last week, JJ Abrams latest TV series Undercovers was cancelled by NBC. Today The Daily Beast asks "Is J.J. Abrams Too Big for TV?". With hits like Felicity, Alias and Lost, JJ Abrams made a big splash with innovative TV series. However, The Daily Beast notes that since he started splitting his time between TV and movies in the last five years, his small screen work has suffered. The article sums it up by saying:

Feature films may bring more attention and more cash, but television viewers are hoping that Abrams doesn’t go all Hollywood on them. If Undercovers is any example, it’s proof positive that viewers aren’t taking to Abrams-lite. Instead, they want to lose themselves in the types of stories that Abrams used to tell on the small screen. While not every story needs to involve mysterious numbers or smoke monsters, Abrams’ fans have come to expect more from him than just married spies with catering woes.

Of course Abrams could mix his film and TV work together and bring Star Trek back to the small screen with a show that can capture a new generation of viewers.

It’s a thought.

Comments

1. MJ - November 8, 2010

Would like to see Jeff Goldblum in Trek 2012. Whoever Alexandra Wentworth is, she looks like that drunk stepsister that you want to pretend is not embarrassing you at a family gathering.

2. Benjamin - November 8, 2010

Star Trek back on TV?

Definitely!

3. MJ - November 8, 2010

Is it possible that JJ and his wife have interchangeable eyeglasses? Here is one person who is wondering if they both have 20/20 version and that this is all designed to provide the genius cool look…if so, it works pretty well!

4. Harry Ballz - November 9, 2010

A “really cool story” for the next movie? Well, really, what else WOULD he say?

5. Canon Schmanon - November 9, 2010

By saying “really cool story” J.J. has raised the bar!

6. Sebastian - November 9, 2010

“Morning Glory” looks interesting; kind of like a similar film I loved in the ’80s called “Broadcast News” with Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks (that film was also a behind the scenes of television movie with a terrific ensemble cast).
My curiosity is piqued…

As for JJ Abrams’ tantalizing line about the ‘really cool story’ for Star Trek 2012? I don’t suppose it would do any good to ask Bob Orci (if he’s here) if he could elaborate on JJ’s statement? : D
Oh well, it was worth a try…..

; )

7. Basement Blogger - November 9, 2010

To 3D or not 3D? That is the question. It’s great that J.J. Abrams is excited about the next Star Trek movie. But 3D is a big issue in future releases of movies. See “Harry Potter, The Deathly Hallows” in which the first installment was removed from a 3D release because of quality.

I don’t hate 3D movies and will pay extra to see them EXCEPT when they are conversions from 2D. Trust me my fellow Trekkers, I saw “Last Airbender” (2010). Absolutely horrible. Too dark. Special effects not designed for 3D were worthless. Conversions stink. “Piranha 3d” was also a conversion but that director knew they were going to convert it. It still was too dark. (wikipedia article on Piranaha 3d below) Watching “Avatar” which was shot in 3D, those problems did not exist.

We know from this site (link below) that J.J. Abrams is not sold on 3D. I will continue to fight for any future Trek movie that Paramount wants to release in 3D to be shot in 3D. Trek Nation deserves the same quality that “Avatar” had. I will happily pay extra to see Star Trek (2012) in 3D if it’s shot in 3D, no conversions. What do you say Paramount? It you want 3D, expand the budget and let the directer shoot it in 3D.

1. Wiki on Piranha 3D Article notes conversion was not an afterthought and well received.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piranha_3-D#Production

2. This site, J.J. Abrams not sold on 3D

http://trekmovie.com/2010/07/22/jj-abrams-talks-3-d-movies-super-8-at-comic-con-full-abramswhedon-panel-report/

8. keachick - November 9, 2010

My kids saw Avatar in 3D but after a while found the glasses really annoying, especially as one of my sons has to wear glasses.

I think they should make two versions of Star Trek (2012), 2D and 3D, if they can afford to. If not, just make a good 2D Star Trek sequel. After all, it is the story that matters most, anyway.

9. Marvin the Martian - November 9, 2010

I’m so glad that J.J. Abrams has confirmed that the next Trek film will be a “really cool story.” I was afraid he was going to say that it was “a really crappy story,” “a re-imagining of something Rick Berman left behind in the bathroom,” or “some random junk we threw together that really doesn’t make much sense, but i’m sure we’ll figure it out on set.” Because, you know… he could have said that. I mean, mindless self-promotion never happens in Hollywood.

Thanks to your confirmation, I now know *for sure* that the next film will be a masterpiece. Thanks so much, J.J.!

10. Phaser Guy - November 9, 2010

In this one the Smoke Monster comes forward in time and takes over the Enterprise!!

11. Steamblade - November 9, 2010

And this one may even make sense, doubtful, but possible.

12. coruja_fdp - November 9, 2010

Needs more lens flare.

13. JP Saylor - November 9, 2010

Trek movies are great, but what made us all fans in the first place were the shows. If they want a new generation of trek fans, make a new show. Get the right people, and you’ll have a hit. Just make sure the guy who canceled enterprise doesn’t hear about it.

14. Anthony Thompson - November 9, 2010

Alexandra Wentworth looks a bit long of tooth to be giving JJ much of a thrill with her tongue. : )

15. Lin - November 9, 2010

I wouldn’t mind a Star Trek reboot series on TV. =D In fact, i’d like it very very much.

16. Sebi - November 9, 2010

Star Trek: Kelvin

developed by JJ Abrams.

Has a nice ring to it….

17. Denny - November 9, 2010

Harrison Ford in the Trek sequel in some capacity please (Villian, Starfleet Admiral, corrupt captain etc)

18. Jai - November 9, 2010

Aha, I’m glad a new article about the sequel’s plot has surfaced. A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post summarising my own ideas about what would make a good storyline for the next film, but it ended up getting buried near the end of an extremely long thread which had fizzled out. So, here it is again, this time with a couple of amendments & additions:

For argument’s sake, let’s assume that – in the period between ST09 and the sequel — Spock Prime has confidentially given the higher echelons of Starfleet Command and the Federation government a huge amount of intelligence about “what’s out there”, either voluntarily or via Section 31’s machinations (or both). If he’s done this voluntarily, then it would make sense for Spock Prime to have taken a “needs of the many” viewpoint and provided the relevant information in the interests of protecting the Federation.

Following on from that, there’s a lot of scope for the next Star Trek movie being a really exciting “Seven Days in May”-style political thriller, especially because of the danger of such information being used for nefarious purposes. If, thanks to Spock Prime, the most senior figures in Starfleet already know about the various major threats in the galaxy — not only those depicted in TOS, but also in DS9, Voyager, and some of the movies — then that could include people who will decide that the best way to safeguard the Federation is to pre-emptively eliminate/neutralise those threats. It could even include a variation of the “One Percent doctrine”, especially as the genocidal destruction of Vulcan could provide them with a way to plausibly justify their actions. In fact, the horror of Vulcan’s sudden obliteration could be the main trigger for the idealistic officers starting to “think the unthinkable”, resulting in what happens next.

Tying that in to the “Seven Days in May” theme, the movie could show a cabal of highly experienced and decorated senior Starfleet officers correspondingly setting a plan in motion to engineer a military takeover of the Federation government, backed by Section 31 and led by a determined & respected Admiral who inspires tremendous loyalty and has an outstanding career history (I was thinking that George Clooney or Jon Hamm might be good choices for the “Burt Lancaster” part, as they’re obviously charismatic and also have the right personas for this role). Kirk & co uncover this plot and go all out to try to prevent it from succeeding.

This also has scope to address the issue of Kirk being “promoted to Captain too quickly” — the Admiral involved could condescendingly dismiss Kirk’s objections by saying he’s far too naive and inexperienced to know what he’s talking about. In fact, the Admiral could be one of Pike’s friends, so there’s scope for conflict on that front too (including Pike being torn between Kirk and his friend, especially if thinks that — to a great extent, albeit not entirely – from a coldly rational strategic viewpoint the other Admiral is indeed justified in his “pre-emptive attack” stance).

Kirk himself obviously isn’t averse to bending/breaking the rules if he thinks it’s justified (as we all know) and can therefore see the merit in the conspirators’ plan, but (after thoroughly debating the issue with Spock and McCoy) he ultimately opposes them because a) it would overthrow the Federation’s democratic system, b) he’s objective enough to know how power can often corrupt even well-meaning people, c) he believes – accurately – that it would risk engulfing the entire galaxy in war, especially because enemies aren’t always defeated as easily as intended, despite whatever strategic & technological advantages you might have, d) particularly realistically, if the conspirators’ aim is to remain in power until all confirmed foreign threats to the Federation are neutralised, then (despite their claims/intentions) that would effectively signal the end of the Federation in its present form and result in a permanent military dictatorship.

There are numerous parallels for this from our own real-world history, both from relatively modern times and also going much further back – for example, unlike the Starfleet conspirators, Julius Caesar was obviously driven mainly by personal ambition rather than necessarily a desire to “protect the safety of Roman citizens”, but think about the transformation of the Roman Republic into an Empire via Julius’s dictatorship and subsequently via Augustus (technically the first Roman Emperor). Kirk knows that an Empire is exactly what the Federation would ultimately turn into, especially if the military/political leaders eventually believe that the most effective way to eliminate threats is to keep annexing defeated foes’ territories (the Romans also sometimes used the “pre-emptive attack” rationale to justify their own “defensive” wars of expansion).

