Rumor Control: Abrams Still Not Confirmed To Direct Star Trek Sequel | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Rumor Control: Abrams Still Not Confirmed To Direct Star Trek Sequel November 30, 2010

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Rumor,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Just a quick update related to an earlier post. An errant line from the LA Times interview with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman has inspired some to jump the gun with articles saying JJ Abrams has confirmed he will direct the Star Trek sequel, however after checking around, nothing yet has changed on the Abrams directing status.

 

Abrams still ‘expected’ but not confirmed to direct Star Trek sequel

Today is yet another example of how info on the Star Trek sequel is so rare that any inkling of news can get jumped on. Earlier today TrekMovie and many other sites linked to an excellent LA Times interview with writer/producers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman talking about the Star Trek sequel. The intro to that LA Times article included the note that "J.J. Abrams is back as director".  If this was confirmed info, this would be big news. As TrekMovie recently reported, while JJ Abrams has been confirmed to be producing the Star Trek sequel, he has not yet confirmed he will direct. However, some sites took the LA Times article as confirmation Abrams has now signed on to direct as well, and TrekMovie has also received some emails pointing out the apparent LA Times ‘confirmation.’

TrekMovie has done some checking with studio sources and it turns out that this is not the case. Abrams’ status has not changed. Although expectations continue to lean towards Abrams directing, there is still no official confirmation. Abrams will likely wait until the script is finished (or close to finished), before he announces any decision, which is exactly how he approached his first Star Trek. TrekMovie also checked with the LA Times who have now edited the original article and removed the "Abrams back as director" mention and added a correction update noting "No director has been named."


Abrams on set directing "Star Trek" – has yet to announce if he will direct sequel

This pattern is exactly what was going on in early 2007, with competing reports on if Abrams was confirmed or not confirmed to be directing the first Star Trek. As has been said before, the next nineteen months are sure to be full of lots of these little hiccups. And just like we did for the first Star Trek, TrekMovie will be here to keep bringing you the most accurate and up to date news on the sequel.

POLL: Want Abrams back?

Do you think Abrams is the right man to direct the Star Trek sequel or would you prefer a new director to take over?

Want JJ Abrams to direct Star Trek sequel?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

Comments

1. The Riddler - November 30, 2010

Let Steven Speilberg Direct!!!!!

Please!!!

Or Nicholas Meyer!

2. Hugh Hoyland - November 30, 2010

Well I hope hes back directing it! The best man for the job.

3. jas_montreal - November 30, 2010

It is surprising that JJ has not confirmed yet.

4. John E. Kirk - November 30, 2010

JJ Abrams or Nicholas Meyer. Best two directors of Trek movies, and they’re friends.

5. Phaser Guy - November 30, 2010

Michael Bey’s STAR TREK!!!

6. Basement Blogger - November 30, 2010

Thanks for the correction. I saw that intriquing line in the interview, and thought a big news story just broke. Again, thanks for checking into it.

7. Tony Whitehead - November 30, 2010

JJ started Trek off in this new direction. I say, let him explore this galaxy a bit more. The first lens flare is on me.

8. art diaz - November 30, 2010

Joel Schumacher!!!!!

9. Stan Winstone - November 30, 2010

He’ll direct. JJ is one of the few people left in Hollywood who values surprises…

10. Scruffy - November 30, 2010

Frakes and Nimoy are available…

11. Andy Patterson - November 30, 2010

I would rather him not. I don’t think he understands the Trek universe. He was on a feature about ILM just recently. He had a quote on there saying something about “there’s no terrain that Lucas hasn’t already done…..nothing can be done better.” ….or something like that. And said something to the effect that he didn’t know what to do for an alien terrain in the Star Trek movie. I think that says it all. If he doesn’t have any more imagination than that….and if he’s so stuck in the Star Wars universe…then get someone who can. I’m a Star Wars fan and Star Trek fan. But I’ve always thought Trek definitely had a different look and feel; an even bigger, more real scope, if you want to get down to it, than Star Wars. I guess he’s got the muscle to get movies made but get another director with a different and better vision. I didn’t and don’t like his take on the Trek universe.

12. "Check the Circuit!" - November 30, 2010

@8

That was a joke, right?

13. Spartacus - November 30, 2010

Abrams is a average director and the series could benefit from someone with more talent.

Thank God Lindelof is in there reign Kurtzman & Orci.

14. chain of command - November 30, 2010

I don’t think there would be a big issue with someone else directing the next one. Hell, why not get Nicholas Meyer involved in some fashion? If there is anyone that could make a good Trek movie it’s him.

15. Chain of Command - November 30, 2010

Nicholas Meyer .

That is all. LOL

16. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - November 30, 2010

J.J should Direct. Nick Myers would be a good 2nd choice. 3rd Choice would be Nimoy Himself.

17. Phaser Guy - November 30, 2010

David Lynch’s STAR TREK! 100 percent more confusing.

18. Nathan - November 30, 2010

It depends on the alternative. JJ did a pretty good job, but I’m still not all that convinced of his big-screen potential; he’s a great producer, but I’m not totally sold on him as a film director.

But is he a good choice nonetheless? Heck yeah. I’m just open to having someone even better come in…

19. Chadwick - November 30, 2010

Star Trek movies have been unique that most of the movies have had different directors excluding a few. I say JJ should direct the next two, hands down.

20. Captain Conrad - November 30, 2010

I’ll take any talented director who has directed a good film of some sort. As long as the story is solid, the director isn’t too big of a deal… unless you get someone like Christopher Nolan… okay that would probably end up being the BEST Trek movie of all time!

21. Thorny - November 30, 2010

I think the story/script is more important. If Mr. Abrams declines, its not a great loss. He’s a good but not great director, and there are a lot of good directors in Hollywood. I just hope that Paramount ponies up for a better director than Stuart Baird.

22. Will_H - November 30, 2010

I’d love to see Frakes back in the directors chair to be honest. I thought he brought the best balance of action and story to the two movies he did. Granted Insurrection wasn’t a great Star Trek movie but I don’t think that was any fault of Frakes.

23. T'Cal - November 30, 2010

I miss Frakes, too, but would rather see him put in charges as Executive Producer of Trek on TV with the option to direct some eps. I miss the 24th century and would be open to a live action miniseries or animated weekly series.

24. jas_montreal - November 30, 2010

ok, i just read some folks say Joel Schumacher and Michael Bay.

My question is, are you insane ?

25. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 30, 2010

As long as he does more Webcasts from the “Bridge.”

Although, come to think about it, I might prefer a few webcasts from a newly redesigned “Engineering Deck.”

26. I am not Herbert - November 30, 2010

…(almost) anybody but JJ!!! Favreau?

27. Jeff - November 30, 2010

Joel Schumacher? Eh.

Michael Bay? SPLOSIONS! No.

I think it needs to be either Sam Raimi or Uwe Boll.

28. MJ - November 30, 2010

@4. Who is Michael “Bey”?

29. MJ - November 30, 2010

Frakes directing a real big movie like this…you guys have to be kidding, right?

30. MJ - November 30, 2010

@27. Uwe Boll? Is that a brand of beer?

31. MJ - November 30, 2010

@11. Andy, I respect your opinion. I will not however that only 9% agree with you according to the survey here.

32. John Whorfin - November 30, 2010

Two words: Werner Herzog

33. My Best Fiend - November 30, 2010

@32 It’ll never happen in a million years, but that’d be a helluva movie. Werner has a mischievous streak, too, and I bet he’d be open to the prospect!

By my vote is also for Meyer. One thing for sure that would appeal to Paramount, he’d bring the project in on time and under budget. Not so sure Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman would want him on board, though; he’d surely take a whack at re-writing anything they’ve submitted – no doubt for the best…

34. MJ - November 30, 2010

@33 Meyer hasn’t directed a theatrical movie in 20 years. It would be too big of an adjustment for him to get back into directing now….remember how poor behind the times Robert Wise screwed up Trek 1…i.e. “The Motion Sickness”

35. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2010

I’m 55 and even I don’t want to see any of the “old guard” take over the directing duties. JJ got it right with the last movie. That’s the pace we need.

36. Pointing out the Obvious - November 30, 2010

New director, less lens flare.

37. Chancellor Gorkon-Zola - December 1, 2010

@34 Terrence Malick had twenty year gap between “Days of Heaven” and “The Thin Red Line” , and IMO, that didn’t make him any harm. Not saying that Malick should direct the sequel…

38. keachick - December 1, 2010

It is probably best that JJ Abrams direct the sequel, but please no more talk about Star Wars.

There are four things that get my goat – talk about Khan, Borg, Carol Marcus and Star Wars. UGH!

39. Happy Russia - December 1, 2010

@29

I guess First Contact wasn’t a big Trek film, huh?

*******

Abrams can be the man for the job if he’s given quality material. I’m more confident in him than the writers, sorry. If he could do away with the shake-cam, I think he could do a bang-up job. He’s got the chops, but I think he’s yet to prove it.

40. Sebi - December 1, 2010

@8 yeah, Joel Schumacher… with close ups on asses and nipples when Kirk and Spock put on their uniforms, but with no nipples on Uhura…

Remember Batman & Robin suckfest?

41. Phaser Guy - December 1, 2010

Woody Alllen’s STAR TREK now with more awkward pauses.

42. Ttrekandwarsprincess - December 1, 2010

I happen to like Star Wars well the original trilogy was by far the best:)

43. Red Dead Ryan - December 1, 2010

#35

So, you’re ruling out William Shatner? :-)

I definitely agree that J.J Abrams should direct the sequel. He returned Star Trek to pop culture in a big way. I think the reason why he hasn’t committed is because a lot can change in the next year and he doesn’t want to make a promise he can’t keep. Judging by how he said he fell in love with the characters and cast last time, I’d bet in his mind he has decided to direct. And that can only be a good thing!

