Viacom COO To Investors: We Are ‘Very Excited’ About Star Trek Sequel |
jump to navigation

Viacom COO To Investors: We Are ‘Very Excited’ About Star Trek Sequel November 11, 2010

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: CBS/Paramount,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

As a continuing sign of Star Trek’s returned importance to Paramount, it was again discussed in a quarterly earnings call with analysts today, with Viacom’s COO saying the company is "very excited" about the Star Trek sequel coming out in 2012. Details below. 


Viacom ‘very excited’ about Star Trek sequel

For the fans, Star Trek is an interest, a passion, a hobby, or even a way of life. But for Viacom (corporate parent of Paramount Pictures) Star Trek is a franchise brand and the good news is that lately it is again something to be touted to investors. In recent years Paramount has engaged in a strategy more focused on franchises, like Star Trek. As Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone said in today’s 3rd Quarter earnings phone call with investors Paramount has "a really rich pipeline of projects based on franchises and brands."

More specifically, on the same call Viacom COO Tom Dooley touted how these brands (including Star Trek) have helped recently in home video:

In the December quarter of last year, Filmed Entertainment benefited from the Home Video release of franchise titles Transformers 2, Star Trek and G.I. Joe.

Dooley also talked up the future, including Star Trek:

At Filmed Entertainment, as we look beyond fiscal 2011, we have a number of franchise films that we are very excited about, including Star Trek 2, G.I. Joe 2, the first film to be launched from the recently acquired Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise, as well as sequels to the Jack Ryan Series and Zoolander.

The news here is that only a few years after talk of "franchise fatigue" at the higher echelons of Paramount, once again Star Trek is playing a big role in the bottom line and the franchise-focused strategy for the studio.


1. Michael Hall - November 11, 2010

Sad that I’ve lived to see the day when Star Trek is touted in the same press release as “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”; sadder still that the current take on Trek belongs there.

2. Mr Fusion - November 11, 2010

^ Good lord just give it a rest.

3. Spock's Uncle - November 11, 2010

That Star Trek has become an important part of the Entertainment Industry’s economic engine can ONLY be interpreted as a good thing. It is interesting that now, as a successful pillar of a studio’s franchise framework, fans are writing nasty-grams. 40 short years ago, those fans were PLEADING with the network to save the franchise. We should revel that what we knew all along has finally been understood at the highest levels of Hollywood.

4. gingerly - November 11, 2010


It’s all about brand recognizability, these days.

It’s less of a financial risk to invest in a brand that is recognizable enough to cut through through the noise that is many, many entertainment options we have nowadays.

Sadly, that doesn’t always speak to the quality of the product, as there have been many big money-making properties in Hollywood that are pretty awful and vice versa.

The latest Star Trek falls into the later category.

I’m just hoping the success of films like Inception gives Hollywood more incentive to take more risks on original ideas.

If you make a great product and market it right, the people will come.

5. JamesP - November 11, 2010

I like how Zoolander 2 is in all caps.

6. Harry - November 11, 2010

@1 Then where does Star Trek belong? Forgotten and ignored where it was in 2005?

7. Michael Hall - November 11, 2010


“I’m just hoping the success of films like Inception gives Hollywood more incentive to take more risks on original ideas.”



“1 Then where does Star Trek belong? Forgotten and ignored where it was in 2005?”

Forgotten and ignored by whom?

8. Max B - November 11, 2010

Hey, The Turtles are cool.

9. DeShonn Steinblatt - November 11, 2010

Inception was pretentious crap that wouldn’t even have broke even without those fx.

10. Michael Hall - November 11, 2010

“40 short years ago, those fans were PLEADING with the network to save the franchise. We should revel that what we knew all along has finally been understood at the highest levels of Hollywood.”

Actually, they were pleading (or, in some cases, demanding) that the network renew what seemed to them a very cool TV show, not an entertainment franchise. Still, I get what you mean. But in fact the fans only mounted those letter campaigns after the show’s first and second seasons. When the quality of the storytelling fell off a clift during the third, there was no great effort on the part of the fans to see it renewed for a fourth.

Back then, the fanbase understood that any Trek wasn’t necessarily better than no Trek at all.

11. DJT - November 11, 2010

Zoolander? I am reminded of those “which of these doesn’t belong” thingies.

12. Vultan - November 11, 2010

The only thing Hollywood has finally understood about Star Trek is how to make money from it. Lots and lots of money. Like it or not, it is showBIZ—with an extremely large emphasis on the “BIZ” part.

For those seeking a great deal of originality and creativity… hmmm… well, there are some indepedent movies… and books. Lots of books out there. :)

13. Phaser Guy - November 11, 2010

GI Joe 2? OMG!!!

14. John - November 11, 2010

sigh. Any Trek as GOOD (yes, I said AS GOOD) as ST 2009 is damn better than no Trek as all.

#9 you’re a dumbass.

15. Anthony Thompson - November 11, 2010

Good for Star Trek and us fans. Bad for the film industry. A great film like Inception was only made because Nolan had built up Hollywood clout due to his Batman films. Most franchises are third-rate crap.

16. MvRojo - November 11, 2010

#1. There’s nothing wrong with Ninja Turtles, especially when it’s done right.

17. Stargazer - November 11, 2010

Inception was crap and ST 2009 rocked I cant wait until
Star Trek 2 :Something Something . comes out I already have a countdown clock on my pc.

18. Chadwick - November 11, 2010

17. Stargazer

Lol I too have the Star Trek June 29 2012 countdown……594 days to go…

19. Charla - November 11, 2010

#4 Proof’s in the pudding!

Star Trek 09 exemplified your quote “If you make a great product and market it right, the people will come.”

And they did!

20. Chadwick - November 11, 2010

2. Mr Fusion – November 11, 2010 “^ Good lord just give it a rest.”
3. Spock’s Uncle
6. Harry

All three of you, Hear hear! Star Trek could use more fans like you.

I am excited that Bob, JJ, and Paramount execs are saying the new movie story is exciting and cool.

I have to voice my passion because I am getting very sick and tired of the people insulting and degrading the new movie and you know who you are.

Star Trek is finally in the f*cking lime light and people are complaining. For years my friends know I adore trek and they hated it, because it was dull, and to be honest much of it is, but I love those dull nuances, and I have always wanted my friends to see in it the good which I see in it. Everyone I mean everyone I know who disliked Star Trek simply loved…no…adored the new movie and now love Star Trek and are going back to watch the past movies and series.

I want to know HOW ON EARTH IS THAT BAD?

How in hell can you pessimists of the new movie still spew word vomit bashing the new movie. How is it inherently awful when the new movie is making previous haters of the franchise go back and explore all that has come before. The new movie was not about ruing Star Trek, it was about bringing glory to it. You haters of the new movie may be happy with the majority of the population not liking Star Trek but I am not. All you look at is the Hollywood aspect of making big money and ignore the fact that it is making previous non fans go back and watch the old stuff. And yes Hollywood will benefit from that too, selling more DVD’s and Blu-rays. Yea money is an evil thing and it is destroying us, but you can’t save the world in a day, but where do you draw the line? So Hollywood makes more money, big deal, I will not stop my friends who previously hated Star Trek from exploring the old movies and series because the new movie has peaked their interest in something that is noble and good.

Being a lifelong Star Trek fan my defense for the new movie – and the entire franchise – will only get stronger the more you ignorant pessimistic nostalgics attack it. You have the right to say what you want but be ready for the consequences.