The Klingons could also be brought into the story. Considering that the Klingon Empire is basically the Federation’s main rival at this point, the conspirators could decide that pre-emptively attacking the Klingons is the best move. So you have ample scope for the movie to show the Klingons as “grand strategy chessplayers” along with truly ruthless warriors, yet not necessarily being outright villains, as they’re acting defensively in response to Federation aggression.

And similarly, the protagonists in Starfleet aren’t necessarily black-and-white heroes or villains either, as the “Burt Lancaster” admiral and his co-conspirators genuinely believe that they’re doing what’s necessary to safeguard the Federation and hopefully save the billions of lives that they know will certainly be lost if they don’t act, thanks to Spock Prime’s information about the future and the rest of the galaxy. There will obviously be a couple of ambitious, opportunistic “hawks” amongst the conspirators, but the majority of them (especially the leaders) will not be like that; it’s similar to the way Sisko justifies/rationalises his own reluctant actions in the brilliant DS9 episode “In the Pale Moonlight”, except in this case the conspirators’ actions and agenda are on a far greater scale.

To draw some real world parallels: If the US knew in advance that Imperial Japan would eventually attack Pearl Harbour, would the US have been justified in attacking Japan first ? If the Allied powers knew at the start of the 1930s that Germany would trigger WW2 and also cause the Holocaust, would they have been justified in attacking Germany first or assassinating Hitler (either before he rose to power, or early in his rule) ? If the US had already had access to nuclear weapons technology (parallels with Spock Prime’s advanced technological knowledge), would they have been justified in using it against cities in Nazi Germany or much earlier in the conflict with Japan ? If the West had already known that the Taliban would rise to power in Afghanistan and shelter Osama bin Laden & Al Qaeda’s leadership, would the US have been justified in pre-emptively launching a full-scale military attack against Afghanistan in order to prevent 9/11 ?

And would American military commanders have been justified in engineering a political coup in the US government so that they could implement these plans, especially if the White House objected to these pre-emptive military attacks ?

If the writers of the next Star Trek movie really do want to make an adult, intelligent, sophisticated film in the vein of “The Dark Knight”, with a gripping political theme and many thought-provoking aspects relating to real life (which is also why RDM’s rebooted “Battlestar Galactica” was so good, especially the earlier seasons), then this would definitely be one option. The story practically writes itself.

Apologies for the long comment, but hopefully there are some interesting ideas in there. I think it covers plenty of relevant bases — it includes the direct consequences of the main events depicted in ST09, historical & contemporary parallels which most of the audience will be able to relate to, life-or-death moral dilemmas with no easy answers, political scheming, shadowy intelligence organisations, military decisions whose impact would span the galaxy, no “outright villains” in the traditional sense, idealism vs. pragmatism, Admiral Pike, and Klingons. And if people are looking for an epic scenario which would push Kirk and the Enterprise crew to the very limit and really test what they’re made of, this would definitely do it.

19. Jai - November 9, 2010

^^” If, thanks to Spock Prime, the most senior figures in Starfleet already know about the various major threats in the galaxy — not only those depicted in TOS, but also in DS9, Voyager, and some of the movies”

Correction: Include the major threats depicted in TNG too.

20. Denny - November 9, 2010

18 – great story but wouldnt Spock Prime have factored in all those pitfalls and then choose not to disclose any info on the future (a future that obviously wont pan out the same as in his universe)

spock considers every detail and probability remember

21. Paul B. - November 9, 2010

#18/19 – Sorry, but your idea doesn’t sound very “Star Trek” or even very interesting. After rebooting the franchise with a fresh dose of optimism and hope, you want them to veer into political intrigue and Federation-infighting over VERY obvious, thinly veiled, real-world parallels. Instead of “Space, the final frontier,” you seem to want a mix of DS9 and the show “Jericho.”

Your story has nothing to do with boldly going, strange new worlds, alien civilizations, or any of the other elements that were missing from ST09. And no, your story does not “write itself.’ I think it’s not even remotely something that could be turned into a movie. (Can you imagine trying to explain your plot to non-Trekkie fans of ST09? It doesn’t sound remotely like Star Trek.)

It might make a decent fanfic, and I encourage you to try that.

(Sorry if any of this seems harsh, but you’ve posted this story twice, so you obviously want some kind of response.)

22. Denny - November 9, 2010

there was a sequel novel planned about Spock Prime and his future info but it got cancelled

cant recall the name of it now but i know i was pretty gutted when it got cancelled as i was looking foward to that one – dunno if its planned for release anytime soon? (im assuming it was already written)

23. Hugh Hoyland - November 9, 2010

#19 Interesting concept, but where are the Talosians? :] Seriously, I like it though, but I would think that this story might be so broad in scope that it would take two movies to really flesh it all out?

24. Dee - November 9, 2010

JJAbrams Okay! …. I believe in you! … I’m hoping for a great story for the sequel of Star Trek! … because I can only wait after all 2012 is still far, right?… LOL!.

25. jas_montreal - November 9, 2010

Doctor Bashir has his new starship now. He and his buddy Garak have now travelled back in time into the same time era as Kirk. Thats probably the story that JJ’s soo excited about !

26. Admiral_Bumblebee - November 9, 2010

Please make the interior, especially the bridge of the Enterprise feel more comfortable and warm. In the first movie it felt like they were in a hospital…

And Bring back Shatner as Prime Kirk and team him up with Prime Spock for one last adventure :)

27. thebiggfrogg - November 9, 2010

J.J. Abrams, “The story sucks, but we are going to film it anyway and hopefully audiences will disagree with me.” Honestly, what else could the guy say except “cool story”?

28. gingerly - November 9, 2010

@27

Haha, so true, but he could have also just been really tactful about not saying it sucks, “we’re confident, we’re still retooling, blah, blah…”

That said, I like Rachel MacAdams.

Why doesn’t she work more? I thought she’d be a huge star after The Notebook (for that matter, same with Gosling, though I get the feeling good work is what motivates him, not stardom).

Anyway, Rachel MacAdams would make an awesome Chapel. :)

Also in my dream-world Lena Olin (of Alias and Romeo is Bleeding) would be the perfect Number One.

On this:

If Undercovers is any example, it’s proof positive that viewers aren’t taking to Abrams-lite.

Pssh. I hate when the media just makes stuff up so they can have a sound-bite.

That show failed because the advertising was awful (NBC “more colorful” …huh?), the pilot was “meh”, and the premise was too wishy-washy….romantic? comedy? adventure?

It’s a shame too, because the leads were good.

29. Horatio - November 9, 2010

I wish Harrison Ford would lose that stupid earring.

OK, i’m not PC.

30. Phil - November 9, 2010

I doubt that Harrison Ford is in the budget. Really now, an old Han Solo in Star Trek? That’s the mother of all typecasting problems!!

31. BiggestTOSfanever - November 9, 2010

Nicholas Meyer should Direct!

32. John from Cincinnati - November 9, 2010

The best medium for Star Trek is definitely TV. More stories, more character development.

Also, Is it me or doesn’t it look from the picture that JJ is not enjoying his lick from actress Alexandra Wentworth?

33. Polly - November 9, 2010

Of course he’s going to say the story is “really cool”! It’s not like he would say “yeah it really sucks”

DUH

34. Daoud - November 9, 2010

@33 Well, as long as he doesn’t tell us it’s a “valentine to the fans”, we’re still good.

@Boborci: Please, tell us it’s not just “really cool” but that it’s “really, rrrrrrreally cool”.

@18/19: That’s your pitch? Too much windup, and wanders like a knuckleball to the plate. Any reference to “Seven Days in May” however redeems you. Don’t neglect “Thirteen Days” too. If you want an Admirals-Gone-Wild story though, we already have my personal favorite: Fleet Captain GARTH, ready to go! (And with crazy green Orion women, Andorians and Tellarites!)

35. VOODOO - November 9, 2010

By the way, what is he going to say? Would you expect him to say the story we are working on kind of sucks?

It would be spectacular to have Harrison Ford involved in the new Star Trek film.

36. Jai - November 9, 2010

Denny, re: #20

“18 – great story but wouldnt Spock Prime have factored in all those pitfalls and then choose not to disclose any info on the future (a future that obviously wont pan out the same as in his universe)

spock considers every detail and probability remember”

Good point, and it’s something which occurred to me too (another commenter also mentioned this on an earlier thread). On the other hand, like I said in #18, Spock Prime might take a “needs of the many” viewpoint and divulge a censored version which brings the main threats to Starfleet Command’s attention. As for the issue of the information being exploited, he might weight up the odds (as he usually does) and decide that it’s worth the risk, considering the number of lives that are at risk. He’s a very smart guy but he’s not infallible, as we know from the fallout of his actions leading up to ST09.

Also, remember that the strategic intelligence he possesses isn’t just about the future, it’s also about the rest of the galaxy — meaning he knows about the Borg and the Delta Quadrant, the Dominion in the Gamma Quadrant (plus the wormhole near Bajor), etc etc. Those two factions in particular are lurking in wait, keeping an eye on the Alpha Quadrant from a distance, and with their own plans about aggressively dealing with the Federation when they eventually encounter them.

So, the events of ST09 will result in some aspects of the Alpha Quadrant’s future having been changed (including the Federation), as you’ve correctly mentioned, but others will not have been affected — not yet, anyway. The same applies to other parts of the galaxy.