Take that, anti-J.J Talifans!

40

Notice how apart from “Phantom Of The Opera” Joel Schumacher hasn’t been hired to direct anything? Though I wouldn’t be surprised if he is part of the “Spider Man: Turn Off The Dark” production based on some of the flamboyant costume designs. :-)

44. Vultan - December 1, 2010

I think most of us here like Star Wars as well. But please keep Lucas’ and Roddenberry’s visions separate.

I was watching Encore’s recent ILM documentary, and JJ Abrams spoke for a few minutes about the new Trek film. Unfortunately, he spent part of the segment bemoaning how Lucas had already “done everything” with his Star Wars movies. He went on to say that someone reminded him that Trek came first and he said that really didn’t help him.

Sorry, but for me those comments didn’t exactly inspire a lot of confidence in him. I mean, for a guy with such big glasses—where’s HIS vision? (rimshot)

:D

;)

45. Vultan - December 1, 2010

Oops, sorry for the extra emoticon.

46. Red Dead Ryan - December 1, 2010

42

Glad to hear that!

47. Kenji - December 1, 2010

Hmmmm…. Mr. Abrams should just stick as the producer.
He is one of the best producers out there currently, but when it comes to directing, he’s more of a Tony Scott then a Ridley Scott. If you know what I mean.

48. captain_neill - December 1, 2010

I seriously don’t care who directs the next movie as I will be seeing it.

However, if Uwe Boll or Michael Bay end u directing it I will scream bloody murder as that will really ruin new Star Trek for me.

At least no matter what the Star Trek I love will always be there.

And if JJ Abrams is directing then please DO NOT ruin every single shot with a lens flare. One or two is cool but not 20 million in every single frame.

47
I totally agree about your assessment on Abrams. I think he knows how to make a fun movie but I am not a fan of his shooting style in which the camera is shaking in most frames and the pace is so relentless that you don’t have as cool character moments as you had before.

It’s a sign of modern Hollywood, who seem to think that a shot longer than 10 seconds would bore the mainstream. I don’t like this mentality of things being dumbed down in Big tentpole movies these days.

JJ Abrams is great at making a fun movie but as someone who likes directing, his style is not my style if that makes sense.

49. captain_neill - December 1, 2010

29

Star Trek First Contact WAS A BIG MOVIE, Hell it’s still a better movie than Star Trek XI in my opinion.

The new movie is only bigger in the sense it got a bigger budget but none of the past movies were considered low budget movies.

The Wrath of Khan is the closest to a low budget film but to me that is still a big movie with a big scale.

And I believe that a bigger budget DOES NOT mean a better movie. Take TWOK in case for that one.

50. captain_neill - December 1, 2010

44

If JJ Abrams had to be reminded that Star Trek came first then “Oh dear Lord!”

He did a great job with the last movie but if he tries to inject a lot more Star Wars into Star Trek XII to the point that it feels more like a Star Wars movie and has no resemblance of Star Trek then I will be unhappy.

Star Trek was a fun adventure set in a time where we have ended war, famine, and are all working together without racism and bigotry. It was a dream of a utopia future and one we should aspire to.

Star Trek was a show about ideals and Spock was also used to great effect to explore humanity by his observations and his quips with ‘Bones’

If these elements were lost then it would not be Star Trek anymore.

Sorry just my two cents on why I don’t too much Star Wars injected in because they are two totally different franchises.

51. chrisfawkes.com - December 1, 2010

I would love to see Ron Howard give it a turn if Abrams is not available.

Not sure what some are paranoid about re the movie feeling like start trek.

Only two movies outside of those with the original crew felt like star trek. One was Abrams first offer and oddly the other one was galaxy quest, they got what trek was about more than the guys making trek on tv and in the movies at the time.

52. Sxottlan - December 1, 2010

I am hopeful that J.J. Abrams will return for the sequel.

I don’t even really have any other idea for directors for this. Maybe Matt Reeves, who did Cloverfield and Let Me In.

I also really don’t understand why people keep mentioning Meyers or Nimoy or Frakes. I mean c’mon. Let’s move on.

53. Pro-Khan-Sel - December 1, 2010

Paul Verhoven

54. Paulaner - December 1, 2010

Nichola Meyer? Come on guys, Trek 2 was good but 6 was average. In my opinion, he is over-rated.

55. captain_neill - December 1, 2010

52 and 51

A lot of us fans do like the spin offs as well as the Original Series.

I stand by my statement that First Contact is still better than Abrams movie but that’s me. It doesn’t mean I hate the new movie, I love it but I do think that some of the past movies stand up as better movies than the latest one.

Wrath of Khan is my fav one.

Also TNG was also created by Gene Roddenberry, never forget that, it is still very much Gene’s vision.

56. captain_neill - December 1, 2010

I am a big TOS lover, it is the coolest show ever but I also happen to love TNG and the other spin offs just as much.

I have all the original series on DVD and Blu Ray. TOS still stands up after all this time and the stories and characters were fantastic.

I am sorry for not liking the new movie as much as the original TOS crew but I still love the new movie. Me liking the film is great because I did go in expecting to hate given all the changes but I could not hate it as it was a good film.

Yes I have gripes but it was fun.

57. chrisfawkes.com - December 1, 2010

Trek 6 was great. Nothing ordinary about it.

58. captain_neill - December 1, 2010

56

TUC is another fav of mine.

59. Andy Patterson - December 1, 2010

@31

I know. I care not. At 44 yrs of age I learned a long time ago that a lot of the things I like and agree with are not necessarily what the rest of the world does. With age sometimes comes acceptance.

60. Green-Blooded-Bastard - December 1, 2010

Why would anyone not want Abrams to direct the next one? Did he not do a hell of a job bringing Star Trek back to the big screen? I know die-hard Star Wars fans that liked it more then they liked most Star Wars films, and not because it reminded them of SW. It’s a fun, quickly-paced action film, and I’m certain the next one will be a little more cerebral and along the traditional lines of character development and drama. Let him direct the next one too.

Heck, most people that don’t want him directing the next one citing the first one being to “Star Wars” like probably also cite TWOK as their favorite Trek film, and of all the Trek films, it’s the closest to crossing that Star Trek/Star Wars line.

61. Hugh Hoyland - December 1, 2010

Ive offered my services several times in the past to direct this thing if JJ wont, and the offer still stands. And at a fraction of the pay to boot!

62. BiggestTOSfanever - December 1, 2010

@1
Nicholas Meyer, Sure!
Steven Speilberg, No Way!
Still, I like Abrams too.

63. Lt. Dakin - December 1, 2010

Imagine that 18 months before the last movie, principal photography was nearly complete!

64. Jeyl - December 1, 2010

I’ll direct the next Star Trek.

65. BlackLectroid - December 1, 2010

Get a director with an attention span of more than 10 seconds.

66. StalwartUK - December 1, 2010

I’m not a huge fan of the Star Warsification of Trek either. Whatever director is chosen for the film I hope they make a film that is more recognisibly Trek than the last one was which had superficial similarities at best.

My favourite film is Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home by the way.

67. Damian - December 1, 2010

I’m ok with Abrams directing. But as other posters noted, I think they should tone down the Star Wars influences. There were a lot in the last film. The story was good enough I was able to look past the Star Wars influences. But Star Trek is very different from Star Wars.

(1) Star Trek is science fiction. It’s basis is still the real universe. It is based on Earth’s future and the production teams have always tried hard to base the technology on real life theories. Star Wars if fantasy.

(2) Star Trek has always depicted humanity as having achieved great growth and is still growing. Racism, poverty, greed have all been eliminated on Earth. It is a positive view of the future. Roddenberry’s vision has always been very positive for humanity, which is one reason I always loved Star Trek.

I like Star Wars, but it is a very different story. There’s an important distinction. I don’t care what Lucas has done or not done. He has done nothing for Star Trek (except, of course, for ILM’s work). If the story they come up with is good, the rest will come together.

I think instead of looking to Star Wars for what to do, maybe Abrams should look at what Star Trek has done and see where Star Trek has not been yet.

68. VOODOO - December 1, 2010

I would be shocked if Abrams doesn’t direct this film.

69. VOODOO - December 1, 2010

The Riddler #1

Why would you want Spielberg at this point? He is still a fine director, but he has lost his touch with genre films. His work on the last Indiana Jones film was terrible.

70. Karl Smyth - December 1, 2010

If not Abrams, how about Paul Greengrass? His signature is the hand-held camera so he could keep on some degree of visual consistency (and maybe a small reduction in lens-flares if some people are still upset by that). Plus he’s experienced with character-driven action movies.

71. Sebastian - December 1, 2010

By his own admission, Nicholas Meyer has said he wouldn’t be qualified to direct at the kind of pace and tech level of Trek 2009 (and he also admitted he enjoyed ST-2009 as well). So, for my two cents? If he doesn’t want the gig, so be it; he gave us WOK and UD (and co-wrote VH); he’s done enough good for the franchise, IMO.

I for one, sincerely hope JJ Abrams directs the new film. Not to say that no one but he could direct this film, but I just really enjoyed what he brought to this new universe, and I’d like to see what else he could bring. His explosive revamping of the franchise reminds me of what Nicholas Meyer did back in 1982, after the disappointing TMP.
But Abrams is not NM, and I appreciate him on his own merits very much as well.