21. Thorny - November 11, 2010

I wonder how much public attention Star Trek 2009 lost this year because it didn’t make any of the big movie networks (HBO, Showtime, Starz.) Instead, it went to the “1-in-25 get it” Epix network. Viacom might have gotten a nice deal from Epix, but I think keeping Trek in the public eye would have been more important that Viacom making an extra 2% on the cable deal.

22. Chadwick - November 11, 2010

Can you tell I am passionate?

23. Chadwick - November 11, 2010

Can’t say I am too excited about G.I. Joe – I thought it was just god awful – but TMNT, if its live action and not CG OMG I am jumping for joy. I grew up with the original cartoon and the three movies. I can’t say the movies are great, they certainly hold great nostalgic value for me but yet, would love a new live action TMNT, the things they could do today with it. :D :D :D

24. Frank Fischer - November 11, 2010

now its time for a new Star Trek TV show!

25. Chadwick - November 11, 2010

24. Frank Fischer – November 11, 2010
now its time for a new Star Trek TV show!


26. Vultan - November 11, 2010


Why all the hate for G.I. Joe? Why so pessimistic? Can’t you realize that Joe is out there to save the world from Cobra, doing something good and noble for us? It was a great, action-packed movie. It didn’t bother with any of those icky, dull messages that make you think. And the movie brought in more fans to the franchise! How dare you voice an opinion and not fall in line with everyone else. There’s nothing wrong with sheep. There soooo cute!

27. Vultan - November 11, 2010

Correction: They’re soooo cute!

28. Buzz Cagney - November 11, 2010

#25 I disagree. A few more years yet otherwise we’ll be watering down the product again. And the last thing we need again is indifference.

29. Zebonka - November 11, 2010

Urk. I just don’t trust the people holding the money.

30. MJ - November 12, 2010

How could the CEO of Viacom keep a straight face when talking about a sequel to the awful GI Joe, a reboot of the TMNT franchise, and the worst insult of all to shareholders: the announcement that Zoolander is now a franchise. Are they serious??? LOL LOL LOL

31. Rich - November 12, 2010

I liked ST 2009, although some of the basic science got rather screwed up.

I thought GI Joe was awful. I’m always amazed at how really lousy movies such as that and transformers get green lighted for sequels.

32. Buzz Cagney - November 12, 2010

There is more chatter about Indy5 now i see. Another money spinner for Paramount.

33. Vultan - November 12, 2010


What have you heard about Indy, Buzz? The last thing I heard was months ago, something about Lucas having an “idea” for a story.

34. nutrekker - November 12, 2010

Indy 4 was a disaster just my thought it just lacked everything that made the previous Indy films so great:)

35. Areli - November 12, 2010

I hope this movie isn’t called Star Trek 2.

That is all I have to say.

36. Andy - November 12, 2010


Bleeding hearts of the world unite!!!

37. Pierss - November 12, 2010

@ 33 news on Indy 5 is that Producers are fighting over the title

Spelberg wants Indiana Jones and the Comfortable Chair
while Lucas is demanding
Indiana Jones and the Burning Prostrate. :)

38. Basement Blogger - November 12, 2010

@ 20 Chadwick

Chadwick says, “Being a lifelong Star Trek fan my defense for the new movie – and the entire franchise – will only get stronger the more you ignorant pessimistic nostalgics attack it. You have the right to say what you want but be ready for the consequences.”

If I may paraphrase Captain Decker from ST: TMP, this is how I define an ad hominem attack. You say we have a right to speak but we should be ready fof the consequences. Should I be afraid? So, if I say something critical of Star Trek (2009) what are the consequences? Are you going to come to the basement and open a can of whoop a** on me? Will I get a shock from my computer? Am I going to suffer the wrath of Nero? Boy, now I see why Vultan prays for me.

Oh by the way, Roger Ebert criticized Star Trek (2009) He’s problably the most influential film critic in the nation. Does that make him “ignorant” in your words? And Ebert does like other Star Trek movies. (I’ve posted the “ignorant” Roger Ebert reivew of ST (200) and the smart Roger Ebert review of ST IV. below.)

I certainly hope you’re right about Star Trek (2009) leading others to love the TV show. But so far I’m not encouraged. When debating a new Trekker on this site, I cited “The City on fhe Edge of Forever” and “The Doomsday Machine” as great Star Trek. This guy then called the TOS as “talky-gooey”. He put down “City” as being farfetched since a social worker could never get that influential. I later pointed out that President Obama was a community organizer. He also said the “Doomsday Machine” as being about a giant blunt.

There could be a problem where the teenager new Trekker looks to Star Trek as being about loud and coloful action. (Ebert’s words) Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. Yes the show had action and sex. But it was about ideas. Roddenberry’s ideas. Anti-racism. Aniti-war. A more secular society. Arms control, etc. But if you want to make Star Trek you must adhere to Roddenberry’s vision. Leonard Nimoy has said great Star Trek works on multiple levels. I distill the to three points. 1.) Heart. 2.) Adventure. 3) Intelligence. I certainly hope new Trekkers get it.

a. “Ignorant” Roger Ebert criticizes Star Trek (2009), soon to suffer Chadwick’s consequences. : ) .

b. Brilliant Roger Ebert loves Star Trek (1986) Seriously, this is a great review.

39. Basement Blogger - November 12, 2010

@ 23, 30

Wow, we can agree. First we love the Star Trek franchise. Second I agree with your assessment of “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.” It was awful. It was all non-stop action that pounded me into my seat. Stupid moments include leaders who can’t figure out that an arms company named MARS is only interested in propagating war. Hellllloooo, Mars was the Roman god of war, not a candy company. The acting was about shouting lines in a macho manner. And what about that fight scene between a young Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow in a kitchern where Snake grabs a bite of a biscuit between the pummeling? And why do the women dress in skin tight leather suits and the guys have real body armor? Okay, I get that last one.

Was there anything worthwhile? Yeah. The accelerator suits could become a reality. Raytheon has just made an “Iron Man” suit that gives the wearer extraordinary strenghth. You can find video of it on YouTube. Battle scenes looked like they used hundreds of extras. And of course, the lovely Rachel Nichols. She was in “Alias” and was the green Orion girl in Star Trek. (2009)

Unfortunately, it made a lot of money. Which means there’s going to be another one. Fortunately, they’ve hired the ‘Zombieland: writers. Let’s hope for more quality dialogue from these guys and some of that “Zombieland” wit.

40. fred - November 12, 2010

#chadwick i see you point, i like you love must of the other trek (not voyager)and trek 09 has open up eyes to people who would never of even thought about watching star trek and if they then go back and watch the films and then watch some of the tv episode very good.i do have a few problems with trek 09 but having said that i have a few problems with most of the other trek films as well and that includes trek 6 which is my fav.

tv i would love to see another just please set in in the prime and not jj universe two reason that i can think of so far 1.i want to know what happend to the prime universe and 2 it mean jj ihands are not being tied in any way and he can do whatever he wants to

my last comment trek 09 show that if you put the ringht people in charge of trek it will works and i am not having a go at rick berman

41. P Technobabble - November 12, 2010

I’m sure from a purely business stand-point, Paramount sees Star Trek as a franchise like every other franchise they own. They are probably not Trekkies of the caliber we see on these threads. For them, Star Trek is a money-making commodity. Therefore, I wouldn’t take insult that Star Trek is mentioned in the same breath as GI Joe or TMJT in a statement coming from Paramount. They are not going to talk about Star Trek like it is the only film that matters, cos to them that is probably not the case.