I also think that Section 31 would deviously do whatever they could to obtain as much intelligence as possible from Spock Prime, irrespective of whether or not he was willing to divulge that information voluntarily. They were already active during the “Enterprise” era and that part of canon obviously hasn’t been changed via Nero’s incursion, so they’d still be present during the timeframe of the new movies. And it’s been established that Section 31’s priority is to safeguard the Federation by any means necessary, and that they’re not particularly scrupulous about the legality or morality of the methods they use.

Incidentally, I don’t think Spock Prime needs to be depicted in the film (especially as Leonard Nimoy isn’t going to be appear in the sequel, as far as I know), although he would obviously be mentioned. Same for the Dominion/Gamma Quadrant, Borg/Delta Quadrant etc – their territory can be depicted on a galactic map during high-level Starfleet discussions by the conspirators (and it’s another easter egg for long-term Trek fans), but it’s not necessary for them to actually appear in the movie – in fact, given the fact that the new movies constitute a “fresh reboot”, those particular adversaries definitely shouldn’t be the villains in this case.

The primary, and immediate, target in this instance is the Klingon Empire – and the Klingons definitely could play a major part in the sequel in terms of the storyline I’ve suggested. During the time period of the new films, they’re still the Federation’s main rivals, and (unlike the Dominion, Borg etc) they’re also the “villains” which the non-Trekkie mainstream audience is the most familiar with.

37. Jai - November 9, 2010

Hugh Hoyland, re: #23

“#19 Interesting concept, but where are the Talosians? :] Seriously, I like it though, but I would think that this story might be so broad in scope that it would take two movies to really flesh it all out?”

No Talosians in this case ;) As for the length, I think it could fit into a 2.5 hour epic if handled properly. There are some good non-Star Trek precedents for longish films which managed to include a lot of material, such as “Gladiator”, the extended DVD version of “Kingdom of Heaven” (much better than the cinema version), and of course “The Dark Knight”. So it could be done, although it would need to be very tightly written and the pacing would also have to be carefully handled.

For a relatively recent Star Trek example, remember the two-part Mirror Universe episodes towards the end of “Enterprise” – they managed to fit in a hell of a lot of brilliant characterisation, historical/political exposition and drama in just two hours. It was also very gripping because the storyline was so unpredictable.

38. Jai - November 9, 2010

Daoud, re: #34

“@18/19: That’s your pitch? Too much windup, and wanders like a knuckleball to the plate.”

Not so fast. I’m setting the chess pieces on the board and providing details of the first series of moves along with one side’s endgame. How both sides actually execute their respective strategies, with one side achieving ‘checkmate’ by the end of the movie, is in the hands of Bob Orci, JJ Abrams etc — the sequel is obviously their baby and therefore their vision ;)

“Any reference to “Seven Days in May” however redeems you. Don’t neglect “Thirteen Days” too.”

Thank you ;) I’ve seen “Thirteen Days” and yes it’s a brilliant film too.

39. GraniteTrek - November 9, 2010

I suggest they find “Sherlock”‘s Benedict Cumberbatch a role, maybe as a bad guy – he’s been superb in whatever he’s played in. Watch him on “Sherlock” and you’ll see what I mean.

40. denny cranium - November 9, 2010

18/19
Obviously very well thought out but like what 21 says not very Trek like.
The story youre trying to tell here has a very long arc and would require a lot of characters. You only have two hours to tell the story.
It would make for a very interesting mini series though. Just not with Trek characters.
Youre on the right course when you say you would like to see an epic scenario that pushes Kirk and co to the limits.
I do not want to see any politics or paper thin allegories to our time.
I would like to see the dillema test Kirk on a personal level PAST his limits,
It doesnt have to be Klingons Romulans or any type of villain.
The Doomsday device or the Galileo 7 type of dillemmas.
Don’t rip off those stories make the drama inspired from those ideas.

41. Areli - November 9, 2010

ST On TV = I’d love JJ forever. (I’d be nice to see nuST cast have a show)

Wait…I thought they were already working on the script…at least they just started to. JJ is being inaccurate lol

42. The First Son of Krypton - November 9, 2010

#9

*sigh*

43. Areli - November 9, 2010

@43

Sarcasm was the tool they employed when forming their response.

44. Red Dead Ryan - November 9, 2010

41

Most people on this site, including me, trust his “judgement” over yours.

I just don’t get why some people feel the need to knock J.J Abrams AFTER ONLY ONE MOVIE. “Star Trek” was a hit movie. It was also easily the most critically and financially successful Trek film to date.

45. dmduncan - November 9, 2010

I could be wrong, but I don’t think Bob’s interest in the JFK assassination pegs him as a general fan of dark conspiracies all over the map.

I don’t want to see some baloney utopian future, but the military industrial complex we have now seems too overboard for the Star Trek future as well.

It doesn’t have to be perfect, but significantly better would be cool.

46. Capt. of the USS Anduril - November 9, 2010

JJ’s wife is either very tall or he’s very short.

Jeff Goldblum? Back on screen? Why wasn’t I notified! lol

47. I'm Dead Jim! - November 9, 2010

And ya’ll know what’s cooler than cool? ICE COLD!!!!

48. Commodore Lurker - November 9, 2010

Decloaking . . .
NOT falling for this line, again!
Recloaking. }:-D>

49. Jeyl - November 9, 2010

“Star Trek Sequel Has ‘Really Cool’ Story”

And Brannon Braga said “These are the Voyages” was going to be a treat for the fans.

My point? Unless they tell us what the story is about, don’t their word for it. I could say that what’s in this box is really cool, but there is is just piles of rocks. Sure, I think they’re cool since their from Nebraska, but to some they’re just rocks.

50. Red Dead Ryan - November 9, 2010

49

To paraphrase Han Solo

“Well, I’m glad we have you here to tell us that! Chewie, take her into the back…”

51. dmduncan - November 9, 2010

I hope they hurry up and get this movie made because that looked like an SLBM contrail off California.

The game is afoot.

52. Mike S - November 9, 2010

Have Abrams produce the next TV Trek? I hope not! I wasn’t impressed with Lost and not that impressed with the Trek 09 movie’s plot, although the rest of it was OK. (Could have lived without the lens flares.)

I can think of several people I’d rather produce it before Abrams!

53. Phaser Guy - November 9, 2010

Faith of the Heart to replace the score by Michael Giochooni.

54. Jeyl - November 9, 2010

@50: “Well, I’m glad we have you here to tell us that! Chewie, take her into the back…”

Red, C-3PO was treated as a male, not a female. And the correct quote is:

“I’m glad you’re here to tell us these things. Chewie! Take the Professor in back and plug him into the hyperdrive!”

Yeah, I’m a nerd and I don’t even like the Star Wars franchise anymore. I’m stuck with being a fan of a non-Star Wars series that’s going out of it’s way in order to be like Star Wars.

55. Bill Peters - November 9, 2010

Looking Foward to JJ Abrams Sequel in 2012 and him and his Creative team would be lovely to bring star trek back to TV in my opinion!

56. Bill Peters - November 9, 2010

I beleve JJ when he says it will be a cool story, Love his take on Star Trek in 2009 and I think he can improve on it in 2012 an beyond, I don’t know why some have hate for JJ Trek, anything that keeps trek alive and getting new fans is good in my book.

57. Trekprincess - November 9, 2010

Well said Bill :)

58. Vultan - November 9, 2010

#51

Yeah, what was the deal with that missile?

Could the Navy have taken a shot at a strange green alien space vessel hovering over a whaling ship in the Pacific? There are reports of a pair of joggers in Golden Gate Park who were nearly blown off their feet by a sudden “wind storm” minutes before the missile launch. Curiouser and curiouser….

;)

59. Anthony Thompson - November 9, 2010

49. Jeyl

Cool! You’ve got rocks from Nebraska?!!!

60. Trek Nerd Central - November 9, 2010

Really “cool”? Tell me Kirk isn’t getting marooned again on Delta Vega.

In other news: I’m still waiting for my JJ Abrams bobble head. I’m telling you. I want one.

61. NuFan - November 9, 2010

54.

You’re not stuck at all. Time to move on.

62. John from Cincinnati - November 9, 2010

I think what would be interesting is for Spock Prime to give Starfleet a little “heads up” on some things, only to find out, since they exist in an alternate universe, nothing turns out as he said it would. The major players are still there, the Gorns, the Tholians, The Talosians, Trelane, Harry Mudd, Capt. Garth, etc, except the ground rules have changed. Thing aren’t exactly like Prime Spock remembers.

63. ensign joe - November 9, 2010

54.

You’re stuck. Not time to move on.

64. Chadwick - November 9, 2010

That was the only word I was waiting for “cool”

Not many Star Trek movies are “cool” I love them but as an objective Star Trek fan I would not say they are generally cool – they are to me – but what does that mean?

Star Trek 2009 was cool, so when JJ says “the story is cool” I am on cloud 9.

65. dmduncan - November 9, 2010

58. Vultan – November 9, 2010

Model rocket hobbyist? Jet contrail? Don’t worry. The media is on the case. They’ll have this mystery cracked in no time flat.

66. dmduncan - November 9, 2010

It’s funny. Certainly looks like an SLBM. But everyone on TV is calling it a missile right before they say they don’t know what it is.