Ditto for Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman, but they’re already on board! ; )

72. Losira - December 1, 2010

Nick Meyer is my choice. A great proven trek record. JJ can be associated producer. 2 heads are better than one.Lucas is stars. I love both trek and ST one leave the other alone. Plenty of room for both.

73. Boozba - December 1, 2010

I got it!!!! How about John Huston as a director for the next Trek movie, he died in 1987 but he would be a better choice than Schumacher, Bay or Speilberg!

74. captain_neill - December 1, 2010

If Michael Bay directs Star Trek I will scream bloody murder and completely flip.

75. Jonboc - December 1, 2010

JJ has proven he can walk the walk and balance the TOS blend of humor/ action-adventure/drama/romance. He understands the formula and the movie was a huge success, bringing Trek back with a powerful vengeance. should JJ direct? Are you kidding? More please.

76. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

I saw a webcomic shortly after the release of Trek 11 that had our good logical friend Spock kicking Darth Vader in the rear, with the caption about how things can change…just 7 years (2002 being the last time Trek was in theaters from 2009) Star Wars was in the money and Trek was lame, and now Trek is the sci-fi darling again and Star Wars is stuck in mediocrity.

Kinda funny, but also a showed that the current creative team understands what made original Trek (the best, in my opinion) so great to begin with.

77. Driver - December 1, 2010

Let each actor(s) direct themselves.

78. Steve - December 1, 2010

Not Nicholas Meyer. Abrams all the way.

79. Cameron Downing - December 1, 2010

J.J. Abrams or Nick Meyer.

80. Jorg Sacul - December 1, 2010

Joss Whedon. :)

81. Red Dead Ryan - December 1, 2010

There is nothing wrong with adding a little “Wars” to “Trek”. In many ways, “Star Wars” is the preeminent franchise that set the bars for others, including Star Trek. “The Wrath Of Khan” had great visuals, which were created by ILM, which itself was founded by George Lucas during the production of “Star Wars”. “Deep Space Nine” had a lot of space battles, undoubtedly inspired by the classic trilogy. It was “Star Wars”, not Star Trek that made sci-fi a mainstream staple. Without “Star Wars”, Star Trek would most likely have died in the seventies.

Star Trek owes most of its success to “Star Wars”. There can be no question about it, despite the gripes of a few anti-“Star Wars” Trek fans.

82. Marcus - December 1, 2010

I have to say this – Nicholas Meyer is not a director by trade. He only has a few directing credits to his name and he hasn’t directed a major motion picture in nearly 20 years. What would be the rationale to give him STAR TREK XII? What makes anyone think he can direct and deliver a $150M film? Is he in line with the latest developments in motion picture production?

As a director – he has a very static directorial style but no artistry in the framing and construction of images. He’s a streamlined director who relies more on dialogue that imagery. But some of his editing choices are not always best for the story.

I like KHAN and TUC as much as anyone else but KHAN was nothing more than a low-budget film at the time and a low-risk investment gamble on Paramount’s part to get a film franchise in motion with STAR TREK. But if there wasn’t Spock’s death at the end, would it have been the classic it has become amongst SCIFI fans?

So I ask – what does Nick Meyers have today that makes him a consideration as director?

83. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

Word..I am not a anti-star wars, I love and treasure the original trilogy, but I despise what Lucas has done to the franchise. Just horrible.

Without Star Wars there would be no Trek movie, or dare I saw, extended TV franchise. Because of Star Wars we got the Motion Picture (and by extension, Wrath of Khan) instead of a 70’s TV show that probably would have made season 3 of TOS look brilliant (kirk only in about 13 episodes, no Spock).

I just find it funny that they have swapped places…Wars is not considered a joke of it’s former glory and Trek is back on top.

84. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

“Wars is now”, not “Wars is not.” Mistake.

85. Alex - December 1, 2010

How about Ridley Scott? Wasn’t there a rumor while Nemesis was still in it’s early stages that they were eyeing him as a director? Or was it for the scrapped “Romulan War” movie? Anyway, I know I heard his name in connection to Trek before. Plus: it would be awesome as hell. :)

86. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

What about Michael Bay?

lol, I jest. We’d get Transformers 2 if that happened.

I would try to stay away from old school directors, such as Scott, Speilberg, etc. I have not been impressed with their work as of late, and Scott is too busy going back and doing a very problematic Alien prequel.

87. bluejfk - December 1, 2010

If not JJ then Jonathan Frakes would be the ONLY other choice.

88. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

Alfonso Cuaron. He made the best Harry Potter yet, methinks. Damned good movie that was.

89. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

87: “If not JJ then Jonathan Frakes would be the ONLY other choice.”

Haha.

90. Red Dead Ryan - December 1, 2010

In the photo at the top, it looks like J.J Abrams was trying to do the Vulcan hand salute but wasn’t able to. :-)

91. Red Dead Ryan - December 1, 2010

J.J Abrams is a great man and a hero. He saved Star Trek with “Star Trek” and we all owe him a debt of gratitude. We also cannot forget about Bob, Alex and Damon. They’re great as well!

92. THX-1138 - December 1, 2010

How about Frank Darabont? I really enjoy his character moments in films and I think he does have a knack for pacing, building tension, and emotional payoff. Give the guy a budget and I would love to see what he could do with Trek. He’s also a decent writer and producer.

The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Mist, The Majestic, Buried Alive are some examples of his directing work. He has done the best film adaptations of Stephen King outside of Kubrick. He might just shake things up a touch. In case JJ decides to not do it.

93. Winkie - December 1, 2010

Okay, my tuppence-worth on directors

Jean-Pierre Jeunet

Michael “Bully” Herbig

Okay, okay, I’m joking. Actually I don’t care so much as long as there no BLOODY LENS FLARES !!!!
Though seriously, Paul Greengrass would be good.

94. Larry - December 1, 2010

JJ started the rejuvenation of Star Trek and he should continue. I prefer him. If not my next choice is Nicholas Meyer. Of all the previous films before JJ’s he was the best.

95. I am not Herbert - December 1, 2010

Oh, JJ!! let me kiss your ass! =O

96. Vultan - December 1, 2010

So… just because Paramount brought Star Trek out of mothballs because of the success of Star Wars in the 70’s Trek is now supposed to copy certain elements from Wars? Okay… so I guess since Louis Le Prince invented motion picture film and Edwin S. Porter directed some of the first movies all directors now should have mustaches and wear bowties in their honor? Hey, Abrams wouldn’t be working today if it weren’t for guys like Le Prince and Porter. Just saying…. ;)

97. Battle-scarred Sciatica - December 1, 2010

If only Francois Truffaut was still alive…

Del Toro would give it a different angle.

Maybe a Bollywood version could pull it off?

98. FlyingWok - December 1, 2010

Definitely open to J.J. returning to the director’s chair. I have issues with the new movie, and some faults with it that are hard to overlook, but overall, he did a great job in updating the style of the Trek universe and giving the movie a fun, kinetic pace, with a dynamic scene style.

Lens flares were maybe a little overboard, but I think they just add to the different flavour of nuTrek.

That said. Nicholas Meyer is always a good choice since he made TWOK and TUC, though perhaps his directorial style may be a bit too subdued for today’s action explosion extravaganza summer blockbusters. I give him credit though for getting a nuanced, understated performance out of The Shat for TWOK (more and more I saw him devolving into a characature of himself in later films), and his focus on character moments.

Leonard Nimoy is always a good choice — he has been one of the great stewards of Star Trek and its values, and he’s always shown a great strength in giving fair shrift to each of the characters in the ensemble cast, as well as being interested in exploring *ideas* in his films, rather than leaving it as just yet another space adventure.

Jonathan Frakes… I love the guy, really. In the interviews and cons he seems like a really fun, approachable guy. He also directs episodes of Leverage which is a really fun show… but in the end I’d say he’s just a “competent” director. He does well directing the smaller scale of TV, but I think his style is a bit staid and dull on the big screen. Rewatching First Contact, as great as a movie that is, I find that most of his camera work is pretty boring, and he doesn’t take many great risks with the way he frames shots. He doesn’t do anything particularly exciting to build dramatic tension or to draw your focus in anywhere. Maybe it’s more the script’s fault but the movie has some pacing issues where everything kinda fizzles at the end instead of building to some great climax. That said, we haven’t seen what he can do with a bigger budget.

Maybe another Trek director… like… Stuart Baird? (I kid, I kid. He’s a great editor but a terrible director. Executive Decision is a terrible movie)

If there’s anyone I’d like to see take on Trek, I’d like it to be JON FAVREAU. Ignoring Iron Man 2, his work on Iron Man shows that he knows how to balance his actors’ talents against plot, against character moments, and against an overall sense of fun. He has a talent for respecting the original geeky source material while also being able to take the core of the material and move it into new directions. (I don’t remember Tony Stark ever being as fun in the comics as he was in the films)

And besides… Jon’s already worked with Orci and Kurtzman for Cowboys and Aliens!

99. Ran - December 1, 2010

No JJ! No DP with Parkinson’s disease either.

100. denny cranium - December 1, 2010

16. Nimoy as director? Really?

All due respect to Mr Nimoy but directing a huge budget movie heavy with effects is really over his head. He’s had enough of acting I’m sure that would go for directing as well.

I would love to see him consulting on the story or as an associate producer. His understanding and wisdom about Trek is beyond reproach.

Meyer directing? I don’t think so- he would just butt heads with Paramount I think. Would love to see him involved in the creative process or consulting etc. He would bring great artistic integrity to Trek in my opinion.

I think it needs to be JJ’s show again. I would like to see the next film with his stamp on it again.