As for the ongoing Trek09-bashing, IMO it’s all water under the bridge. We all know and confess that watching a movie is a personal experience, and each individual will decide for themselves whether they like a film or not, and then opposite camps get into these pissing contests about who’s more “right” about Star Trek, including the revered Roger Ebert. The LA Times gave TFF a great review upon its release, then look what followed.
As people say about tv programming, if you don’t like the show you are free to change the channel. Star Trek today is what it is, and if you don’t like it, well… you don’t like it. If you like it, then you’ve got no crappy feelings to deal with.
Now and then, the sequels are better than the previous outings. “Alien” was a good film, and “Aliens” was even better. “Star Wars” was a good film, but (arguably) “TESB” was better. I could go on. We have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe the Star Trek sequel will not surpass the first, apart from being a completely irrational pessimist. I say, Wait for the movie to actually be written, filmed and released before spouting the venom.

42. BorgKing - November 12, 2010

I just hope they get excited enough to do a TV series.

Just sayin…

43. AJ - November 12, 2010

It doesn’t seem as if “Raiders” is a tentpole anymore, even after ‘Crystal Dull” made a gazillion dollars.

I was really hoping they’d give it another go before Harrison Ford has to call it quits due to age.

44. pock speared - November 12, 2010

@38 basement blogger
i’m not sure that describing ‘the doomsday machine’ as “a giant blunt” is tos-bashing. it may be the funniest one line review i’ve ever heard.

as for ebert being critical, he’s been so far up his own ass for so long i only use him as litmus. if he hates it, there is a good chance i’ll love it. i.e., his contempt for “blue velvet”, a masterpiece, was high ignorance. i will credit him for hating nemesis though, but who didn’t?

i think you’ll find that fans who enjoy trek09 are capable of being critical. the positive reviews posted here, anthony’s included, were measured for the most part. can you begrudge us for being giddy after decades of embarrassment?

45. SGA is better than SGU - November 12, 2010

Maybe i’m just being nitpicky, but I don’t like this upcoming Trek film being called Star Trek 2. I’m sorry, but that title is reserved for The Wrath of Kahn.
I love this last movie! I saw it five times in theaters, and literally dozens of times at home on Blu Ray. But don’t forget what came before it.

46. Michael Hall - November 12, 2010

“can you begrudge us for being giddy after decades of embarrassment?”

Decades? Really? So, presumably, episodes like “The Inner Light” and “The Visitor” were cause for embarrassment, but Trek 2009 makes for giddiness because it brought in bucketloads of cash? Well, it must be nice to be a Viacom shareholder, but sadly, I’m not–I’m just a lifelong Trek fan.

47. Daoud - November 12, 2010

Just sing along…

Teenage Mutant Ninja Star-Trek, Teenage Mutant Ninja Star-Trek
Teenage Mutant Ninja Star-Trek
Heroes on a huge ship, BREWER POWERED!

Yep, it works.

48. Desstruxion - November 12, 2010

ZOOLANDER should be the next Trek villain.

49. Chadwick - November 12, 2010

28. Buzz Cagney – November 11, 2010
Ohn a logical level I agree with you, I was drinking was excited. I don’t think a new Star Trek TV should come out any earlier than after the “third” new movie.

30. MJ – November 12, 2010
lmao good call.

31. Rich – November 12, 2010
I agree with you on both fronts, G.I was indeed poop in a can and Star Trek science was a little off :( but it is fiction, how real does it have to be?

50. Chadwick - November 12, 2010

48. Desstruxion – November 12, 2010
ZOOLANDER should be the next Trek villain.

lmao imagine that….no wait dont

51. Chadwick - November 12, 2010

45. SGA is better than SGU

I agree, Star Trek 2 is TWOK. If anything, there should be no number unless it is the actual number. If they want to leave out XII that is fine but what an honor it would be to have it in the title.

52. Daoud - November 12, 2010

Well, Star Trek 2 isn’t the same technically as Star Trek II. But The Great Bob has said previously that their take on Star Trek 2009 was that it was a sort of “Star Trek Zero”.

So, clearly, the sequel we have ahead is “Star Trek 1″ :)

53. Daoud - November 12, 2010

Or even… Star Trek +1.

54. pock speared - November 12, 2010

@46 hall
i was referring to the films, not the series. sorry about that. and yeah, more like a decade and a half, actually.
but why must you be so snitty-ass? viacom stockholder? are you the only life long fan? i take umbrage at your rudeness, dudeness.

55. NuFan - November 12, 2010

38. I’ve posted the “ignorant” Roger Ebert reivew

Almost daily. Mainly because it was the only slighty negative review you could find from a known critic. He did give it thumbs up overall. Look at his book.

56. pock speared - November 12, 2010

suggestion for future trek naming protocol:

star trek (2009)

star trek: the next one, but not the second one (2012)

star trek: the one after that, not to be confused with the 3rd one (2014)

star trek: the one after the last one, but not the one about the whales (2016)

star trek: the one after the one known as the the one after the last one, but not the sucky one directed by shatner (2018)

star trek: in color! (2020)

there. that should clear things up.

57. Shaun - November 12, 2010

as a lifelong trek fan myself, quickly approaching forty, i thoroughly enjoyed the 2009 version of trek. reviews of the new film have been referenced by some of my fellow posters in previous posts. it seems only fair to mention two websites that compile reviews from well-respected national critics:

i do not believe the film was perfect. but it certainly was an entertaining film. i am looking forward to more films with the current cast, and hoping for more challenging stories.

58. Chadwick - November 12, 2010

You can allude Star Trek 2009 as Star Trek zero but you can’t elude its chronological order of the release of the films. The next movie is inherently the twelfth film in the series regardless of an artistic definition of the film.

59. Boborci - November 12, 2010

35. It won’t be.

60. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2010

Star Trek: The Original Series…Great science fiction with limited commercial appeal.

Star Trek: 2009:…mediocre science fiction with huge commercial appeal.

61. Boborci - November 12, 2010

56. Lol!

62. pock speared - November 12, 2010

oh b’orci, you just robbed us of thousands of hours of debate over why that would be such a bad idea. killjoy.

63. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2010

The best science fiction tells us what it means to be human, our fallacies, our strengths, as individuals and as a species. Then, seeing our heroes overcome their own fallacies and show true strength.

ie. Kirk, sacrificing his own love, so the universe could be put back on track. Dramatic. Awesome.

Spock, in an act of desperation, ignites the Galileo’s rocket boosters as a flare in a hopeless situation.

McCoy, out of disregard for his own life, injects himself with an untested cure to fight the plague on an alien planet to save his colleagues.

Movies are results of the work of many people. The written word, the actors, the director, the composer, the special effects etc. Sometimes, lightning is caught in a bottle (City on the Edge of Forever, STII TWOK) and greatness is a result.

I still don’t buy Quinto as Spock. I like him as a person and as an actor, just not as Spock. Nimoy had a quality about him, almost foreign. He looked and sounded like the smartest guy in the room. I don’t get that with Quinto.