67. Chadwick - November 9, 2010

P.S. I am watching the movie again – for the oh, 38th time – as I type.

@ #1 MJ
Good lord NO Jeff Goldblum in Star Trek 2012, worst idea ever MJ

@ #4. Harry Ballz
No doubt, I again was hoping for cool but really cool, hot damn.

@ #7. Basement Blogger
I don’t care for 3D – at least in the living room at home – but theatres its a treat. Do not plan to buy a 3D TV until there are no need for glasses like the new Nintendo 3DS system which is 3D without the need for glasses.

@ #8. keachick
I agree 2D and 3D options at the theater would be the most logical idea.

@ #10. Phaser Guy
lol and in this universe John Locke is Admiral Pike in the wheelchair?

@ #13. JP Saylor
Well said.

68. Chadwick - November 9, 2010

@ #26. Admiral_Bumblebee
I hate to agree with you but I do. Because I am an Apple junkie, I loved the new bridge but would be ignorant if I could not notice a minor problem. The bridge had no “warmth” to it, it felt cold and sterile, hence why in my house I don’t use daylight bulbs, far too white/blue, cold, and sterile. I prefer a warm soothing glow.

@ #31. BiggestTOSfanever
I agree and disagree. Nicholas Myers would be a more rational choice then Harve Bennett, at least Nicholas liked and enjoyed the new movie and can see the talent and worth behind it. I disagree though, to be rational Star Trek is about moving forward. To quote Kirk in Star Trek III “Young minds fresh ideas be tolerant.” That goes for writers, directors, AND THE NEW ENTERPRISE.

69. Chadwick - November 9, 2010

@ #41. Captain Braxton

Go eat dirt. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

70. Chadwick - November 9, 2010

@ #45. Red Dead Ryan

Amen brother

71. Vultan - November 9, 2010

#66

We may never really know what “it” was. But it would hilarious if it did end up being some hobbyists trying to launch their Ipad into space. :)

72. Chadwick - November 9, 2010

@ #49. Jeyl

No doubt, I loved and hated “These are the voyages” it was kind of a treat, but Marina and John had no right to take over Enterprise’s finally, nothing against them, but against Brannon.

73. Chadwick - November 9, 2010

With regards to a new TV show, I would love JJ to produce, Lost was great and I am hooked on Fringe. Well done JJ, Alex, and Bob

74. Anthony Thompson - November 9, 2010

72. @Chadwick

finale.

75. Vulcan Soul - November 9, 2010

Well, what else should the guy with the broccoli hairdo say? “The story is as crappy as the last one, about an evil guy who wants to destroy Earth” or something equally “innovative”? ;)

76. ensign joe - November 9, 2010

7. Basement Blogger – November 9, 2010
“To 3D or not 3D? That is the question.”

Depends on how its used.. Cameron set the bar pretty high..

I wouldn’t be opposed to it as long as they didn’t go for the ‘flying popcorn’ effect.. torpedoes whiz-banging past my head.. warp speed trails..

..ok I take it back that would be pretty cool

77. Chadwick Adams - November 9, 2010

68. Chadwick – November 9, 2010
@ #41. Captain Braxton

Go eat dirt. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Anthony… why delete comments, now my comment – #68 – means nothing because you deleted Captain Braxton’s comment. Ok fine some things people say are irrelevant but, c’mon, freedom of speech bro.

With regards to 3D Star Trek does not have the power of Cameron or George Lucas, Cameron did set the bar high, and I am glad JJ is not sold on 3D, means he is not a sell out and can see potential but not just yet. Just like why he choose to film the movie on actual film and no digital, again JJ is a man with taste.

78. Al - November 9, 2010

I predict a scene in a brewery

79. funkylovemonkey - November 9, 2010

Spock won’t try to change the future into one that he’ll like better because he’s not reckless like Janeway. In the movie Spock’s actions make sense as he’s attempting to right the wrong of his and Nero’s presence, but going any further then that and he would be dealing with variables that not even he could predict. He was with Kirk and McCoy when they went back through the Guardian of Forever, he knows how changing something, even something as innocent and seemingly good like saving the life of a very good woman, can change the future in catastrophic ways. Attempting to prepare the Federation for the Borg or the Dominion could have vast unforeseen consequences no matter how well intentioned. Sure the future will already be different with the destruction of Vulcan, but that doesn’t mean he should abandon what’s left of the timeline in an attempt to create a future that he feels will be a little better.

80. P Technobabble - November 9, 2010

Why are people gettin on JJ for saying he thinks they’ve got a “cool story?”
He didn’t write the story, so from his objective POV he’s just saying he thinks
it’s a cool story. I don’t have a problem with that. If Leonard Nimoy said he happened to read the script and he said he thought it was a cool story, everyone would probably just accept his word and be really excited about it. You know, if Nimoy thinks it’s cool it must be, sorta thing…

I really don’t wanna see 3d Trek. Just my 2c.

I think JJ will be the director.
Of course I could be wrong.
But I think he will direct.
Yes, I know, he may not.
But I think he will.
He may have too many things going on, he may not have the time.
But I think he’ll do it.
I think he’s gonna read the final draft of this cool story and he’s gonna cave.
Did I mention that I think JJ will be the director?
C’mon JJ, keep that director’s chair warm!

81. Ran - November 9, 2010

“cool” is the new “delicious”, brought to you by the creators of Transformers II.

82. Thorny - November 9, 2010

2005: “The Enterprise series finale is a valentine to the fans.” -Rick Berman

2010: “Star Trek 2012″ has a really cool story. – J.J. Abrams

Take what producers say with a gigantic grain of salt.

83. MJ - November 9, 2010

@82. Thorny, weren’t you the guy comparing apples to oranges in my local supermarket last week?

84. MJ - November 9, 2010

@81. That is funny, I don’t recall JJ, who used the world “cool” here as you point out, to have been involved in any way in Transformer’s 2?

85. MJ - November 9, 2010

@80 “Why are people getting on JJ for saying he thinks they’ve got a “cool story?”

Cool is part of my daily language, being a resident of California. If you have a problem with that word, then you have a problem with me and everyone who lives in this great state. And we call soft drinks, “soda,” not “pop,” so deal with that as well.

86. Basement Blogger - November 9, 2010

@ 50, 57, 64, 65

Hey what was that thing launched outside of L.A.? SLBM? (submarine launched ballestic missle) Missle launched at a UFO? A publicity stunt for J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8?” Quick call the Fringe unit. Oh, alt-Olivia isn’t concerned about this UFO stuff.

Got to love the government. Huge craft seen in Arizona. (1997) Nothing to see here. O’Hare UFO. (2006) Nothing to see here. Gigantic missle trail off Los Angeles. (2010) Nothing to see here. What are you worried about? It’s just a gigantic SLBM that we used to try to knock out the Mothership. Relax.

Yahoo story, if you haven’t seen pictures of it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101109/od_yblog_upshot/no-one-seems-to-know-where-mysterious-missile-launched-near-la-came-from

87. DeShonn Steinblatt - November 9, 2010

^ It was me. I’m sorry. I had beans for lunch.

88. TMMW - November 9, 2010

Not to go completely off topic, but what about the Blue UFO over DC yesterday, on Drudge?

89. Thorny - November 9, 2010

83… No, that wasn’t me. I was comparing Apples and Rice Krispies.
But how exactly is Mr. Berman’s early promise (“valentine!”) and Mr. Abram’s early promise (“really cool!”) different?

I hope the next movie is going to be great. I liked it a lot, but ST 2009 left room for improvement. But I’m not going to sit down at dinner tonight and say, “Hey, good news! J.J. Abrams says the next Trek movie is going to be really cool!”

86… “what was that thing launched outside of LA”

It was U.S. Airways Flight 808, a Boeing 757 enroute from Honolulu to Phoenix. FlightAware shows it went through the area exactly at the time in question. It was just a peculiar (but by no means rare) occurrence of atmospheric conditions and the setting sun, seen by people who were not used to sunset being an hour earlier than last week.

90. Bucky - November 9, 2010

I’m surprised if Lindeolf/Orci/Abrams/Kurtzman decide to start a Star Trek show at some point. Movies are fun and cool but Star Trek is meant more as a weekly TV series than a once-ever-few-years movie series. It plays to it’s strengths better.

91. Bucky - November 9, 2010

Seriously, having the Supreme Court kick off an ST series and hand it off to some competent show-runners would be great. It would be closer integration of the movie and TV series than has ever been with Trek.

92. Red Dead Ryan - November 9, 2010

85

You’re a cool guy, MJ. Very cool indeed! :-)

87

Beans, beans
The musical fruit
The more you eat
The more you toot!

93. Agri - November 9, 2010

Spock Prime would not speak a word of anything in the future. Not only would he know it would likely not pan out, he would know that by saying anything he could influence the future and cause it to not unfold as it should.

All I want to know about the new movie is what other TOS characters will be making an appearance besides those we have already seen.

94. "Check the Circuit!" - November 9, 2010

@ Jai

Sounds like your concept is very similar to what was going to be used in one of the cancelled post-Trek ’09 pocket books. Cool concept of the struggle to maintain or control the future knowledge of Spock Prime.

95. Thorny - November 9, 2010

93… It is impossible for Spock Prime’s future to unfold as it should: Vulcan went kablooey. Spock Prime now has carte blanche to fix as many things he knows went badly originally as he could. Saving a few populated worlds from Nomad or the Doomsday Machine might seem to him a logical correction for Vulcan’s 6 billion dead.