Jon Favreau? I think he would just turn Kirk and Spock into some kind of comic book versions of their respective characters

101. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

Actually, Trek was guilty of Star Wars copying as far back as some DS9 in terms of costume design and such…the Breen? I swear I saw that same costume in Return of the Jedi. Hmm. Although Star Wars stole from Trek all around the board and would not have existed without Trek. They even took our techbabble term (cloaking device…yeah, ok).

I don’t mind a similair action style template as long as it makes for a good movie. Lame direct to TV plotted TNG movies almost spelled doom for the Star Trek movie franchise, and lets face it, us fans alone cannot put out enough in ticket sales to make these movies the profit level they need for Paramount to put huge dollars into. They have to have some level of appeal for the mass public, even if we do not like it. That is why we have DVD seasons of tons of hours of how we like our Trek.

81. Red Dead Ryan said it correct.

102. VZX - December 1, 2010

The perfect director for the next Star Trek movie is me! I promise, if chosen, I will make it glorious!

103. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

Oh, to clarify..I love both and prefer to see them seperate, but you will have ideas, themes and shooting styles mix in both occasionally. It happens. I don’t like it, but it happens and sometimes works for the best.

Also, yes, I do think that the movie years between 1998-2002 sucked, really bad. That was painful, and I’d rather see new movies that “borrow” some style from the other Star franchise then go back to that again. I really like TNG, but the writers had so much potential for awesome horror’s of war based movie plots and they put out made for TV movies with inflatable Data’s, big pimple spotting Worf and inept “I give up after watchin attack of the Shinzon die” Picard.

104. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

102: You’re hired. Make it good, replace engineering, no Khan, plenty of Klingons without ridges and hire Nick Frost as one of Scotty’s enginnering assistants instead of that other thing that was on screen (I think that would be a bit funnier anyways.)

105. Vultan - December 1, 2010

Ahhh, okay, I forgot they want to make these movies for the mainstream now. More Jackie Collins and less Joan Collins. Got it. Good. That’s fine. I’m sure Paramount’s marketing department will do a great job with this franchise.

Now when’s the next Christopher Nolan movie coming out?

106. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

#105: 2012, I believe. The end of his version of Batman.

The reality does suck and for some it will lessen the experience or fun of the new franchise. The gold lining, if these do good, then we may get a TV that will explore the topics that us Trek fans enjoy. In order to succeed, you need to reach a vast audience, that includes both old fans and casual viewers. That is just the sad truth in our society.

Trek 11 made the most money of all the theatrical runs of Star Trek. Sure it had it’s issues, but it kept the spirit of TOS alive and reached out to a large audience…but it could have made more. I know of tons of folks who passed because they thought it was just “another trek movie” but when they saw it on video, loved it and became interested in watching what came before. You gotta start someplace, and mimicking past Trek film formula was not a way to get a franchise started up again.

We all love the Wrath of Khan, but it strayed outside the formula path and appealed to the masses of the time. It has been called a classic piece of sci-fi and also a great Trek film. If the studio had stuck with what came before, we MAY have had the proposed “kennedy assassination time travel” plot that was being pushed. Or the planet of titans mess. Yum.

Oh, JJ Abrams would be great as Director. Leonard Nimoy too, but that is not happening. Just keep Lucas and Spielberg away. If that happens, we’ll find Spock in the same closet that housed Short Round and Yoda (south park joke).

107. Mattyb.uk - December 1, 2010

Vote 4 me. I promise u an engine room to make u proud and less lens flares

108. Phaser Guy - December 1, 2010

Sly Stallone to direct STAR TREK!!

109. Lt. Bailey - December 1, 2010

I see no problem with another director as we sure have plenty of talent out there. A Spielberg Star Trek would be something to see thats for sure.

If you look at previous ST films, there were different directors, same as in the 007 franchaise. But if JJ directs again it would not bother me…as long as he locks the camera down and stops the lens flares otherwise I may need dramamine or a lot of Romulan Ale for the next film. I prefer the latter to be honest.

110. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

MICHAEL BAY FOR STAR TREK 12!!!

lol, yeah right.

111. Rick - December 1, 2010

J A M E S C A M E R O N enough said

112. Phil - December 1, 2010

@ 1. Speilburg…you obviously didn’t see the last Indiana Jones flick.

@111. No. Enough said.

113. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

I would not mind seeing Christopher Nolan direct a Trek movie. Not that he would, and he’d have to bring his crew with him, but he’s made some good films.

I just do not see too many folks out there that would do it justice.

WILLIAM SHATNER FOR THE WIN!!!!

114. TonyD - December 1, 2010

To be perfectly honest, I’m a little ambivalent about having Abrams back as director. While I think he did a great job with the characters his vision of the 23rd century left a lot to be desired and the look he brought (iBridge, brewery engine room, etc.) was a really weak point for me.

If he does come back, I hope he takes some of that criticism to heart and revamps the look of the ship. The Enterprise is just as much a character as her crew and should be treated as such.

115. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

With less lighting the ibridge looks really, really sweet. Just bust a few lightbulbs. I don’t need to be reminded that my fictional future is bright. I’m already sad enough that my current nonfictional present does not have mind tricks and lightsabers like my fictional long time ago past.

The techtalk in 11 was really funny since some of it made no sense, just like TOS. Dilithium Chambers to maximum..??? LOL, I loved it,..”Cross circuiting to B.” Love it.

They did do alot of the same TOS bleeps and beeps. Listen up at the end after Chekov says his last line…that TOS bluuup noise that usually came with knobs being twisted made a cameo.

116. MJ - December 1, 2010

@114. Disagree with you on the bridge — I loved the new bridge and it beat the heck out of more recent bridges like the TNG one that looked like an extra large Circuit City demo room, circa 1985. I agree on Engineering though — the brewery has got to go.

117. Sean - December 1, 2010

The second act in a trilogy is usually where the characters are at their weakest or darkest point and that all hope is thought to be lost. Hence, although JJ is the best person for the job, regardless, just for fun, thinking of an alternative…

Massive credentials
Huge return on ticket sales guaranteed
Exceptional history with bleak/character driven stories

CLINT EASTWOOD!

118. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 1, 2010

Alright! Is’nt it obvious to everyone here?

I, Trekmademewonder, should direct the next Trek!

You know I could do it.

119. Third Remata'Klan - December 1, 2010

I would welcome J.J. back, but I’d also be willing to give another director a try. Either way, just hurry up and make the movie! :-)

120. MJ - December 1, 2010

@39. No, it wasn’t. STFC had about a $40M budget and ST09 had about a $140M budget. A vast difference in scope. ST09 was a Paramount major flagship movie event, while STFC was one of Paramount’s standard releases.

121. MJ - December 1, 2010

@49. See my contact above. In you mind STFC was a big movie, but in the minds of the business end of these pictures, it was not. Sorry.

122. Vultan - December 1, 2010

#115

Agreed. Bust a few lightbulbs and the bridge might look decent. And, though I’m not a huge fan of technobabble, could we have something a little more scientific sounding than “lightning storm in space” next time? Sorry, but that just sounds like the title to a 6th grade creative writing exercise to me. I know they were just calling it by what it looked like, but c’mon, I never heard Data say, “It just appeared beneath us, sir. It looks like a big tornado!” (referring to TNG: “Time Squared”)

123. MJ - December 1, 2010

@65 And also get someone to post criticisms here that are more then one sentence sound bites. :-)

124. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

Would a new director be like a new addition to the Supreme Court? Or would he be more like a lawyer presenting a case before the court?

125. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

122: I wonder if the sequel will have Kirk using those heartbeat sensors that work on the scale of 1 to the 4th power. THAT is the FUTURE!

Remake Spock’s Brain as Trek 12

126. Losira - December 1, 2010

#76 I remember that webcomic! My grandkids and I laughed to death. Check on another ebcomic where the Lost in Space robot was kicking Spock’s buttm too funny see uncle Odie’s collectables web for that one. Goes to show there is room for all. So Meyer @ Abrams get to work and make some great Trek!

127. Robman007 - December 1, 2010

126: Will do. Thanks for the info. Awesome to share the love of sci-fi shows with kids/grandkids. My wife and I are planning on having kids soon and I plan on making sure they know and love Kirk and Spock from day one.

128. My Best Fiend - December 1, 2010

While I’ve already stated a personal preference for Meyer’s style, script-doctoring skills and budget-consciousness, it’s admittedly not too likely that Bad Robot would hire him.

In a real world, a proven director with a track record with Bad Robot and Team Abrams who would indicate a likely choice would be Matt Reeves, as Sxottlan previously noted. “Cloverfield” was a bona fide hit and “Let Me In” was critically well received if underwhelming in the boxoffice. Jack Bender and Stephen Williams are also possible candidates, but more identified with episodic TV.

I have nothing against Abrams, but he’s got so much on his plate that I can’t imagine him continuing beyond producing duties (which I believe are his greatest strength; he makes things go).

129. watermelon - December 1, 2010

Terry Gilliam anyone?

130. Mauricio - December 1, 2010

Ridley Scott. The greatest director alive!!!!

131. N - December 1, 2010

#1 The New Star Trek doesn’t need to recycle old directors. Nicholas Meyer is not needed or wanted. I guess you want him to direct Khan again as well.

132. Andy Patterson - December 1, 2010

@88 I was going to suggest Cuaron. And I agree.

133. JJ Abrams fan - December 1, 2010

Please oh please oh please JJ! STAY WITH IT! WE WANT YOU!!!!!!

134. MC1 Doug - December 1, 2010

#1: As much as I love Spielberg’s work, I don’t think he is the right man to helm the next TREK film.