Pine is serviceable as Kirk, but he has yet to BELIEVE it, when he is on screen and acting as Kirk. This sounds weird, but he looks like he is acting a part. Shatner was Kirk. He walked on that bridge and he was the man in control, not acting like he was in control. Shatner is a very underrated actor IMO. The acting in the original series as a whole was very underrated.

The music in the original series, was, perfect. No music since (no disregard to Giacchino) has come close. Not even Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner or others.

The effects will be good, I just don’t want them overshadowing the story. They should be there to support the story, not be the story (see ST TMP).

Lastly, the shackles from having to go from point A to B are off. The universe exists in a new alternate universe now. Now, I think the writers would agree, they can have fun now.

64. ensign joe - November 12, 2010

I actually kindof liked GI Joe… gotta love expectations..

65. United Earth Space Administration - November 12, 2010

In the famous immortal words of Mr. William Shatner – “F*ck You” (to Paramount [a pair of mountains} Pictures)

What is wrong with these idiots? Most of the Star Trek fans want to see Star Trek:Enterprise to make a comeback. They want to see the Earth-Romulan War Conflict, more mirror episodes and finally, to see the refit of the NX-01 Enterprise.

Who wants to see Star Trek 90210? And the crew of the USS Enterprise-F? Might as well bring back NoMad and the Cloud Vampire Killer.

My opinion.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

66. NuFan - November 12, 2010

It will be called The Dark Spock Rises.

67. P Technobabble - November 12, 2010

56. pock

Sounds like you’ve been watching a healthy dose of Monty Python

68. Desstruxion - November 12, 2010

I liked ST 90210. With that said I liked every ST ever made. Romulan War would be a nice stand alone direct to DVD or animated deal. Somebody start drawing.

69. Christopher_Roberts - November 12, 2010

65. Strange use of the word ‘most’. I’d like to see Star Trek Enterprise back, over half of these shows either on TV or in the works… but I wouldn’t really say that I’m part of a majority by any stretch of the imagination.

70. Boborci - November 12, 2010

68. I think it’s more Melrose Space;)

71. Christopher_Roberts - November 12, 2010

G.I. Joe did well? I suppose the Paramount bean counters are in a position to know… either that or spin the facts around just enough to justify their investment.

72. Denny - November 12, 2010

sure its been mentioned b4 but how about calling it ‘Star Trek: The Next Frontier’?

a play on ‘The Next Generation’ and ‘Space…The Final Frontier’…like the ‘final frontier’ of Star Trek ‘Prime’ has run its course and this is the next one…plus its got that wild west connotation that i believe bob orci was talking about a while back (maybe due to Cowboys and Aliens)

obviously ‘The Final Frontier’ or just ‘Final Frontier’ couldnt be used as its been used (and abused)..anyway its sounds like its the final movie (even though it refers to space being the final frontier of man)

and ‘Star Trek’ has GOT to be in the title – even if its just in an ‘Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi’ way…but preferably in the TNG movie way ‘Star Trek: Something’…you cant call it something else Dark Knight style…

73. Christopher_Roberts - November 12, 2010

|                                    |
| |
–— –— –— –— –—

74. Sybok's Secret Brother - November 12, 2010

Hi Bob,
Who actually gets final say on the title?

75. denny cranium - November 12, 2010

They were talking about the line up of films to come.
I don’t think they were trying to say they were all the same quality as far as storytelling goes.

Unless Boborci you’re in talks to reboot TMNT?
Say it aint so!

76. denny cranium - November 12, 2010

star trek- pon farr (sp)

star trek – Kirks bangs another green chick

star trek – get a life (just kidding)

star trek- sh-t the internet says

77. Hugh Hoyland - November 12, 2010

“Ultimate Trek”, or do what Led Zepplin did with their fourth album, no title at all! Just a symbol, maybe the PI symbol. yeahhh cool dude. :]

78. Chadwick - November 12, 2010

74. Sybok’s Secret Brother
Good question, I am curious as well.

76. denny cranium
“star trek – Kirks bangs another green chick” gets my vote.

79. AJ - November 12, 2010

New film title brainstorm (Had to happen. Please add.)

Star Trek: The T’Pring Thing
Star Trek: Gary, Meet Harry!
Star Trek: The Intercourse Metaphor
Star Trek: sQuire of Gothos in da House
Star Trek Two: The Joke’s on You
Star Trek: Hey! We’re all Gonna Get Laid!
Star Trek: The Empath (word for word remake)
Star Trek: The Great Tribble Hunt
Star Trek: Three Men and a Baby

80. Anthony Pascale - November 12, 2010

RE: Star Trek 2
I have reported on this and talked about this before, it is just industry shorthand until there is a title. Just like people were using “Batman 3″ until they announced the title as “The Dark Knight Rises”. Clearly it was the third Batman film from Nolan, not the third batman film, just like this is the second Trek from the Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams/Lindelof/Burk 5 headed hydra

Getting worked up over it is just silly.

81. ensign joe - November 12, 2010

Why not just call it what it was called before?

Star Trek

No bloody A, B, C…

82. gingerly - November 12, 2010



I know, I don’t have to tell you to be careful with the naming. :) Avoid the bad name curse.

See: Phantom Menace and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I’d advise going for something simple (spoiler-lite) and evocative.

83. Christopher_Roberts - November 12, 2010

80. Who’s getting worked up?

Love the speculation. Whether posters are being serious or otherwise just have a bit of fun.

84. Denny - November 12, 2010

@Anthony Pascale – still hoping for a ‘Dark Knight’ style title? without Trek in the title?

85. Lt. Bailey - November 12, 2010

If Paramount is so happy, I hope they (and CBS) get started on a new Star Trek: The Experiance.

Thats what we need to see and have again. The Movies just make it better and having STTE to go to was a real treat. I did not care how worn it looked or dated it looked, it was fun! We met great people there which we have become dear friends with because of that bar.

Which is why we have Quarks 1.5 when we are in Vegas.

86. AJ - November 12, 2010


I would suspect that The Experience means almost nothing to CBS/Paramount except a licensing fee and contractual profits from on-premise and online merchandise sales. The risk is completely on the shoulders of the ‘franchisee’ who runs the show.

Keep the memory alive, though. CBS needs to make Trek ubiquitous again (TV!), and it’d be great to have it back as an attraction. I managed to fly out twice for STTE, and I was blown away every time.

87. Denny - November 12, 2010

sum more suggestions:

Star Trek Rise of the Tribbles

Star Trek Resurrection

Star Trek The Quest for Peace

ST2 Judgement Dayz

Star Trek ReEnergise

Star Trek & Aliens (i freakin love that comic:)

88. Anthony Pascale - November 12, 2010

RE: no Star Trek in title
Yes I still advocate coming up with a ‘Trek evocative’ title, just like they are doing with the Batman movies and like the James Bond movies. The way I look at it, the original TOS movies had one style “Star Trek + roman numeral + subtitle” and the TNG movies had “Star Trek: + subtitle”. So I like the idea that the new era have their own style, starting with the simple “Star Trek”

The trick is to come up with something evocative that also ties into the film itself. For example “Prime Directive” or “Strange New World” might be good titles, but do they have anything to do with the real film? And yes i think it is ok to use a title that was used for a book or even an episode, as there is so much trek that it may be impossible to come up with something evocative that hasn’t been used anywhere in trek.