96. Phaser Guy - November 9, 2010

Guys, Spock’s not even in it. Why argue about it?

97. Daoud - November 9, 2010

@various: Simple answer to Spock Prime: he’s suffering from Bendii Syndrome so his memories are disjointed. He reports to Starfleet that Harcourt Fenton Mudd is on the Botany Bay, and Singh Noonien Khan is a trader in kevas and trillium. And that beagles are a delicacy in the 24th century.

@95 I like to think that Spock Prime can find some way to at least keep the Vulcan USS Intrepid from being amoebaed.

@96 What!??!!? No SPOCK!?!? Quinto will be disappointed! (j/k)

98. T.'. - November 9, 2010

I am making a predction. It will be the Talosians. Count on it.

T.’.

99. Phaser Guy - November 9, 2010

Old Spock will come back in time with a Sports Almanac and screw everything up so Young Kirk has to go back into the first movie and save Young Kirk.

100. Basement Blogger - November 10, 2010

@ 98

Sean notes that on Bob Orci’s twiiter account, “no Talosians.” Link to this site below. It’s comment no. 16. Also is the link to this site reporting the “rumor” of possible Star Trek antagonists. It’s a rumor so don’t bet money in Vegas on them.

1. Story with Sean’s comment from Bob Orci’s Twiitter. “No Talosians.”
It’s no. 16.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/02/star-treks-vulcans-brought-up-in-supreme-court-arguments-on-violent-video-games-ban-case/

2. This site’s story on the “rumor” of the new Star Trek antagonists.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/25/rumor-no-khan-for-star-trek-sequel-but-known-tos-villain/

101. noirgwio - November 10, 2010

@38 (et al) Jai:

IF Spock Prime were going to take a ‘needs of the many’ stance at all, based upon his last known, TNG-era activities just prior to warping through a black hole into an altered past, it seems to me HE, HIMSELF would orchestrate covert and elaborate machinations toward defenses and such of any and all potential dangers potentially forthcoming. He would NOT leave it to Star Fleet admiralty to fidget and fuss about. He’d sort of broken ties with them at that point.

And a story like that would NEED to specifically focus on Spock Prime and the variety of worlds and cultures he would orchestrate toward attaining those ends… I wholeheartedly believe Spock Prime is going to and has (by the time the film comes out) revealed NOTHING to anyone, save Kirk and crew as they are his ‘family’ more than anything else. No, scratch that – outside of James T. Kirk, I do not believe he would reveal anything to anyone unless the dangers were so absolutely unwinable there was no choice. He knows this timeline will be different, he knows what COULD and MAY happen – but he too knows the battles were won and his former crew can and will rise to any challenge. I don’t think he would interfere with their (altered) lives, I’m not even sure he’d try to put things back to what they were.

Now, while I don’t think there’s a lot more to debate about on that – what I think is ripe for debate is: What might Spock Prime do about Vulcan…? Will he leave it as his ultimate price to pay for losing Romulus? Or will he orchestrate a way to save or undo it’s loss…? I’d think first priority on his list would be saving Vulcan if he were going to mess with this new series of events at all.

102. David Pease - November 10, 2010

I honestly hope someone else directs the next movie. The bridge was a disaster as far as artistic design and JJ’s lens flares were just plain dumb. Almost like they didn’t know how to light things. Shining a light into the camera isn’t “cool”. Sorry.
I enjoyed the movie overall, but they should had spent a little more time into thinking things out in the new universe. Do you realize how massive the new enterprise is?!?! You could almost park the TOS tv show one in the hanger bay! The scale was way off when we see it on the planet, but how the F are you going to get that massive thing in space?
The props in the movie were also crap in my opinion. I know they don’t want to be tied to canon, but come on…why change stuff just to do it? If you want to do subtle changes, great, but IMPROVE on them! I don’t know ONE personally who thinks the new phasers are better than the TOS ones.
None of that matters if they drop the ball on the story. I’m a TOS fan completely, but I haven’t heard a good story yet from anyone that I would film. Talosians? maybe. Gorn? no, only had appeal on TOS and they’d make some dumb CG creature that looked nothing like the gorn.
As contrived as it sounds, the best idea in my opinion would be for them to land on a *TRULY* alien planet (not “hoth” or some jungle like on predators) but a planet with strange colorful plants that look different than anything on earth. Something you would’ve seen on TOS if they had money and technology to do it back then like they do now. Then I’d like to see some ancient civilization ruins that had computer tech, and then throw in the managerie story to that. Maybe add some appearances from some TOS characters to the mix?
This would also give them the room to change the phasers and landing party gear since it sucks. When Pike originally went to Talos they had the lasers and different gear and uniforms. Hopefully that can represent the crappy stuff they were using in the last movie.
They should also leave “spock prime” out of it now. He did his part. Leave the poor guy alone. A part with the Talosians turning young kirk into SHATNER would be great though for a few scenes!
By the way, if anyone wants to see my trek collection you can at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wexMOLBD6wE (shameless plug)

103. thebiggfrogg - November 10, 2010

Re: 53. Faith of the Heart. Projectile vomit! Bad Journey imitiations have no place in Trek. No other composer or score could be lamer than that.

104. Jai - November 10, 2010

Denny, re: #22 & “Check the Circuit !”, re: #94

“there was a sequel novel planned about Spock Prime and his future info but it got cancelled”

“Sounds like your concept is very similar to what was going to be used in one of the cancelled post-Trek ‘09 pocket books. Cool concept of the struggle to maintain or control the future knowledge of Spock Prime.”

Very interesting – I’d had no idea about that. Well, there you go – the ramifications of Spock’s future knowledge have obviously occurred to other people too ;)

However, as I’ve mentioned earlier on this thread, this isn’t just about Spock’s knowledge of the future (which will be the same in some aspects of this timeline, and obviously different in others) – he also has sweeping strategic knowledge of the rest of the galaxy, especially in terms of the huge regions which the Federation hasn’t explored yet and has little awareness of. Even more so in terms of the hostile superpowers already existing in those regions.

Also, regardless of whether Spock Prime reveals that information voluntarily to Section 31 and/or Starfleet Command or, alternatively, decides to keep it to himself (as some commenters such as Funkylovemonkey re: #79 and Noirgwio re: #101 have suggested), one thing which hasn’t changed in this timeline is that Section 31 would be obsessed with obtaining Spock Prime’s “geopolitical knowledge” irrespective of his own wishes. Not least because it would be one of the greatest intelligence coups in the Federation’s history.

105. Jai - November 10, 2010

Dmduncan, re: #45

“I could be wrong, but I don’t think Bob’s interest in the JFK assassination pegs him as a general fan of dark conspiracies all over the map.”

Bob Orci is obviously the best person to respond to that, although he has previously mentioned on this blog that he’s a fan of the film “Seven Days in May” (for example).

“I don’t want to see some baloney utopian future, but the military industrial complex we have now seems too overboard for the Star Trek future as well.”

I understand your point – human society in ST’s 23rd/24th century is supposed to be significantly “better” than we are now – but it’s already been established in at least one of the movies along with a couple of the spinoff shows that there are still some shadowy goings-on within the upper echelons of Starfleet along with the Federation’s intelligence organisations. For example, see ST VI: TUC along with DS9, especially episodes such as “In the Pale Moonlight”, “Homefront”, “Paradise Lost”, “Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges” etc.

There are already some precedents in Star Trek for the kind of scenario I’ve suggested (albeit in different situations), so what I’ve outlined is a logical extrapolation of all that. It’s also the reason that the description of my idea as “not Star Trek” by some commenters here is inaccurate – considering that my suggestion is based directly on what has already been established in Star Trek. Having said that, if some fans feel that DS9 in particular “wasn’t really Star Trek”, then I can understand where they’re coming from, although I’d have to politely disagree ;)

As for Section 31 specifically, “Enterprise” established that they were already active in that era; it appears that their nefarious actions had escalated by the time of DS9, despite the fact that one of the Federation’s core founding worlds such as Vulcan hadn’t been completely destroyed during the conflict with the Dominion, so it stands to reason that Section 31 would be even more belligerent, determined and unscrupulous after the devastating events of ST09.

“It doesn’t have to be perfect, but significantly better would be cool.”

Absolutely. But in my suggestion, this is exactly what Kirk and his allies decide to fight to protect – because they know that the situation can spiral out of control and result in Starfleet & the Federation becoming permanently corrupted institutions which are a very long way indeed from the humanitarian, optimistic ideals they’re based on. Same logic as Sisko’s opposition to his own former commanding officer in “Homefront” and “Paradise Lost”, even though the latter also fervently believed he was acting in the best interests of Earth and the Federation as a whole.

Anyway, my concept is just one possible option, but I do think it’s very important for the sequel to have at least some element of intelligent realism in terms of the military & political consequences of ST09, otherwise it risks ending up being the kind of wildly unrealistic story that Ron D Moore accused “Voyager” of turning into.

(As a sidenote, I suspect that the brilliant Voyager two-parter “Year of Hell” was more in line with the sort of thing that RDM actually had in mind – something he obviously put into action himself in the rebooted BSG).