1. Spielberg is currently contractually obligated to film the proposed remake ‘When Worlds Collide.’

2. He has his plate full with a number of other projects so it is unlikely he has time to devote to TREK.

3. Has he ever expressed interest in all things TREK?

4. I wasn’t overly impressed with the fourth Indiana Jones film, so I question his ability to do a TREK film, although I do think he would be good if the next film was a serious tale, rather than a jump and shoot flick.

Personally, I like the idea of Nicholas Meyer coming back, but that too seems unlikely.

So who knows? Most likely, it will be J.J., but I also think Jonathan Frakes would be a good choice as well.

135. Battle-scarred Sciatica - December 1, 2010

JJ looks almost like Rick Moranis’ lost twin in that first shot.

Perhaps Rick Moranis will direct.

Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!

136. Phaser Guy - December 1, 2010

RON HOWARD’s STAR TREK!!!

137. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - December 1, 2010

IF NOT ABRAMS… Frakes, Meyer, or Nimoy!!

138. gingerly - December 1, 2010

If Cronenberg did it, we’d get some really, REALLY interesting Borg.

…or del Toro, some super-creepy and imaginative aliens.

Hey, what about Cuaron?

He saved the Potter franchise.

But Uwe Boll, Micheal Bay, Joel Schmacher?! Seriously wondering what some of you guys are smoking.

139. N - December 1, 2010

No wonder Bermans reign was so long. Star Trek fans semm to want the same thing over & over. Now we have people here asking for the same directors Frakes, Meyer, or Nimoy. Are you sure you don’t want Berman back too!

140. Rusty0918 - December 1, 2010

Well, to me, I don’t know…

Michael Bay, you gotta keep him away from it.

Well, I can’t fully judge J.J. Abrams by just one Trek movie. I mean, George Lucas dirceted one really good “Stars Wars” movie (A New Hope), a decent one (Revenge of the Sith), and two stinkers (Phantom Menace/Attack of the Clones). Is he the right choice? The jury’s out on that. I mean, Spielberg has directed a few stinkers himself (“Lost World: Jurassic Park” comes into view). John Glen directed some good James Bond movies (“For Your Eyes Only” and “The Living Daylights”) but also of course has the crappy “A View to a Kill” under his belt. Not to mention Jonathan Frakes directed ST:FC which was a very good movie but also did INS which of course has a good deal of suckage.

141. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

I honestly believe that I have a better chance of directing the next movie than Frakes does. And the odds on me are negative 4.

So stop with the Frakes nonsense please. It’s a waste of perfectly good electrons to even post it.

142. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

I’m sticking with Cuaron as my first choice. If they really wanted to be badass and bold, a risky unknown quantity like philosopher-director Duncan Jones might payoff in a big way too.

143. Captain Dunsel - December 1, 2010

For my money–let Jonathan Frakes have it. At least we can get rid of those annoying lens flares.

144. gingerly - December 1, 2010

@143

As much I like Frakes, Nimoy, and Meyer we really need to keep with the bold directions they’ve started with the reboot.

As risk of sounding insulting, their style of directing isn’t very kinetic or forward-thinking.

It’s very much like a comfortable old snuggie vs. the invigoration of new bold directions we have started, here. I’d like to see mostly the later, tempered with just enough of the former to keep it authentic.

…What about Danny Boyle?

Does Brad Bird do live action?? Because his style captures the kind of feeling I’d love to see captured in the next film.

That sort of wide-eyed sense of adventure combined perfectly with great developed characters and relationships.

To me, he’d be perfect.

145. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

143: “For my money–let Jonathan Frakes have it. At least we can get rid of those annoying lens flares.”

…and replace them with those annoying narcoleptic head plunges.

146. Basement Blogger - December 1, 2010

@ 142

Cuaron and Duncan Jones seems to me to be the opposite of J.J. Abrams. The camera could not stay still in Star Trek (2009) Cuaron and Jones are thoughtful directors. I loved Cuaron’s Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) and Jones made the Hugo award winning science fiction film, “Moon” (2009 ) I think they would be great choices for the next movie.

If availaible, what about David Fincher? Yes, he made the average Alien 3 but some of that crappines can be put at the feet of the writers. Yet that gives him special effects experience. Fincher has made one of the best films of the year, “The Social Network.” (2010) Okay, he looks a little busy.

147. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

144: “Does Brad Bird do live action?? Because his style captures the kind of feeling I’d love to see captured in the next film. ”

Funny you should mention him. Isn’t he actually WORKING for JJ, directing MI3?

148. Basement Blogger - December 1, 2010

@ 41 Phaser Guy

Phaser guy says, “Woody Alllen’s STAR TREK now with more awkward pauses.”

Very funny, Phaser Guy.

How about Quentin Tarantino? You do know that Star Trek 2009 was his favorite film? (Link below.) R rated Star Trek. Kirk, Spock and Klingons with phasers drawn in a Mexican standoff. Spock drops “F” bombs.
Quentin Tarantino loves Star Trek 2009.
http://trekmovie.com/2009/12/14/quentin-tarantino-list-star-trek-as-top-film-of-2009/

149. gingerly - December 1, 2010

*checks imdb*

Ha! You’re right. :) Which may pull him out of the running actually, depending on the filming schedule.

But he’s my favorite so far, if JJ doesn’t do it.

You mentioned Cuaron first and after Bird, he’d be my second choice.

Children of Men is one of the best sci-fi films of the last ten years. And he’s proven he can be entertaining for mass audiences with Potter, without sacrificing his unique vision.

I really liked Jones’ Moon, but he’s still unproven in my eyes, in terms of having a flexible style and/or this not just being a fluke. I give much of the credit in that film to Rockwell’s amazing performance (who BTW is also a Trekkie, I’d love to see cameo in the next movie, if not have a bigger role).

I have to see more of Jones’ work.

150. gingerly - December 1, 2010

…and the last post was @ 147.

151. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

149: “I give much of the credit in that film to Rockwell’s amazing performance (who BTW is also a Trekkie, I’d love to see cameo in the next movie, if not have a bigger role).”

I mentioned this a ways back (in time, not this thread). I thought it would be great to have Sam Rockwell reprise his Galaxy Quest role for Star Trek, as a neurotic but indestructible Red Shirt.

152. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

An homage to an homage.

153. dmduncan - December 1, 2010

Very recursive.

154. Bill Peters - December 1, 2010

HOpe JJ directs if not, at least find someone who can do as good a job.

155. Bucky - December 1, 2010

Probably going to be Abrams again, but I would like to suggest that if the movie goes 3D, as is wont for basically every single blockbuster movie nowadays, Abrams will have to change his frantic handheld style which won’t translate to 3D at all. If not, and they keep it in good old two dimensions, then go nuts JJ.

156. MJ - December 1, 2010

My new rule — no one involved in Harry Potter should be allowed anywhere near Trek 12.

157. MJ - December 1, 2010

@139. “No wonder Bermans reign was so long. Star Trek fans semm to want the same thing over & over. Now we have people here asking for the same directors Frakes, Meyer, or Nimoy. Are you sure you don’t want Berman back too!”

Agreed. Some fans what to go back and back…i.e. Fat Shat, etc. Maybe Trek should turn into a “Weekend at Bernie’s” type of series….well, no, I really don’t want to go there. :-)

158. Hugh Hoyland - December 1, 2010

As Ive mentioned before, I hope JJ can do it, I like the way his movies have turned out and that includes MI-3. I have also been reading a little bit of the fringe pilot and his screenplay for Superman and while a lot of people have bashed it like crazy, I kind of think it would be a damn cool spin on the super hero!

But if he just cant, or doesnt feel like doing it, which is his right of course, then someone like Favreau would be a good choice. Del Torro would be my first of course, and for old school director, Ridley Scott first, Spielberg close second, and yes I’ll say it, George Lucas! And Im sure hes a nice guy, but no thanks to Franks. I want someone who’s at least a sci-fi fan, which he admits he’s never been, and appreciates Star Trek and doesnt think of it as just “a great gig!” (see Franks comments on Insurection, a doomed movie from the start mainly because the director didnt like the story. A death nail to any movie when that happens.)

159. MJ - December 1, 2010

@158. I still don’t get the fascination with del Toro? When he was given a decent budget, he gave us those positively awful Hellboy movies. I know the guy a beloved by many, but I just don’t see the results in terms of great movies. In my opinion, he is a one-hit-wonder (PL); and I also think he cracked under the pressure of doing the Hobbit. Blade II almost ruined the franchaise, and Mimic stunk. He comes across as a buffoon as well in the interviews I have seen. To me he is a second rate wannabe, aka Joss Whedon. I just don’t get it???

160. FAKE Jeffrey Jacob Abrams - December 2, 2010

Hey guys, I’ve been reading all through these posts and you have all come up with some great (and some not so great) ideas, and it has got me thinking, and I have made a very important decision, I believe that the best person to direct this next film should be…

ME

161. Hugh Hoyland - December 2, 2010

#160, is that really you??? lol

162. Hugh Hoyland - December 2, 2010

and if it is, COOL DEAL! Im glad you made the right choice.

163. Basement Blogger - December 2, 2010

@ 160

Hey J.J., what’s coming out of the train car at the end of the teaser for “Super 8?” : )

Yes, we know you’re not J.J. But if you are, how did the castaways survive the nuclear bomb in Lost? : )

Teaser for Super 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpzUCA5i6zY

164. MJ - December 2, 2010

@160. JJ, please confirm, NO FAT SHAT, right? :-)

165. MJ - December 2, 2010

@163. Thanks for the link to the Super 8 trailer — much appreciated!