I suspect in the end they will end up with with “Star Trek” Something Something”, but the ‘evocative title’ idea is something i think is worth exploring. I do think there is no rule that it HAS to have “Star Trek” in it.

And before anyone says “they tried that with Enterprise and it failed”…the problems with Enterprise had nothing to do with the title, and in that case I think they were actually running away from Trek, which is not why I made the suggestion. It is more that I like this new series to have it’s own style.

89. Putthetrekbackontrack - November 12, 2010

What they should do is bring it back to television….with something that accumulates back to the big screen for a finale someday…not soon though…

90. Vultan - November 12, 2010


I like your “Prime Directive” title idea, Anthony. Probably the best way to market it as still being Star Trek without actually using the words in the title would be to use the same TOS font with the arrowhead logo next to it. If those don’t say Star Trek, I don’t know what does.

91. Vultan - November 12, 2010

The Dark Knight used a similiar concept. The main title never said “Batman” but instead used the famous bat logo we all know. Another example of showing and not telling, I suppose. :)

92. amityboattours - November 12, 2010

#4 you realize that Inception was not a original story at all, it was a thinly veiled rip off a story from Scrooge Mcduck issue number 329 called “The Dream of a life time” originally published in 2003 and was the epilouge to the Life and times of scrooge mcduck story line.

93. Anthony Pascale - November 12, 2010

RE: using logo
Good point, and the Bond films also use the 007/gun logo. The ‘Trek’ branding would be clear of course

94. ensign joe - November 12, 2010


Why do I see a retro-Klingon insignia teaser logo in the future? ;)

95. AJ - November 12, 2010

I’m not sure the ‘font’ is identifiable in pop culture like the “007” gun is. The ‘TNG font’ certainly made its rounds, and to say one or another has dibs on “Star Trek” is a crap shoot. For sure, the ST 1-10 film font variations are best left to history.

They made an effort with ST09 to make the Starfleet ‘delta’ shields iconic. Not sure if that was pushed, or worked, well enough to use going forward.

Anyway, these boys are pretty smart…I’m sure they’ll do the right thing.

96. Denny - November 12, 2010

@Anthony P again

maybe they could do something similar to the SW original trilogy –
Star Wars
star [The Empire Strikes Back] wars
star [Return of the Jedi] wars

i know thats all been changed since about 1997 to New Hope, Episode IV,V,VI etc but thats how it was originally (and nuTrek is pretty much try ing to recapture that SW OT ‘feel’ – maybe that could translate to the way they were titled too…)

97. Thorny - November 12, 2010

I think it is pointless to guess at the title before we know what the story will be, but I still like the idea of using (for the third time) “Star Trek: Where No Man (One) Has Gone Before”. Most non-fans won’t know it was the name of two different Trek episodes anyway, they’ll just remember the line from Kirk’s and Picard’s monologue. (Trek already re-used the title “First Contact”, so there is precedent.)

But the story would actually have to live up to that (here’s hoping!) and yes, I am hoping for a good ‘exploration’ story for a change.

98. ensign joe - November 12, 2010

“I am hoping for a good ‘exploration’ story for a change”

me too

I also want more of the ‘living in the Enterprise’ vibe.. more submarine like.. and someone needs to hire a Navy consultant to get some order on that bridge.. people all leaving their posts on the drop of a dime..

99. Denny - November 12, 2010


TNGs ‘Where No One Has Gone Before’ was a great ep when they go to another weird looking galaxy and then beyond the universe (wouldve made for an awesome TOS ep if theyd thought of it back then) – anyway itd be great if the new movie did something werid and eerie like that…that uncanny twilight zone type vibe alot of the early TOS had…

funny story – back in the late 80s i always thought the ep ‘Lonely Among Us’ was actually WNOHGB as that was quite similar to TOSs WNMHGB and since TNG season 1 was remaking alot of TOS eps i just figured that it was titled the sameish…plus it came right after or B4 WNOHGB

on another note i was kind of disappointed they didnt have Spock Prime say ‘Where No MAN Has Gone Before’ as ST09 was supposed to be a megabudget version of TOS after all and it just seemed off having an TOS charcter/actor say it….but thinking about it maybe it makes sense as Spock Prime was saying it and Spock Prime was from the TNG era so y’know…he obviously picked up on the 24th century lingo…plus i guess it is PC to say ‘one’ now….but then again ‘mankind’ is still in use going strong – not ‘onekind’

100. Vultan - November 12, 2010


I agree with you about the font, but the “delta shield” is one of the most iconic things about Star Trek. Just think of all the pieces of memorabilia over the past 40+ years with that symbol on it.

101. Chadwick - November 12, 2010

79. AJ – November 12, 2010
“Star Trek: The Empath (word for word remake)” The Empath lmao so bad, just…..bad.
“Star Trek: Hey! We’re all Gonna Get Laid!” gets my vote.

85. Lt. Bailey
I hope they put out Enterprise, DS9, and Voyager on blu-ray – because they are fine as they are – but TNG needs the proper blu-ray upgrade with new effects. Oh my please!

88. Anthony Pascale
Very true, I just think most of us would like to have Star Trek in the title.
I say they should make the Phase II TV series we never saw!

94. ensign joe – November 12, 2010
“Why do I see a retro-Klingon insignia teaser logo in the future? ;)”

Weird I had a similar thought.

95. AJ – November 12, 2010
I loved the TOS movie text – also used in DS9 and Voyager – there was something retro about it, more so than the TOS series text. I don’t expect to ever see the TOS movie text again but it was my favorite.

I am also happy that all of Starfleet in the new movie used the delta shield logo, one thing I was fretting was seeing that flowery star burst used in the TOS series. Standard Delta shield was a great movie for all.

98. ensign joe
I am also for a great exploration story.

102. pock speared - November 12, 2010

i’m so with anthony on the “evocative title” take. and yes, i believe, nay KNOW, that font is totally able to reference brand. as is the basic shape of the ent. as is the delta shield. as is a pointed ear. as are space-tits. whoops.

103. dmduncan - November 12, 2010

If it’s a retake on Gary Mitchell I suppose it could be called Star Trek: Where We’ve Previously Gone Before.

104. keachick - November 12, 2010

Why can’t this sequel just be Star Trek (2012)? If an evocative, appropriate title to go with Star Trek then good, but I do not see it as being so important.

If there has to be a title, I like the titles – The Intercourse Metaphor; Hey, We’re Gonna Get Laid and the Great Tribble Hunt.

And we all know that the Enterprise is a ship of sexploration, oops exploration, because Kirk will tell us so in the sequel…

I really do hope that the script will be ready by Christmas this year. The wait for the sequel has been so long already. Please – no more holdups, hiccups or anything else that could delay, postpone, compromise…the making of the sequel.

I like the Horta, but these creatures are not enemies; they just like to tunnel. I read a book where Kirk referred to them as gentle beings and deep pan pizzas. Like it.

If there are other beings out there, it is actually possible that we will refer to ourselves as humankind; not mankind or onekind. Why not?

105. Malcontent - November 13, 2010

I’m enormously encouraged by the supreme court decision to tell an original story and develop lesser known characters.

I’m overjoyed by the concept of not having a traditional bad guy, per se.

And while ST09 wasn’t prefect, it was still very good, better than all the TNG movies and ST5 at least.

I am actually a little excited about the next movie, which hasn’t been the case with Trek for a long time.