106. David Pease - November 10, 2010

I’m sorry Jai, but your idea isn’t “STAR TREK”, it may transfer well to another medium, but it was, well….boring…

From a selling standpoint (which is what paramount and investors go by) Enterprise (the series) wasn’t so hot. Ent and DS9 are the lowest watched series of the trek franchise. They had fans, sure, but we aren’t going for ‘second best’

I read the section 31 books. Decent stuff, but not enough for me to want to run out and see a movie made.

I respect you putting your idea out, and it’s obviously something you’ve mowed over alot, but it’s just not interesting enough. I’ve loved trek all my life but your idea just doesn’t sell me. Sorry.

107. Trekprincess - November 10, 2010

Harsh views on Abrams Star Trek can’t we all be grateful that Star Trek is in very capable young minds who know what they are doing in my opinion:)

108. Nuallain - November 10, 2010

Wow, Jeff Goldblum looks about 1,000 times better with greying hair. That pitch black hair dye was making him look like an Italian politician.

109. Chadwick Adams - November 10, 2010

102. David Pease – November 10, 2010

“Shining a light into the camera isn’t “cool”. Sorry.”

No but it was damn interesting considering it was never really done before.

“but how the F are you going to get that massive thing in space?”

Are you serious? How the hell do we get the archaic space shuttle into space, using ghetto ass fuels like kerosene. Honestly, getting the Enterprise into space is probably as easy as pouring a glass of water. Your bitterness just disrupts your logic! Its the 23rd century, I am sure they have no problem launching the Enterprise, hence why it was in no mans land and would not destroy any structures or people in the process of reaching space.

“Do you realize how massive the new enterprise is?!?! You could almost park the TOS tv show one in the hanger bay! The scale was way off.”

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/new-enterprise-size-comparison-chart-2.jpg

David I wholeheartedly I agree with you. The Enterprise was too big. So if Kirk’s Enterprise is this large then how big would the Enterprise D be in this universe, maybe the same size, but according to Trek lore it would be much larger. There is no reason why each proceeding ship needs to be large than its predecessor but it is a common theme in Star Trek. Which means the Enterprise D would be the size of the mythical Enterprise J! It seems in all Star Trek no matter who produces it nobody every gets the scale right. The new Enterprise is more than twice the length of the original Enterprise yet the number of windows or their orientation have not changed to adapt to the new size. On screen the new Enterprise does not look or feel larger than the TOS Enterprise, but its only because we are told it is so big we believe it. And the shuttles entering the shuttle bay with Kirk and McCoy on board should have been much smaller in size relative to this HUGE Enterprise, yet the shuttles entering the shuttle bay look the same as in a TOS episode. So does that mean the shuttles are the size of a modest house? There are inconsistencies in size all over the place and I wish some intelligent designer would finally correct all these issues. The new Enterprise also had less windows than the TOS Enterprise, so your saying people who work in space like to be a solid wall rooms with no windows? I highly doubt it, that was a big mistake in my opinion.

I thought the new phasers were pretty cool. I am a sucker for chrome so the shinny guns were great. The fact that it flipped from stun to kill was such a unique touch, it renders the TOS phaser obsolete.

110. Chadwick - November 10, 2010

107. Trekprincess – November 10, 2010
“Harsh views on Abrams Star Trek can’t we all be grateful that Star Trek is in very capable young minds who know what they are doing in my opinion:)”

Trekprincess I agree with you. And to further your point…..

Don’t forget what Kirk said in Star Trek III “YOUNG MINDS, FRESH IDEAS, BE TOLERANT.” Even back then Star Trek was staying true to itself, that change is good. Star Trek is all about change and those of you who are against new Trek are going against the belief of Star Trek itself. Those of you old bitters who don’t want to see changes are not Star Trek fans, real Star Trek fans don’t live in the past, we embrace the future and we embrace change. Those Star Trek fans who like the new movie, the new style, the new ship in my opinion are the true fans. Those of you who don’t want change are the ones in a twisted sense are saying let Star Trek die. Even a Hirogen in Voyager said that those that don’t change die. Don’t let your love of the past cloud Star Trek’s future. I am GLAD Star Trek is changing and I support Rob, Alex, and JJ in what they are doing with all my heart!

111. Jai - November 10, 2010

David Pease, re: #106

Thanks for your thoughts. However, I see that something needs to be clarified:

“I read the section 31 books. Decent stuff, but not enough for me to want to run out and see a movie made.”

It’s not about Section 31. They’re peripheral in my scenario — they’re lurking in the background and may or may not have played a role in events between ST09 and the sequel, but they’re not even remotely the main protagonists in the sequel, and would appear either very briefly or not at all.

The main protagonists are within Starfleet. The secondary protagonists are the Klingons. The actions of the former trigger direct military conflict with the latter, with the risk of the situation continuing to escalate into full-scale war (and guaranteed to subsequently involve the rest of the galaxy). So there’s plenty of action as well as high-level political brinkmanship on all sides.

In some ways, the acclaimed TNG episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is probably the closest equivalent to the overall tone/vibe/pacing I’m referring to, although my concept is on a bigger scale and there are clearly also overlaps with some other ST episodes I mentioned, many of which have also been critically acclaimed.

And on a general note, whilst ST is fundamentally more upbeat than the grittier BSG, there were certain reasons that BSG ended up being a greater commercial & critical success than Enterprise (which was running at the same time); the excellent “Mirror Universe” two-parter I mentioned earlier was very different in overall quality, tone and standard of writing to most of the rest of that show. In fact, as we all know, BSG was justifiably a much greater success amongst both the mainstream audience and sci-fi fans compared to most of the recent ST spin-offs. I don’t think the impending ST sequel should emulate quite that level of dark psychology and brutal realism, but there are still some relevant lessons to be learned from BSG’s greater success compared to most of the recent ST franchise up to that point.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate your polite feedback in #106. We’ll have to respectfully agree to disagree ;)

112. Boborci - November 10, 2010

105. Well, maybe I’m technically in the “fringe” since I tend not to a believe a single word of mainstream news.

113. Dr. Image - November 10, 2010

Trek should have ALREADY been brought back to TV. Dammitt!
Too long between movies!! Must keep momentum going!!
(Eh, BobO?)

114. Hugh Hoyland - November 10, 2010

#112 Boborci, you and I both. I really am going to sound like a “conspiracy nut”, but I think that the U.S. media is, and has been, one of the most corupt entitie’s in the world. From my understanding, the media was originally intended to be “the watchdog” of the people, instead it became an accomplice to the crime so to speak, shame on it. (I’m not saying that ALL media is, just the biggest part, wanna talk about conspiracy! lol)

115. Captain Rickover - November 10, 2010

Star Trek back on tv?

And how?

It has to be a spaceship story, because that’s what random people recognize as Star Trek. No Section 31, no Space Station no strange starship. It has to be the Enterprise. But they can’t reduce the movie-Enterprise to the small screen. So, it has to be another Enterprise. Prime Universe again? No. won’t come back from oblivion. It failed once (ENT) and studio execs won’t give losers another chance. To much money at cost. But perhaps in the shape of an entire new era. Another prequel-series? No, that’s something only fans will care. Another reboot? Oh, come on! To reboots at same time? Won’t work. The next generation after the next generation? New ship, new crew, new design. Everything new and different. In my eyes the only way it could working.

BUT:
A new series could (and probably WILL) ruin the movie-series, like TNG did with the movie-series back in 1989 (OK: Star Trev V was a bad movie either way). With a new series new expectations would grow. Expectations a movie WITHOUT the tv-crew can’t fullfill. At the end both projects could fail. And these are not the days of risk at the time (Why do you think, the studios produce sequel after sequel and barley new ideas?).

116. VOODOO - November 10, 2010

I for one have no interest in another tv series at the moment. Too much ST nearly killed the franchise. Give it a few more years and make it an “event” like TNG was at the time of it’s release.

117. Vultan - November 10, 2010

#110

I love how some of you keep falling back on the “young minds, fresh ideas” line from Kirk. In that movie, he was referring to the NEW Excelsior… and yet in the next movie… they get a NEW ship that looks just like the last one!

;)

118. ensign joe - November 10, 2010

112. Boborci – November 10, 2010

If you don’t mind me asking, what are your major sources for info?

I find information use/control quite fascinating..

119. StalwartUK - November 10, 2010

Once a new Trek TV show hits the airwaves I could care less about the movies. Star Trek has always worked better on the small screen. I’d rather have a good TV show than yet more medicore films, at least there was DS9 and VOY on while they were making the TNG films.

120. Scruffy the Vampire Janitor - November 10, 2010

Just as long as they get back to using fiction to explore the human condition

and not just a ridiculous Star Wars ripoff…

121. Scruffy the Vampire Janitor - November 10, 2010

17. Denny – November 9, 2010
Harrison Ford in the Trek sequel in some capacity please (Villian, Starfleet Admiral, corrupt captain etc)

Isn’t it curious how so many Star Fleet captains and commodores went insane in space? Including Pike who was having a breakdown before he went to Talos and decided life was still worth living.

I’d like to know what happened to the ship from the Omega Glory.

Did Enterprise tow it home? Did they leave it to crash in a firy re-entry?