166. Hugh Hoyland - December 2, 2010

#159 Well maybe its just personal tasts or something. What one person may find is great or beautiful “art”, another person may say its crap. I just like his “style”, its unique and communicates to me. And Im sure there are a lot of people who just dont see it like that, which is cool to. But Peter Jackson thought enough of his work to hand him one of the most important film projects in modern times, The Hobbit! So he sees something in his art.

167. Hugh Hoyland - December 2, 2010

And yes he turned it down, but I dont think it was because he was burned out or something, the guy had put off several projects near to his heart for almost two years to do it. And up until very recently it looked like the studeo simply wasnt going to make it. So he said he had to go, his choice.

168. MJ - December 2, 2010

168. Fair enough Hugh. Regarding The Hobbit, if you are correct, I bet he is going to regret it for the rest of his life that he couldn’t just have given a few months more patience — i.e., now that The Hobbit has the green-light and starts filming in late January. He gave up The Hobbit for another Frankenstien remake and another haunted house movie…sheesh, that would be like Obama deciding to run for the Illinois Senate race in 2012 instead of for a second term as President.

So when someone gives up something as monumental as a once in a decade movie-making opportunity, I am not completely sold that he gave it up because he wanted to make these two kind of standard fare horror flicks. I don’t have personal knowledge of this, but given what I have seen of him in interviews, I would not be surprised if he decided he was way in over his head with The Hobbit and used the schedule slippage excuse to extricate himself for the situation so that he could go back to making B+ horror movies.

169. captain_neill - December 2, 2010

ENOUGH WITH THE BERMAN BASHING.

A lot of great Trek was produced under his watch.

170. MJ - December 2, 2010

@169 I am going to have to dock you down to Lt. Neill for that remark. :-)

171. Hugh Hoyland - December 2, 2010

#168 MJ maybe your right, like you said you werent there and neither was I. But I do remember Torro saying years before the Hobit was even in the planning stages that although being a passing fan of JR Tolkin, he wasnt a fanatic about his work either, including the Hobbit. On the other hand, as you mention, he LOVES Frankenstien and other such horror/fantasy classics. So you kind of go where your heart says to IMO. But again, you may be right.

172. keachick - December 2, 2010

“Hey, what about Cuaron?
He saved the Potter franchise.”

The Harry Potter franchise did not need saving. He was the choice of director best suited to direct the next phase in the unfolding of events occurring in the life of a slowly maturing Harry Potter and for those around him.

I do not see why anyone associated with the production of the Harry Potter films should not be allowed near the Star Trek sequel. Those films are very well made – good acting and character development, interesting plot(s), good pacing etc. Just because teenagers are the main characters/heroes and movies “mainstream” should not mean that one dismisses the franchise as being unworthy and lacking in quality. Harry Potter – the Deathly Hallows (part 1) – is a great movie and so are the previous ones very good as well.

And I agree with captain_neill – a lot of good Star Trek was produced under the Berman watch.

173. Hugh Hoyland - December 2, 2010

Would be nice if we could confirm if thats the actual JJ Abrams above lol

174. Vultan - December 2, 2010

Berman made some good Trek over the years. And keep this in mind NuTrekkers—several members of the creative team behind the new movie were fans of TNG as well as TOS. Bob Orci has said that the idea for the new alternate universe was inspired by the TNG episode “Parallels.”

So there.

175. captain_neill - December 2, 2010

Just like fans of the new movie don’t like fans saying anything against it.

I feel the same way about the spin offs. I did not come on to hear my fav shows get slapped about because of this new movie.

176. tuvok1701e - December 2, 2010

MJ umm Frakes has directed a “big movie” before and did an excellent job. Have you never saw Star Trek First Contact??????

177. captain_neill - December 2, 2010

176

Agreed Star Trek First Contact is a big movie.

It might not have as big a budget as the latest movie but I still think its a big movie and certainly a better movie.

First Contact is an amazing film and Jonathan Frakes is a great director. Frakes can craft good shots.

178. Janice - December 2, 2010

I hope JJ Abrams will direct. I loved the first ST movie and thought he did a wonderful job.

I’m still waiting to hear about PIKE!! Hopefully he’s there in the sequel.
That’s what I want the most to see–Bruce Greenwood back as Pike!
Frankly, I think they would be crazy not to have a role for Pike in the sequel!!
SO–I’m hoping ,hoping,hoping—-

179. Red Dead Ryan - December 2, 2010

Before the recent film, there had been only one Trek movie that could be called “big”. That was “The Motion Picture”. But that was a long time ago, before I was born, and it feels like a tv movie in some ways. “The Wrath Of Khan” and “First Contact” are great Star Trek films imo, but they didn’t have the number of different locations, and immense visual scale that the new movie has. Plus, none of the other movies apart from TMP were as highly anticipated. And unlike TMP, “Star Trek” satisfied most who went to see it in theatres.

And I do know that “The Voyage Home” did big business at the box office raking in the most (unadjusted) money at the time, but that movie was more of a comedy that took place in ’80’s San Francisco. Plus it was low budget.

180. Red Dead Ryan - December 2, 2010

#160

You are not J.J Abrams. And everyone else, stop being so gullible,LOL!

181. ensign joe - December 2, 2010

128. My Best Fiend – December 1, 2010

With a name like that I’m surprised you didn’t suggest Werner Herzog.

I’m sure there would be a transporter accident involving a chicken if he did do one..

182. gingerly - December 2, 2010

@172

The Harry Potter franchise did not need saving.

Monetarily, you’re absolutely right.

Quality-wise? That’s a different story. The first two Potter films were pretty much by rote and very uninspired. They seem very flat to me and haven’t aged very well.

The third was the first to qualify as imaginative cinema, thanks to Cuaron.

The man can direct. This goes well-beyond Potter. Y Tu Mama Tambien, Children of Men, and A Little Princess was better than almost all of the Potter films, put together.

As for Berman? I don’t think anyone is saying all of Berman’s work was bad. I think most are saying he overstayed well-past his time and the franchise suffered for it.

183. MJ - December 2, 2010

@176 @177. We as Trek fans, with our hearts bleeding green blood for all things Trek, can certainly say: STFC was a “big movie” and Frakes is a “proven director of major motion pictures.” However, outside of our Trek community, I can guarantee you that this movie is not considered a major studio release and John Frakes is not considered a major director.

So we can wish that STFC be considered a major movie, and we can wish the Frakes be considered as a proven director in Hollywood, but that doesn’t “make it so.”

184. MJ - December 2, 2010

The Potter films and books are vastly overrated. Fast food fantasy.

185. MJ - December 2, 2010

@179. “Before the recent film, there had been only one Trek movie that could be called “big”. That was “The Motion Picture”.

Exactly!

186. captain_neill - December 2, 2010

179

Star Trek XI might have appealed more to the masses and and a bigger budget but First Contact is still a better movie.

FC also had a stronger plot as well as good character moments.

187. Vultan - December 2, 2010

And a big budget doesn’t always equal quality (or box office returns). It simply means the studio is willing to invest heavily in a project they THINK will be profitable. Sometimes they can have a big budget epic in production and end up with a poor film (Heaven’s Gate, Waterworld, Jonah Hex) and other times they can have a much lower budget and end up with a great film (Wrath of Khan, First Contact)… or a TV show (Star Trek: The Original Series!)

188. EM - December 2, 2010

I tried to read or, at least, gance at all the previous posts. Has no one thought of Tim Burton? Johnny Depp as Khan? Oh, wait. We’ve stopped talking about Khan. Sorry.
Seriously, I thought that JJ’s Trek was one of the best in the series. Maybe 1st or 2nd. I’m sure that he’d do another great job, if the story is good.
I think that I’d like to give Frakes a shot at this style of Trek, as well. I like him. He’s a classy and talented man.

189. Jonboc - December 2, 2010

Frakes directed the big budget flop Thunderbirds. That is why he is directing TV episodes of Leverage. JJ has a fresh exciting eye for camera…the way he moves the camera, sometimes in a very sweeping way, reminds me of the camera movement on TOS. The camera on the TOS bridge was never static. JJ made exciting nonconventional moves with the camera…very refreshing, I hope we see more.

190. dmduncan - December 2, 2010

156: “My new rule — no one involved in Harry Potter should be allowed anywhere near Trek 12.”

Worst rule ever. Azkaban was excellent. Alfonso Cuaron is a talented director.

191. dmduncan - December 2, 2010

And I don’t want great “Star Trek.” I am so over that insular, provincial mindset.

I want a great movie that happens to be Star Trek. I’m tired of the handlers of Star Trek setting the bar low as if they don’t expect many people other than Trek fans to show up.

I want the new Star Trek movies in my best movies list because they’re great movies, NOT because I’m a fan with a nostalgic predisposition to like them at some level no matter how mediocre they may happen to be.

192. captain_neill - December 2, 2010

why does it feel like some fans think the new Star Trek movie is the best ever just because it had the biggest budget.

To me its the one that has the better story and characters and Wrath of Khan and First Contact and Undiscovered Country are better films because they are stronger movies than the new one.

193. MJ - December 2, 2010

@186 and @192. Great, STFC is your favorite movie and you think its the best. I don’t have a problem with your subjective assessment of STFC. What I think a lot of us do have a problem with is you taking a giant lead and saying that it is considered to be a big movie with a major director involved…sorry, but I am not drinking your Kool Aid on that statement.

194. Anthony Pascale - December 2, 2010

No that isn’t JJ Abrams

And a reminder to all, that posing as ‘real’ public figures is an instaban offense, but this time it appears to be obviously a joke so i will let you go with a warning, Losira, but dont do it again

195. Vultan - December 2, 2010

#191

Oh, so you want Star Trek but not Star Trek…
O… kay….