106. trekprincess - November 13, 2010

why are so many fans still despising Star Trek 2009 give it a break it’s getting tiresome

107. trekprincess - November 13, 2010

And why is it just me that loves Star Trek 09 and everyone else despises am I stupid for liking Abrams Star Trek?

108. Hat Rick - November 13, 2010

I love ST2009, too, TrekPrincess, and I think many multitudes of fans agree with you and me on that.

109. nuSpock - November 13, 2010

#3—it hasn’t been understood, its been hijacked and bastardized by Hollywood, theres a difference.

110. dmduncan - November 13, 2010

107. trekprincess – November 13, 2010

It’s NOT just you. More liked it than didn’t. The Onion piece isn’t as funny as it is TRUE.,14333/

111. Cygnus-X1 - November 13, 2010

Seems I missed all of the Klingon dialogue in ST09 somehow.

112. Thorny - November 13, 2010

107.. I liked Trek 2009 a lot, but I didn’t love it. I still wish they’d found a way to keep the movie a bit more grounded and not promote Kirk from cadet to captain overnight (intelligence and bravery are important characteristics for a ship captain, but there’s no substitute for experience, something maybe we’ll see repercussions of in Trek 2012?) and I still wish they hadn’t blown up Vulcan (after George Kirk died, I was REALLY expecting Sarek to die too, instead they killed almost every Vulcan EXCEPT Sarek!)

Don’t mistake nitpicking and laughing at silly mistakes as meaning someone didn’t like Trek 2009.

113. trekprincess - November 13, 2010

but complaining about a movie isn’t healthy you know that

114. trekprincess - November 13, 2010

Thorny nitpicking is nearly the same as despising

115. Thorny - November 13, 2010

113… Its also not healthy to be a sheep and uncritically love everything you’re spoon-fed by Hollywood. I mean, really, I’m just supposed to shut up and love “Land of the Lost” or “Year One”? REALLY?

114… Its not even in the same Area Code as despising. Ever heard the phrase, “you only hurt the ones you love?” Nitpicking is half the fun of a made-up universe like Star Trek. Like the classic example, “why didn’t Kirk just send down a Shuttlecraft to get Sulu and Co. off the ice planet in “Enemy Within”?

NItpicking a good movie like “First Contact” or “Trek 2009″ is one thing. That’s fun. But nitpicking bad movies like “Final Frontier” or “Nemesis” just feels like picking on the defenseless. That’s why you see a lot of nitpicking for “Trek 2009″ but pretty much all you hear about “Final Frontier” or “Nemesis” is “boy, it stunk!”.

116. trekprincess - November 13, 2010

Can you tell me your issues with Star Trek 2009

117. Phil - November 13, 2010

116. trekprincess – November 13, 2010

Oh, if you try to convince some of these fanboys they should not be trash talking Trek09 you will just end up screaming at your monitor, pounding the keyboard with your fists, and pulling out your hair. The movie sold tons of tickets and merchindise, which means lots of people liked it. Trying to convince some guy who is still living in his moms basement that his dismissal of the movie because CP is taller then WS just….isnt…healthy…

118. Thorny - November 13, 2010

116… I already told you my top two in 112, but here they are:

– Kirk going from Cadet to Captain in something like 48 hours. I know that was a deliberate decision made by Bad Robot so the movie could end with the familiar TOS crew in place as they should, but it was still a ridiculous turn of events. The Kirk in the original timeline had served on the Republic and then saved the crew of the Farragut after Captain Garrovick was killed. These are the things that make a good man a great man and earn him captaincy, but this Kirk simply has the captaincy bestowed on him by Pike.

– Blowing up Vulcan. That’s just too big a change in the Trek universe for my taste.

– Interstellar beaming (from Delta Vega to the Enterprise which had been traveling many hours at warp) if they can beam between star systems, what do they need starships for?

– Kirk and Spock Prime just happening to meet in the middle of a frozen wasteland. Sure, Bad Robot has said that was “the universe trying to correct itself” or some such but I still think it’s a bunch of hooey.

117. Phil, are insults really necessary here? Honestly, I thought this was not I’ve said repeatedly (most recently in 112 above) that I liked Trek 2012 a lot. Forgive me for expressing the opinion that Star Trek 2009 was not a perfect movie. FYI, I served in the Air Force for 22 years and have been around the world, serving supporting work in two wars, never having lived in my mom’s basement. How about you?

119. Forrest - November 13, 2010

The Red Jack entity from WOLF IN THE FOLD merges with the vengeful spirit of Amanda and together they slaughter the population of Romulus in


Featuring Dan Aykroyd as McCoy’s father.

120. Trek Lady - November 13, 2010


People like the drama of exaggeration.

You go to see the film six time in the theaters. Buy the DVDs. And stay up late to see interviews with Quinto on late night…

But dare to list reasons you didn’t like the Spock/Uhura romance, or wonder why a small drop of red matter can destroy a planet but the whole figging container of it doesn’t eat the universe, or complain that the destruction of Vulcan didn’t evoke enough emotion, or suggest the number of *coincidences* in the film boardered on unbelievable, or wonder how a platform lowered from a ship in orbit over a planet could remain stationary enough for space jumpers to land right on it, or mentions that the constant lense flares were distracting to you..etc. and suddenly you are a “hater” who “despises” the whole movie and apparently never moved out of your mom’s basement.

I grew up in a ranch style.

We didn’t have a basement.


121. trekprincess - November 13, 2010

Why do you take issue with things like that, it didn’t bug me at all it’s a reboot, something that introduced me to Star Trek now the movie did well making Star Trek accessible to a wider audience and to new fans:). I now go back and watch past Trek which is great but even better is a sequel is on the way which I will go and see in 2012.

122. Trek Lady - November 13, 2010

#121 “…Why do you take issue with things like that, it didn’t bug me at all it’s a reboot…”

Because we aren’t all the same…thank goodness. How boring would that be!

IDIC and all that.

123. trekprincess - November 13, 2010

Well that’s true

124. trekprincess - November 13, 2010

I think it has to do with personal taste and preference is it because TOS was the path they took?it’s essentially a reboot of the classic TOS television series.

125. gingerly - November 13, 2010


People like to romanticize the past or “original” incarnations because we didn’t have as many easy formats to complain as we do now.

Time grants nostalgia-glasses that narrows things down to a point that seems so much less flawed than it actually was.

I assure you, if we had as many forums then as we do now, people would’ve nitpicked TOS just as much as they do for ST 2009.

…Heck, they still did and have for years! :)

For some people it’s just plain fun to find the errors in things. My uncle likes doing it. For others it’s just a matter of taste and preference, which is informed by many different things.

On can’t expect everyone to think alike. Though it can be fun to debate! As long as folks explain where they are coming from.

126. MJ - November 13, 2010

@118 “- Blowing up Vulcan. That’s just too big a change in the Trek universe for my taste.”

Yea, that would be like killing Spock from radiation, or having Kirk die in Home Depot–like accident.


127. Thorny - November 13, 2010

126. You seriously equate destroying Vulcan in the proto-TOS era (an event that never happened originally) with Spock and Kirk’s deaths 25 and 40 years later (which did.)?

128. Basement Blogger - November 13, 2010

@ 118 Thorny

I too liked Star Trek (2009) but when I criticize PARTS of it, I get attacked. I admit I didn’t love Star Trek (2009) but merely liked it. But for our inability to see that Star Trek (2009) is not the greatest movie ever made by man, we will be attacked. That’s why Trekker Vultan prays for my health.