122. Scruffy the Vampire Janitor - November 10, 2010

To draw some real world parallels: If the US knew in advance that Imperial Japan would eventually attack Pearl Harbour, would the US have been justified in attacking Japan first ? If the Allied powers knew at the start of the 1930s that Germany would trigger WW2 and also cause the Holocaust, would they have been justified in attacking Germany first or assassinating Hitler (either before he rose to power, or early in his rule) ? If the US had already had access to nuclear weapons technology (parallels with Spock Prime’s advanced technological knowledge), would they have been justified in using it against cities in Nazi Germany or much earlier in the conflict with Japan ? If the West had already known that the Taliban would rise to power in Afghanistan and shelter Osama bin Laden & Al Qaeda’s leadership, would the US have been justified in pre-emptively launching a full-scale military attack against Afghanistan in order to prevent 9/11 ?

The bad news is, we did know all that before hand. The US tries to be “morally superior” and not attack first. We leave that to “less perfect” nations, and allowing someone like Hitler to attack first makes the war morally justifiable.

The worse news is America hasnt fought a “total war” since WW2 and the invention of instant news reporting. America now fights with one hand behind our back because the media poisons the American warspirit.

All these wars could be over in a weekend if America went back to a total war mentality We won in Vietnam, we lost at home. Nixon undermined LBJ’s peace efforts, and the hippies killed the fighting spirit here at home.

Everyone in Vietnam was a combatant, and the front line was everywhere.

American soldiers, bound by Rules of Engagement had to be attacked first before they could return fire. Many of our men died because if they shot at the enemy, they could be court martial-ed.

123. Daoud - November 10, 2010

@118 Dude, you’re funny.

Actually, all information comes from Plano, Texas.

124. captainedd - November 10, 2010

Harrison Ford as Kodos the Executioner…

125. ensign joe - November 10, 2010

@123

I thought it came from trekmovie.com ;)

126. Captain Rickover - November 10, 2010

# 122 Scruffy the Vampire Janitor

Okay… And what has all of that to do with Star Trek XII? Or a new tv series?

127. dmduncan - November 10, 2010

I would be considered fringe with both feet in the fringe pond. But I don’t necessarily see conspiracies everywhere either. The ones that I accept I accept because there is unequivocal evidence to support them. So I do not believe there are reptilians under DIA. That one is traceable to the claims of one woman who made that stuff up out of all wrong assumptions.

Smedley Butler foiled a plot to replace FDR with a controlled “assistant.” That one is I think fairly persuasive.

The CIA did some damned dirty stuff to American citizens during Project MKULTRA and destroyed the records. True story.

I’m just starting to look at JFK so my position isn’t formed, but I am looking at it because of oddities surrounding the official narrative.

But my first impulse isn’t toward conspiracy.

128. boborci - November 10, 2010

118. ensign joe – November 10, 2010

I read several foreign papers. Russian, Latino, and Middle Eastern. I also like Whatreallyhappened.com and infowars.com

129. Kirk - November 10, 2010

I was diagnosed with cancer in 2009 at the age of 43. Can you believe one of the things I wanted to make sure that happend was that I lived long enough to see the new Star Trek. Sure, the bridge wasn’t what I expected. OK, the ship was a bit different. But damn, I loved the story, I loved the event, I love Trek and I beat the cancer! So take your time on this story boys, I’m in no rush this time and I trust my old friend Star Trek is in good hands. And yes, my name really is Kirk.

130. boborci - November 10, 2010

129. Kirk – November 10, 2010

Captain, my Captain!

God Bless you!

131. captain_neill - November 10, 2010

As long as ‘really cool’ means stronger plot as well good character moments then thumbs up from me.

I watched the new movie again and despite things being different and not the same as I like my classic Trek, I can’t help but enjoy the new movie when its on.

132. Losira - November 10, 2010

I’m one for change. And adaptation as long as the vision and phlosiphy of trek remain the same. There’s room for growth. I await for the new movie.

133. Chadwick - November 10, 2010

117. Vultan – November 10, 2010
#110

Ok, on the surface he was talking about the excelsior but I look at it in the grander scheme of things, not at face value. Star Trek is full of good words and these are no different. Its up to us find the deeper meaning and we all know what was meant by those words and it was not just about the excelsior.

;) ;)

134. ensign joe - November 10, 2010

128. boborci – November 10, 2010

Thanks I will check those out.

I know Anthony frowns on off-topic posts but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Hegelian Dialectic as a subject worth checking out in regards to conspiracies.

And now it is mentioned.

135. Boborci - November 10, 2010

Hegelian dialect an incredible concept and little understood by most.

136. dmduncan - November 10, 2010

Just got done watching JFK for the first time. Very powerful. JFK’s murder is one of those pivotal moments like Caesar crossing the Rubicon with his army. Rome was never the same afterwards.

Even though I am embarrassed to say I’ve never looked at JFK much, I’ve come to the same conclusions about what’s happening by following completely different lines of evidence.

Google War is a Racket. It’s available online as a PDF. Written by Smedley Butler after he retired and began to see what it really was he had spent his career in the Marines doing. Again, a short but powerful book, free online, written by someone who knows exactly what he’s talking about.

137. dmduncan - November 10, 2010

Here it is, also with a video by Ron Paul talking sense:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

138. MC1 Doug - November 10, 2010

Um, who is Rosario Dawson?

139. Boborci - November 10, 2010

136.

Great book.

140. MC1 Doug - November 10, 2010

#138: oops… wrong thread.

141. Basement Blogger - November 10, 2010

@ 51, 58, 65, 66, 86, 87, 89

Good news, everyone. The Pentagon says the contrail near L.A. was from a jet plane. So it was not; I repeat it was not 1) an unidentified submerged object emerging from the Santa Cantalina channel leaving its deep sea base enroute to Zeti Reticuli, 2) Sorry DeShonn, it had nothing to do with you eating beans for lunch (@ 87 ), 3) or Steven Spielberg launching a missile at the aliens who are trying to get a look at the script of J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8.” .

More good news. A writer, Jose Chung, has introduced me to two dapper men dressed in black suits. It’s weird because they look like Alex Trebek and Jesse Ventura. Anyway these men in black want me to tell everyone that American Lt. Col. Halt did not see a UFO in England near the Rendelsham forest in 1980. (CNN story below.) They remind me that any Ministry of Defense information is coming from the English, the guys who invented Monty Python. They also want us all to see “Paul” starring Simon Pegg (Scotty in Star Trek) coming out early next year. Again some more funny stuff from a funny Englishman and a reminder all this alien stuff is just fiction. Come on, Greys dancing with big toothy smiles! (Trailer link below.)

1. Pentagaon allays your fears; don’t worry be happy, it’s just an airplane.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101110/pl_afp/usmissilemilitary

2. CNN story about RAF Bentwaters UFO incident;
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/29/uk.ufo/

3. Cool “Paul” trailer starring Simon Pegg aka Scotty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBPAGo-Qn8

142. dmduncan - November 10, 2010

Another very interesting book, but hard to read because of the old dialect: Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. In it Hobbes lays out the justification for a strong state: Humans are by NATURE (compare to Locke, who emphatically disagreed) selfish, greedy, and belligerent, and needing a powerful state to keep them from descending into a war of all against all.

Check out the creepy frontispiece to Leviathan. And then look up the various meanings of the word. Always been puzzled by Hobbes’ chooice of title. There’s a battle raging between Hobbes and Locke for our souls. Been acutely aware of it ever since my philosophy professor pointed it out to me.

http://www.willamette.edu/~sbasu/poli212/leviathan/LeviathanFrontispiece.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan

143. Jai - November 11, 2010

Speaking of UFOs and conspiracies and cover-ups and whatnot…

According to a number of ex-US Air Force officers, based on testimonies from more than 120 military personnel, UFOs have allegedly been deliberately tampering with American & British nuclear missiles for decades, with the most recent incident having occurred in 2003.

Some of you may remember some publicity in late September about a news conference in Washington discussing the matter:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8028499/Aliens-are-sabotaging-British-and-US-nuclear-missiles-US-military-pilots-claim.html

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/27/ufos-showed-interest-in-nukes-ex-air-force-personnel-say/

144. Jai - November 11, 2010

^^ This is also a very good article on the same subject, from Reuters, titled “US Nuclear Weapons have been compromised by Unidentified Aerial Objects”:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915

It also includes more information about the former USAF officers who are publicly urging full disclosure about the subject; they’re mainly nuclear missile targetting officers along with more senior staff such as a deputy base commander etc.

Extract:

“Ex-military men say unknown intruders have monitored and even tampered with American nuclear missiles

Group to call on U.S. Government to reveal the facts

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Witness testimony from more than 120 former or retired military personnel points to an ongoing and alarming intervention by unidentified aerial objects at nuclear weapons sites, as recently as 2003. In some cases, several nuclear missiles simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned while a disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby.

…….

The group of witnesses and a leading researcher, who has brought them together for the first time, will discuss the national security implications of these and other alarmingly similar incidents and will urge the government to reveal all information about them. This is a public-awareness issue.

Declassified U.S. government documents, to be distributed at the event, now substantiate the reality of UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites extending back to 1948. The press conference will also address present-day concerns about the abuse of government secrecy as well as the ongoing threat of nuclear weapons.”

145. Chadwick - November 11, 2010

Stay on topic, go start your own thread or go to live chat. Anthony is not the only one who frowns on off topic discussion, no am I. It not bad but its not the most considerate if no one else wants to talk about it or is well versed on the subject. This is a Star Trek site, keep it so.

146. TMMW - November 11, 2010

144. Jai

Those supposed Military men were SOOOOOOOOO vague in that press conference that you really could not glean any good information from them.