196. Michael OHara - December 2, 2010

Doesnt matter who directs as long as they respect the original continuity. Someone once said that reality can be unbelievable because it IS reality, but fiction must adhere to some level of believability to create the illusion of reality. Forgive my poor paraphrasing. I understand that the Abrams film has sent the Universe on an alternate timeline, but I miss the strict adherence to continuity practiced by the earlier films and shows. Ship design, uniform design, etc. always conformed to the proper stardate.
One could recognize any time period in the Star Trek Universe based on these elements. Now everything seems twisted around. The ship is a mish-mash of styles- nacelles of Enterprise C, Primary Hull of Enterprise A, secondary hull of similar design to Original Series Enterprise.

197. Red Dead Ryan - December 2, 2010

192

Neill, I enjoy those movies immensely. Just like you do. But others don’t. Others may trash “First Contact” but I don’t care. Nothing and nobody dare prevent me from enjoying whatever Trek I choose. I happen to enjoy “old” Trek and “new” Trek. They exist side by side for me. They don’t have to compete for my attention and love.

Though quality does count for me. Its why “Voyager” ranks as the weakest in my opinion. Because it was the most inconsistent out of all of the series. TOS, TNG, DS9 and ENT also had bad seasons and episodes, but the good-to-bad ratio in my opinion were much greater.

As for the movies, “Insurrection” and “The Final Frontier” are at the bottom but I still watch them because I love the characters. Though not necessarily their “singing”.

198. Red Dead Ryan - December 2, 2010

196

I happen to like what J.J did. I thought the “Supreme Court” got the characters right, though I found Scotty to be a bit jokey. And I didn’t mind that they did some things differently. I like the design of the Enterprise, but I hope they enlarge the secondary hull a bit.

But they do need to design an actual engineering, or at least film the engineering scenes in a place that looks like it could be an engine room.

199. Erik Parrent - December 2, 2010

I’m happy with JJ if he wants to come back. If he doesn’t, might I suggest (apologies if someone else did and I missed it) Duncan Jones, director of Moon?

200. Trekprincess - December 2, 2010

I don’t care if things in the alternate universe are twisted around it doesn’t affect me as much because I happen to love Abrams Trek :) it’s my choice if I want to or not thanks very much.:)

201. dmduncan - December 2, 2010

195 “Oh, so you want Star Trek but not Star Trek…”

I didn’t realize my remark was that cryptic. No. I want it to be a good movie vs. what fans accept as good Star Trek. Example? First Contact. It is considered good Star Trek. As a movie, it is mediocre. There’s nothing noteworthy about it at all as a movie.

John Frakes could probably direct a straightforward movie adaption of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, but only Francis Coppola could make Apocalypse Now.

People complain about JJ’s lensflares but at least it shows he’s thinking cinematically, whether you like the effect or not. Movies are primarily a visual medium, and some can exploit the strengths of the medium more than others.

No movie, musical, or play of Les Miserables is going to capture the scope and poignancy of Victor Hugo’s epic novel. It was conceived as a literary work, and that is where it’s power will always be greatest. Likewise, when you conceive of a story in cinematic terms you have the opportunity to treat it as its own art form with its own strengths that can’t be duplicated by any book.

George Kirk’s death scene would be an example of cinematic lyricism. That’s how I want to see Star Trek reimagined.

All this fan talk of boldly going apparently doesn’t apply to the creative process of how Star Trek stories get told. No, fans apparently want to go to the movies to watch big screen TV.

“Baa haaa, the lens flares huwt my eyes, mommy!”

202. Cervantes - December 2, 2010

It’s not J.J.s directing skills I’m bothered about, it’s his Production Design choices!

203. Vultan - December 2, 2010

#201

Nothing noteworthy about FC? Well, I remember being in grade school when it was released, and it was the first time my classmates were asking me about Star Trek, whether they should go see it or not. So, if it got some non-Trekkies interested in Trek for the first time, I would call that noteworthy.

And it seems that television has now taken the lead in intelligent storytelling (Mad Men, Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, etc.), so it’s a lot easier on my wallet not having to go to the cinema to see something… extraordinary. So it all works out for the better.

Enjoy the light show.

204. dmduncan - December 2, 2010

Nothing noteworthy about FC AS A MOVIE. In style it was as nondescript as any episode of TJ Hooker.

205. Vultan - December 3, 2010

Uh-huh. But when you have a good STORY you really don’t need a lot of style. (I’m assuming by “style” you mean shaky cam and lens flares and the like.) Well, I guess some could consider that a style, but just holding the camera still and letting the actors do the work is fine with me.

Hey, it worked for Hitchcock, Lean, Kubrick, Spielberg, Lucas, Peter Jackson—the list goes on and on. Hopefully, the Christopher Nolan and Duncan Jones types will again outnumber the Abrams, Bays, and Tony Scotts of the world (i.e. the epileptic school of filmmaking) in the future.

206. MJ - December 3, 2010

@203 Actually I agree with dmuncan. While FC was the best of the next generation movies, that is like saying Cheez Whiz is the best of the Velvetta category off cheeses.

207. captain_neill - December 3, 2010

201

Forgive my Sixth Doctor tone her

First Contact MEDIOCRE? MEDIOCRE?

First Contact was more than a blip of note worthy on the TNG movies it was an awesome movie, and its a better movie than the new one.

Now just because I like First Contact better it does not mean I hate the new movie , I like it but I feel First Contact is superior.

My ratings
Star Trek: First Contact *****
Star Trek XI ****

208. gingerly - December 3, 2010

While FC was the best of the next generation movies, that is like saying Cheez Whiz is the best of the Velvetta category off cheeses.

I disagree, but I still LOL’ed. First Contact, regardless of what Redline Media says, is one of my favorite Trek movies, period.

Is it full of plotholes?
Yeah.

But is it also more re-watchable than most Trek films and entertaining as all get out, to boot?
Heck yeah. :) It’s moments like Barclay fanboying over Cochrane that made it for me.

First Contact would get my thumbs-up just for James Cromwell’s Zephrim Cochrane, Alice Krige’s Borg Queen, and Alfre Woodard’s Lily Sloane.

Seriously, it had the best crop of featured actors of all the films.

…And let’s not forget in the infinitely quotable “THE LINE MUST DRAWN HERE!”

209. Vultan - December 3, 2010

I’m not really getting why some here are saying that FC was like a TV episode. Sorry, but I don’t recall a Borg implant suddenly extending out of someone’s face or a long pull back through an enormous Borg ship on the TV show (and those are in the first couple of minutes of the movie!). And Worf’s “Assimilate this!” is no more cheesy or John McClane-esque than “I’ve got your gun.”

Yippee-ki-yay!

First Contact looked like a movie… because it was a movie.

210. P Technobabble - December 3, 2010

FC was far more epic in scope than any series episode. Even “Best of Both Worlds” — which would have made a great movie — still looked and felt like television. And Frakes did a fantastic job directing..

211. captain_neill - December 3, 2010

People seem to forget that the new movie was riddled with plot holes galore as well.

First Contact was an epic movie, just because it’s budget was smaller just not mean its instantly inferior to the new one.

More money means more shiny effects but it does not mean stronger story. And First Contact had the stronger story

And as 208 “THE LONE MUST BE DRAWN HERE” is a classic line.

Seriously why do people think a bigger budget means a better movie?

212. EM - December 3, 2010

@ captain_neill – I only saw the new Star Trek twice. What were the plot holes?

213. dmduncan - December 3, 2010

Necrotic skinned spandex wearing cybernetic humanoids from across the galaxy. Oh yeah. Sign me up for more of that.

205: “(I’m assuming by ‘style’ you mean shaky cam and lens flares and the like.)”

You shouldn’t assume that.

214. roy - December 3, 2010

67

Star Trek is just like Star Wars, it’s fantasy with the purpose to entertain people.

As for who should direct the next Star Trek feature, I’d rather see JJ Abrams come back for the sequel. To JJ’s credit, he directed the highest box office grossing Star Trek film and as a result people who wouldn’t ordinarily see a Star Trek film came to see his film. This is what counts at the end of the day.

215. Vultan - December 3, 2010

#213

Madman from Romulan system out to destroy Earth with big superweapon ship like none we’ve ever seen before. Oh yeah. Guess somebody must’ve signed up twice for that one (Nemesis, Trek ’09). Let’s see another baddie with a chip on his shoulder the size of a black hole!

Oh, and please give us your definition of style. Readers are dying to know.

216. MJ - December 3, 2010

I feel like I am in a Harry Turtledove alternate history novel here, where Rick Berman is still in charge of Trek, and the NG movies were much more successful, and Frakes just won an academy award….Scotty, beam me out of here — I can’t stand this parallel universe.

217. MJ - December 3, 2010

@213. “Necrotic skinned spandex wearing cybernetic humanoids from across the galaxy. Oh yeah. Sign me up for more of that.”

Yea, I just watched FC again last months for the first time in a few years, and I much say, the Borg Queen does not hold up very well…I’ve seem more realism at recent conventions. The movie looks like a TV show, and that is a problem with all the NextGen movies. At least TOS movies looked like films during their run — except for V, which is on par in quality with the NG films.

218. dmduncan - December 3, 2010

215. Vultan – December 3, 2010

“My” definition of style is the #1 (as opposed to the #2, #3 or #4) definition of style. Look it up, or do I have to do that for you too?

I wish I COULD say something wonderful about FC…but the most I could say is something mildly nice: Picard finally sprouted a pair of nads. The rest is just…meh.

In style and substance, boringly going where Trek fans like to go over and over again. Which explains why some of you whine about lens flares. A thing I am only conscious of when fans on this site mess their Star Trek brand pampers over them. They’re obviously not canon. Maybe that’s it.