Thank you Thorny for your service to our country. Because of you I can be in the basement with my pajamas on, and express myself. Seriously, Thorny, thank you again for protecting us, and God bless you.

@110 dmduncan

Hey watch the jokes. That’s my mother in the Klingon outfit on the Onion video.

129. Buzz (Frustrated) Cagney - November 13, 2010

#107 for the love of god why do you KEEP INSISTING that you are the only one that liked it? I can see by yiur other posts that you aren’t stupid, yet you will not be told will you!
Please, please, please understand this- MANY PEOPLE ENJOYED IT. NOT ALL, BUT PLENTY. Write that down and keep it in your purse or something and if you get the urge to write that nonsense again please take it out and read it before posting the same old line.

130. trekprincess - November 14, 2010

because it does seem that way:)

131. abramstrekprincess - November 14, 2010

OK I think I will write that down, by the way I don’t have anything against people that dislike it.

132. Buzz Cagney - November 14, 2010

I’ll call that progress. Now please, lets hear no more about you being the only one that likes it. Its getting very tired.

Besides, there is a new one coming along that we can all argue the toss about so keep your powder dry. ;-)

133. abramstrekprincess - November 14, 2010

well not until 2012 that’s when the sequel comes and I can’t wait:)

134. abramstrekprincess - November 14, 2010

What is taking the supreme court so long surely they have finished by now the script I mean :).

135. Buzz Cagney - November 14, 2010

Getting there it seems, but still a bit more work than just that. They’ve goda book caterers and grips (whatever they are!) and the studio cat has to do daily sweeps for rodents with spy cameras on ’em. Its all quite complicated i hear.

136. abramstrekprincess - November 14, 2010

how is it getting there honesty what is taking the supreme court, when do they start going into pre-production etc?

137. Buzz Cagney - November 14, 2010

what does that matter? you aren’t going to be seeing it until Summer ’12!
Besides, you must have loads of Trek you haven’t yet seen? Get stuck into that ;-)

138. abramstrekprincess - November 14, 2010

I have seen all the TOS episodes and movies:) but not all of the TNG,Voyager,Enterprise, Deep Space Nine episodes just some of them.

139. abramstrekprincess - November 14, 2010

well I like to know what’s happening

140. Buzz Cagney - November 14, 2010

Watch this space then. I’m sure Trekmovie will keep you as up to date as its possible to be.
Good for you on getting up to speed with the other Treks by the way.

141. abramstrekprincess - November 14, 2010

Yeah right that would be a good idea but I only have all TOS seasons on Dvd and all 11 movies guess I need to be patient like every Trek fan.

142. Trek Lady - November 14, 2010


Some of us had to wait nearly 20 years for ANYTHING TOS related… a couple years is a cakewalk.

And I would rather they took the time and did it right, then rushed it and ended up with something that looks slapped together just to get it out there…

143. Chadwick - November 14, 2010

I still feel that blowing up Vulcan was a big mistake. They could have done anything they wanted, anything, and they blow up Vulcan. Not enough to deter me from watching the movie at least once a month lol, but damn it I still hate that Vulcan is gone.

118. Thorny
In the original universe Kirk became captain of the Enterprise at age 31, and in the new movie he is..what..27, 28, so three years is not that big a deal. I am not sure how the military is today and if they give command of vessels to such young people. I would imagine ship commanders are in their 40’s, someone closer to Captain Pikes age.

144. Buzz Cagney - November 14, 2010

I think it was just the sheer leap in rank that seemed a bit daft- and not only that, but being given the keys to the Flagship on his first command.

‘Real’ Kirk presumably worked his way through the ranks?

Kirk was the only real problem that I had with the movie. He just came from such a different background.

145. abramstrekrcks - November 14, 2010

and is that such a bad thing if this Kirk is different?

146. Vultan - November 15, 2010

Well, I believe Bob Orci’s argument about the cadet-to-captain issue was that Kirk deserved it because he saved Earth, which is a bit weak since Prime Kirk saved Earth on several occasions (the whale probe being a perfect example) and he wasn’t promoted in the slightest. I mean, heck, why not just make him the Federation President why they’re at it?!

I guess anything’s possible in this new Bizarro Universe. ;)

147. Jai - November 15, 2010

Regarding suggestions for the title of the new film, it would probably be a good idea for us to wait until further details of the plot surface. As Anthony Pascale basically said in #88, we can’t throw random Trekkish titles around if they don’t have anything to do with the story of the film itself ;) But it’s fun to speculate, of course. I also think that the later seasons of DS9 in particular often had very good “evocative” titles for their episodes — I’ve always thought that they would have worked equally well for movies. Whoever came up with those titles did a great job.

However, someone on another thread recently suggested “Star Trek: Live Long and Prosper” if it turns out that the storyline of the sequel does focus on the resettlement of the surviving Vulcans, which is actually a pretty good title — it’s instantly recognisable to the non-Trekkie general public, and of course it makes the basic Vulcan-focused premise of the movie instantly obvious.

As for the Star Trek sequel in general: All I can say is that the film’s writers and creative team should take note of a certain infamous “South Park” episode from (I think) last year. It depicted the consequences of George Lucas gratuitously tinkering with Star Wars along with the nature of Steven Spielberg’s most recent Indiana Jones movie, from the perspective of fans of those franchises, and using very graphic imagery (mainly involving Indy) to make its point a little too disturbingly clear. There are obviously going to be really hardcore Trekkies who will object to the sequel no matter what the finished product is like, but it would still be a good idea for JJ Abrams and his colleagues to watch that episode and make sure they understand the point it’s making.

By all means, they should go ahead and be innovative, unexpected, unconventional etc, but they should also make sure that the issue highlighted in that South Park episode is understood. Otherwise we’re going to end up with a future episode of South Park where Kyle and Stan are having nightmares about Captain Kirk in place of the hapless Indiana Jones ;)

148. Buzz Cagney - November 15, 2010

#145 Yes, I believe it is. I know you are a new fan, which is how you can say that, but given many of us have 40 years of living with these characters it does, indeed, matter to us.
I will overlook nuKirks background just so long as they take him toward where we know he should be. But I will always wonder how he came to be in the same place!
I’d personally have preferred a true origins story rather than these timeline flip-flops, but i do undertand why they did it.

Sorry, Vults, just noticed your Indy questions- sorry!
I don’t think there was anything particularly new. I noticed it was Top10 trending on Yahoo searches. I just took a look around and I think it was pretty much just Harrison saying he’s up for it and there is a possible story. That was all. ;-)

149. Buzz Cagney - November 15, 2010

Vults, i believe, from reading one or two Trek books, including the TMP novelisation, Kirk very much resisted any promotions. Which certainly fits in with the Kirk we know. Or knew at any rate! PineKirk may be just a bit more ambitious i guess lol

150. AJ - November 15, 2010

I remember reading here that JJ wanted all the Starfleet captains to be individuals of superior intelligence and humanity. The best of the best, and not morally corrupt/crazy bureaucrats like everyone except Kirk seemed to be in TOS (Tracy, Decker, Remick).

In that respect, one thing that seemed dumbed down in ST09 was just how good Kirk was. Bones knew it. He slipped Kirk on board with that virus. He also made his point bluntly to Spock with his thoroughbred metaphor on the Bridge. Spock removed him from the ship because he knew that if he didn’t do something that extreme, Kirk would escape.