PURE BS OR MISINFO.

How many were there to promote a book?

147. TMMW - November 11, 2010

141. Basement Blogger

“Good news, everyone. The Pentagon says the contrail near L.A. was from a jet plane.”

IT WAS.

148. Jorg Sacul - November 11, 2010

Just a thought… In the TOS days, the Federation was thought to be a perfect Utopia, at least until we saw dissidents (portrayed as hippies) in The Way to Eden. Sure we laughed it off, but it was the first crack in the ice.

149. Daoud - November 11, 2010

@148. Yes, but nuTrek still can be mezzo-utopic.

I just would hate to see it rendered like the dystopia that Caprica gave us. Imagine if we’d seen the original BSG’s Caprica, daggett namn it!

@Bob. Hegel? Go back farther to Böhme. Behmenism leads to nondualism which would create some strong implications as to your interpretation of MWI. There is no difference between the universes, except that there is. I like how you’re playing it out with Fringe. Hope you can find a way to have a character or two in Trek 2012 be aware things are not quite the same, even though they are what they are. Don’t forget you have the precedent in the Trekverses with TNG’s Guinan, and Worf’s growing multiverse awareness in Parallels. In any event, I hope as the story breaks for Trek 2012, that you guys continue having fun writing the events of 2258A. (In reference to Back to the Future’s 1985A, for those who don’t get that.)

150. Basement Blogger - November 11, 2010

@ 145

Chadwick, I was commenting on what other people were talking about which was the contrail from the airplane and having some fun with it. Vultan @51, dmduncan @58 are regular contributors and made some funny remarks about the big story coming from L.A. I did relate it back to J.J. Abrams (Super 8) , Simon Pegg (Star Trek’s Scotty and “Paul”) with an X-Files reference. By the way X-Files was an inspiration for “Fringe” a show created by Star Trek director J.J. Abrams, and writers Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci.

I don’t know if you read comments on TrekMovie lately, but Bob Orci (Star Trek 2009 screenwriter) really likes talking about the JFK assasination. So if you get upset about it getting off topic, do not say Kennedy was killed by a “lone gunman.” I mean the comments are epic.

But I will remember your request and try to comment on other comments, which I did or make the best effort to comment on the story with as little as possible divergence.

And @ 147 TMMW

Relax, I know it was an airplane because the Pentagon says so. Unless it was Gary Seven causing a submarine to launch a SLBM to fix the timeline. (Chadwick, that’s a Star Trek reference.to “Assignment: Earth”)

151. Harry Ballz - November 11, 2010

150.

Epic, indeed!

152. Vultan - November 11, 2010

#151

Harry, just wondering but how’s your JFK screenplay coming along?

153. Harry Ballz - November 11, 2010

#151

No word yet, but I’m sure Bob’s busier than a hooker at a naval convention!

Thanks for asking, Vultan!

154. dmduncan - November 11, 2010

Just got done watching Three Days of the Condor. What a great CIA thriller.

155. ZEE - November 12, 2010

erm.. define cool. :P

156. Jai - November 12, 2010

Dmduncan, re: #154

You should also see the excellent CIA thriller “The Good Shepherd”, starring Matt Damon in a lead role which is a whole world away from his Jason Bourne persona. The movie is dark as hell, and all the more chilling for apparently being based on real events and real CIA operatives.

157. Jai - November 12, 2010

Jorg Sacul, re: #148

“Just a thought… In the TOS days, the Federation was thought to be a perfect Utopia, at least until we saw dissidents (portrayed as hippies) in The Way to Eden. Sure we laughed it off, but it was the first crack in the ice.”

It was interesting how DS9 expanded that same subject — not just the depiction of behind-the-scenes Machiavellian scheming involving Starfleet (which officers like Bashir and Sisko were obviously shocked to discover, although Sisko later repeatedly engages in similarly dubious behaviour), but also the whole issue of the Maquis.

There was one episode in particular when Eddington rants at Sisko about how the Federation is supposedly such a paradise and he accuses Sisko of basing his vendetta against him on the notion that “nobody should want to leave Paradise” (or words to that effect). Eddington also makes some remarks about how — in his view — at least the Borg are open about aggressively assimilating their targets, whereas the Federation are far more insidious. Garak and Quark made some similar (albeit slightly more benign) comments at one point. Thought-provoking stuff.

158. Jai - November 12, 2010

Daoud, re: #149

“I just would hate to see it rendered like the dystopia that Caprica gave us.”

Agreed. In a nutshell, my own earlier suggestions were based on the following logical premise (and although I’d previously used the US as an analogy, the same rationale applies to anywhere else in the world, throughout history): If a broadly benevolent local superpower which possessed very little knowledge of the world beyond its immediate neighbours had just suffered a huge atrocity where very large numbers of people had been killed, but subsequently gained access to a goldmine of intelligence information about — say — 75% of the rest of the world (including guaranteed hostile superpowers) along with advanced technological knowledge which would give them a considerable military advantage over most of its rivals….then, realistically, there would definitely be members of the military who would be very strongly tempted to act on that knowledge in order to ensure that the populace never suffers another major atrocity again. Human nature being what it is. And from a specifically military viewpoint, there would obviously also be a very strong desire to ensure that future military casualties are minimised.

My point was that Kirk is well aware that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, so his motivation is to prevent the near-utopia of the Federation from eventually becoming a dystopia. His opponents in this scenario are not pantomime villains; most of them are fundamentally decent people who have been driven to psychologically cross the Rubicon by a truly horrific event and a desire to minimise any future risk of further bloodshed. That’s how things often are in real life. And, despite people’s best intentions, the chain of events can still spiral wildly out of control. That’s also true to life. So Kirk’s aim is to stop things from getting any worse than they already have and prevent what he knows is a looming disaster on the horizon.

I guess the bottom line is that – regardless of whether my own suggestion is taken on-board or Bob Orci, JJ Abrams etc have a very different idea in mind – the depiction of people’s behaviour in the sequel in relation to the fallout from ST09 doesn’t have to be as bleak and brutal as RDM’s BSG/Caprica, and certainly not dystopian (the conspirators in my idea are the exception in Starfleet, not the norm), but it should definitely be realistic.

Anyway, as I said, this is just one idea – people who liked BSG and DS9 may also like it, and people who weren’t fans of those shows will probably not like it ;) In any case, hopefully Bob Orci and his team will pull a rabbit out of the hat and give everyone a sequel which is even better than the first movie, regardless of what story they decide to go with.

159. Jai - November 12, 2010

One final note. I’m going to shamelessly plug some superb dialogue from a couple of the best episodes of DS9 :

Sisko in “In the Pale Moonlight” (interestingly, originally the writers strongly considered Vulcan as the major planet which falls to the Dominion and causes Sisko to continue with his conspiracy, but they decided on Betazed instead as they thought Vulcan ‘carried too much weight’):

“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… Computer, erase that entire personal log.”

The Klingon general Martok in “You are Cordially Invited”, speaking to Worf about marriage:

“We are not accorded the luxury of choosing the women we fall in love with. Do you think Sirella is anything like the woman I thought that I’d marry? She is a prideful, arrogant, mercurial woman who shares my bed far too infrequently for my taste. And yet… I love her deeply. We Klingons often tout our prowess in battle, our desire for glory and honour above all else… but how hollow is the sound of victory without someone to share it with? Honour gives little comfort to a man alone in his home… and in his heart.”

Martok again, from the same episode:

“We ARE Klingons, Worf. We don’t embrace other cultures, we conquer them !”

I doubt many of us would complain if some similar eloquent gems of the same high quality were in the sequel too ;)

160. Basement Blogger - November 12, 2010

Guys, if you don’t stay on topic, you will draw the Wrath of Chadwick, @145. Topic must be J.J. Abrams is great. The new Star Trek movie is cool. Okay, it’s not out yet. And did Alexandra Wentworth stick her tongue in J.J.’s ear.

So we don’t draw the Wrath of Chadwick and veer off course, nobody talk about the Kennedy assassination. That’s in case Bob Orci is around here somewhere.

Speaking of “off course”, more good news on the L.A. missile. (@ 51, 58, 65, 66, see 141. Chadwick, this is reference to other comments. Good grief. This is like playing seven degrees of Kevin Bacon.)

Not only has the Pentagon debunked it but John Stewart (featured in a TrekMovie story) reports we should trust scientist John Pike for using the best prop ever. (Link below.)

Do you realize the area where that missile came from is near Santa Cantalina island. That’s an area for unidentified submerged objects. Oops sorry Chadwick. Um, Gary Seven still not cleared for cause of missile launch.. There, back to Star Trek.

Trekker Jon Stewart on missile launch.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-10-2010/missile–impossible

161. abramstrekrcks - November 14, 2010

that’s sounds great what does Abrams mean by really cool story will it be as great as the last one:)?

162. Trekkergirl2222 - November 28, 2010

“Of course Abrams could mix his film and TV work together and bring Star Trek back to the small screen with a show that can capture a new generation of viewers.

It’s a thought. ”

I think it’s a thought everyone had running through their heads. Really, how awesome would it be for J.J. to bring star Trek back? Besides, ever since TNG came out we’ve had new streams of Trek, and new one every five years or so. that stopped when Enterprise (and correct me if I’m wrong) was cancled. We’re due for a new Trek Tv series J.J., and we need you to do it!

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