Now, if all those ships’ captains were so quickly dispatched by Nero, and they were Starfleet’s finest, here comes Kirk, who not only survived the attack, but rescued Pike, saved the Earth, dispatched the bad guy, and returned home with crew and Flagship intact. He did this by countermanding a direct order and making a make-or-break command decision to return to Earth and confront Nero.

While there may have been some “cheating” involved, we’re led to see that the end justifies the means in Kirk’s TOS playbook.

151. AJ - November 15, 2010

Oh. And that, IMHO, justifies his quick promotion.

152. Buzz Cagney - November 15, 2010

Thanks for that! Now the whole thing just seems too bloody fantastical to me!

153. AJ - November 15, 2010



Pike recognized it early on, and made a leap of faith on the “E” by promoting Kirk to No. 1 for the mission at hand.

I’m not justifying the quick promotion, but simply looking at it within the parameters of the film. The only other Starfleet Captains we meet are Robau and Pike, and Kirk’s dad for 12 minutes. Within the confines of the film, I think Kirk’s promotion is well handled.

154. Scruffy the Vampire Janitor - November 15, 2010

Bizarro universe, indeed!

Granted, half the fleet was destroyed and all those captains killed.

Under that circumstance, promoting Kirk from Cadet (LT JG) to Captain is okay, sort of.

The old rank of “Commodore” applies to retired captains recalled back to duty. The reason so many commodores appear in TOS is Gene served in the Pacific in WW2. When the US entered the war, we recalled just about every retired officer there was because we had to.

NOW (post WW2) the US keeps a standing army, and commodores have been replaced with rear admirals.

For those of you born after the war, the US used to disband its military at the end of every war. Getting caught with our pants down at Pearl is what ended that practice.

IF Starfleet were real (it is not) and came after today, which is logically after WW2, then Kirk would NOT have been promoted, merely decorated and put on a “fast track” to promotion similar to what happened to IKE. Dwight Eisenhower went from being an Army Captain under Patton to CinC for the entire War in 3 years. (Which pissed off Patton, btw)

IF Starfleet were real, any surviving retired captains would be recalled back into service, unless they all had retirement homes on Vulcan…

I never heard how the fishing is on Vulcan

155. keachick - November 15, 2010

154. Starfleet is not a military organisation. It may be run similarly to one of today’s military organisations, but it does not have to adhere strictly to any military protocols.

It was never made clear whether the Federation was at war with anyone, so why would anyone assume that it was?

149 wrote: “Kirk very much resisted any promotions. Which certainly fits in with the Kirk we know. Or knew at any rate! PineKirk may be just a bit more ambitious i guess lol”

True. Kirk was actually happy to be demoted to captain at the end of Star Trek IV.

I don’t know if this Pine/Kirk is anymore ambitious that the other Kirk – he just ended up being in the “hot” seat, battled the odds and won. Actually, I think that this younger Kirk may well be remembering two old sayings at this point, with a degree of humility. One is “Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.” Well, he’s got it! The other one is an old Chinese curse which says, “May you be born in interesting times.”

I suspect his main ambition will be not to screw it up, well, at least, not too badly…

156. Buzz Cagney - November 15, 2010

Good posts guys. I enjoyed reading ’em.

157. Buzz Cagney - November 15, 2010

#155 yeh, loved the look on Kirks face when he was ‘punished’ with the return of the command of a starship. Great acting from Bill there.

158. Buzz Cagney - November 15, 2010

#154 retirement homes on Vulcan? pmsl
I suppose it does, er did, have Florida’s climate.

159. Vultan - November 16, 2010


I like it even better when the sabotage of the Excelsior is mentioned and the camera pans past Scotty at that moment. He has just the faintest smirk on his face. Gotta love Jimmy Doohan!

160. Buzz Cagney - November 16, 2010

Yeh that was enjoyable but the Kirk demotion edges it for me because of the emotion and for the potential that it heralded. Sadly it went largely unfulfilled but that doesn’t diminish the moment any.

161. trekprincess - November 16, 2010

Guess I’m a newbie into Star Trek but you know something I have seen all of the TOS episodes, 11 movies so don’t think for one minute I don’t know anything about Trek.

162. Buzz Cagney - November 16, 2010

I never said you knew nothing, but I do say you don’t have 40 years of emotional attachment to these characters. Care to argue that one?

163. Vultan - November 16, 2010


Did anyone accuse you of not knowing anything about Trek? If you didn’t know anything about it, you very well wouldn’t be on this site, now would you?

164. Buzz Cagney - November 16, 2010

I’d love to know how old trekprincess is. If it turns out i’m in a discussion like this with a 14 year old i’m going to be very annoyed with myself for falling into it.

165. Vultan - November 17, 2010

Buzz, you should really stop picking on children. First that incident at the mall and now this.


166. Buzz (not really Santa) Cagney - November 17, 2010

That was messy. There were elves, reindeer and wrapping paper flying everywhere. I was lucky to escape with my white beard still strapped to my face.
All I said was ‘I’m not sure if i’ll be able to fit a Porsche 911 down your chimney’. I learned my lesson that day I can tell you. Now I just say yes to whatever they want and leave them to be disappointed come the 25th!

167. trekprincess - November 17, 2010

I am 22 years old if you want to know.

168. Vultan - November 17, 2010


Oh, it wasn’t your fault, Buzz. Jeremy Clarkson should really grow up! I mean, asking for a Porsche 911 when everyone knows he wanted a Bugatti Veyron—what a silly git!

169. Buzz Cagney - November 17, 2010

It still cracks me up that you guys know Clarkson.
Sorry bout that. !

Twenty two years old? Good I need not feel guilty for asking some tough questions of you TrekPrincess.
Here’s one….. Captain Kirk- which one’s the best? Shat or Pine?

170. Basement Blogger - November 17, 2010

This message is for the powers at Paramount.. If you decide to release Star Trek (2012) in 3-D, please allow the filmmakers to shoot it in 3-D. No conversions from 2-D to 3-D. Conversions don’t work because they are too dark on the screen. Additionally, conversions don’t take advantae of the medium because the director is not thinking about filming in 3-D. Don’t take my word for it. Linked below is Roger Ebert’s review of your release “The Last Airbender.”

Star Trek is one of your long standing franchises. The fans who have paid for movie tickets, bought the DVDs deserve quality. That’s what Star Trek has stood for. If you release it in 3-D, give Star Trek the same 3-D quality that Avatar had. Star Trek deserves nothing less. Allow the filming in native 3-D if you release Star Trek in 3-D.

171. Disinvited - November 18, 2010


Actually, the letter writing start with the first season. When the NBC brass started mewling about budget and other things they made the impied threat of cancellation very real. Roddenberry wisely drummed up the letter writing campaign from within the ranks of the SF fans and their convention newsletters in response.


If they U.S. didn’t have a standing army prior to WW II what did McArthur use to shoot those protesting WW I veterans in D.C. during the depression?

172. trekprincess - November 23, 2010

well because I became a fan of TOS I have to say Shatner even Pine said that Shatner will always be Captain Kirk to people but that doesn’t mean I don’t like Pine’s Kirk as well. hope that answers your question

173. Chaos Prophet - January 6, 2011

The fact GIJOE2 was mentioned there ruins the whole thing.

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