But I do think it’s cute when fans clamor for originality while complaining about originality in ST.09. “Originality” means seeing some strange new world as opposed to facing down some antagonist. Then what will you do to make your case? You will point to some PAST episode of Star Trek exploring some strange new world as to what the new movie should be LIKE.

Mamma mia! That’s originality!?

219. dmduncan - December 3, 2010

217. MJ – December 3, 2010

Yeah, on Jerri Ryan and Jolene Blalock, spandex in Star Trek holds up well.

On the Borg? Not so much.

220. Vultan - December 3, 2010

#218

So, rebooting the franchise and going back to the original characters is considered original in your book? Okay. Got it. Very hip. Very modern. Very “stylish.”

But… had it been the adventures of the USS Kelvin—that I’d rather see than a retread-remake-reboot-remarketing of the original. Captain Robau was an interesting character, and it’s too bad he had to killed in the first few minutes of the movie. God knows Middle Eastern people could use more positive role models in entertainment nowadays. Doing something like that in today’s geopolitical environment—now that would be boldly going…!

But I suppose we should all just enjoy what we’ve been given and be thankful that Hollywood has yet to run out of tracing paper. Can’t wait for the remakes of Casablanca, The Third Man and Citizen Kane. Should be a hoot seeing Ben Affleck crying over his old sled. Yippee.

221. MJ - December 3, 2010

@220 “God knows Middle Eastern people could use more positive role models in entertainment nowadays. Doing something like that in today’s geopolitical environment—now that would be boldly going…!”

You mean like JJ Abrams character of Said in Lost. Exactly! We can all agree that JJ is way ahead of his time on this one!

222. Chadwick - December 3, 2010

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2010/01/15/star-trek-online-wants-you-forever/

THIS IS THE SEXY VULCAN ROSARIO DAWSON I WANT!!!!!

223. MJ - December 3, 2010

@222 Agreed, while at the same this validates me not signing up for STO — how lame can they get.

224. dmduncan - December 3, 2010

220: “So, rebooting the franchise and going back to the original characters is considered original in your book?”

Straw man. Not my argument.

225. Vultan - December 3, 2010

#221

Agreed. Just as Roddenberry created a Russian character during the Cold War and an African character during the Civil Rights Movement and put them on his little space show in the 60s. Exactly why I’d like to see Middle Eastern/Muslim leading men and women in TV shows and movies today. Positive role models are, uh, positive for everyone.

226. Chadwick - December 4, 2010

223. MJ

I want the game badly but I have a feeling it will consume most of my days. Already playing to much Assassins Creed brotherhood, COD Black Ops, and Gran Turismo 5. STO for me would be like WOW for others, crack!

227. MJ - December 4, 2010

@ 226. You got to admit though, the the picture of the new Vulcan character with here huge tatas hanging out, comes across a kind of embarrassing for Star Trek. If I did this, I would want to play it with my 9 and 13 year old sons, but if they are taking this in a T&A directions, then I am going to pass.

228. captain_neill - December 5, 2010

212

Most films if you look hard enough has plot holes.

The problem the new movie suffers from is plot contrivance.

229. dmduncan - December 5, 2010

Julian Assange is a hero. Therefore, governments of the world unite! He must be STOPPED at all cost! From a Q&A with Assange:

achanth
Mr Assange,
have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?
Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules.
1) that the documents not be self-authored;
2) that they be original.
However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.

230. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 5, 2010

Big Vulcan boobies? Logical? On the surface, regrettably, no.

But… on the other hand, just how long does it take to rid humanoid’s gene pool of the sensious, or nurturing, aspects of a woman’s body?

If a typical Vulcan only procreates once every seven years, then perhaps their culture has long since started on its “emotionless” evolutionary tree, where sexual attraction, or the nescessity of breast feeding are no longer important to the development of the Vulcan race. Would’nt that be reflected in natural, or in this case, LOGICAL Selection?

Would a Vulcan female’s body no longer have those qualities after generations? After quite a few generations, I say there would obviously be some, not many, that would still retain the voluptuous qualities of a highly sensual, albeit emotional, woman.

Now that does’nt mean that a Vulcan female would have them on display so prominantly. Unless she understood the beneficial effects that it would provide, in a more emotional, or human culture.

Such as in an on-line game wher you are trying to appeal to the proper sex and age categories.

Mainly Males 15-50

Yes. It is Logical.

231. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 5, 2010

229. dmduncan

IMO, “UFOs,” are too important a subject to be played with, or hinted at.

Smells of disinfo.

dmduncan, you seem to be a first timer here. I fear that your going to need to get some TrekMovie “Street Cred” to receive a real response from others. Hang with us for a while. It gets better.

232. dmduncan - December 5, 2010

231: “dmduncan, you seem to be a first timer here.”

LOL!

233. MJ - December 5, 2010

@231 @232 LOL-encore. Never heard of you, TrekMadeMeWonder.

234. MJ - December 5, 2010

@230. Hilarious defense of big busted Vulcans…and I think you actually believe it! :-)

235. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2010

Well, I did a Google search and did not find many first page hits with dmduncan and trekmovie.

Sorry for the bad reasearch, dmduncan.

236. trekprincess - December 6, 2010

I don’t care if the new film has plot contrivances

237. Vultan - December 6, 2010

Ah, music to a movie mogul’s ears.

238. Basement Blogger - December 6, 2010

@ 236

Trekprincess says, “I don’t care if the new film has plot contrivances.”

REALLY? Trekprincess you deserve better. You deserve quality filmmaking. And that would include logical storytelling. I know you love Star Trek (2009) and this comment is NOT about that film. You deserve in the future as a filmgoer, a well constructed and quality film. And it doesn’t matter what the film is, whether it’s Star Trek (2012) or Teen Age Mutant Ninja Turtles.

239. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2010

dmduncan

Nice link on your tag.

The info provided is facinating. Is that your site, or just one of interest?

240. dmduncan - December 6, 2010

239. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 6, 2010

Thanks. It’s mine. But front page was eaten by software gremlins; it’s not supposed to look like that. I’m swinging back around to fixin it tho.

241. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2010

240. dmduncan

The hydrocephalus article was interesting in light of this, never fully explained, youtube vid…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0WF5TX2su4&feature=related

Caution. It’s creepy.

242. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 6, 2010

100 Quatloos for he that can make it all the way through this video.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1675623/aphex_twin_rubber_johnny/

Rubber Johnny?

Nice edits bu F’d up.

243. Basement Blogger - December 6, 2010

@ 229

Your post on Julian Assange and possible mention of UFOs in the documents was interesting. The evidence of any cover up of extraterrestrial life would be the most revolutionary news ever. And the post on UFOs is relevant to the J.J. Abrams. His new movie seems to be about it. Look at the teaser. A freight train from Area 51 on its way to a facility in Ohio, likely Wright Patterson Airforce base. Both are steeped in Ufology. Anyway, I’ve again posted his trailer below.

@ 241-242

I’ve watched the whole music video of Aphex Twin. It’s avant garde. Send my quatloos to my mansion on the planet of Risa, c/o Shahna at 1701 Gamester Lane.

1. Teaser of J.J. Abrams ucoming film about UFOs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpzUCA5i6zY

244. gingerly - December 6, 2010

Why was my last post deleted?

245. trekprincess - December 7, 2010

Isn’t it up to me and my mind if I see any plot contrivances in the new film I don’t need advice from other fans thank you very much

246. MJ - December 7, 2010

@244 Just because you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you! :-)

247. Harry Ballz - December 7, 2010

244.

It’s never too early to panic!

248. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 7, 2010

244

Just repost it. Gingerly.

249. Basement Blogger - December 7, 2010

@ 245

It’s not advice as to what to do, Trekprincess. It’s just an idea that you deserve to be entertained by the best movie that a filmmaker can create. Throwing in plot contrivances is not quality filmmaking.

250. MJ - December 7, 2010

@249. Come on now, relax, she was just stating that she’s entitled to here opinion.

251. keachick - December 7, 2010

#249 Yes, but that depends on whether you consider this movie as having (too many) plot contrivances…

252. dmduncan - December 7, 2010

What are the contrivances of ST.09?

I like RLMs example from FC. The Borg attacking earth in the 24th century, risking defeat, and THEN going back in time to alter earth’s history when they could have gone back in time from anywhere without risking defeat and attacking earth at a time when it was indefensible, would have been the sensible thing to do. Of course, it would have robbed Picard and the Enterprise of a chance to save earth. The Borg didn’t act logically, but illogically, contrary to how they should have acted to guarantee their objective, merely so that Picard could have a chance to save the day.

That’s a contrivance.

Kirk meeting Spock in a cave is not a contrivance. It is a synchronicity.

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

You are free to supply your own explanation for the synchronicity, ranging from more or less scientific. Suffice it to say, Kirk and Spock meeting in a cave was also a “Black Swan,” i.e., an event of “high impact-low probability”; and however you may feel about them, they do occur.

So while everything happens in ST.09 because Bob and Alex wanted those things to happen, the MWI/QM nature of the story creates the possibility for that type of thing to happen within the context of the story, whereas in FC the core contrivance of the plot was inexplicable and pointed directly to the person writing the story.

Now I suppose all villains are contrivances. But in as much as we wouldn’t have so much FUN at the movies without them — something I do not apologize either for enjoying or wanting — then they are necessary contrivances, contrivances shared by some great classics like Casablanca (standard Nazi evildoers) and The Third Man (Harry Lime), and in that regard FC is no different than ST.09, in which case it would be hypocritical to blame ST.09 for having one while letting FC off without the same criticism.

I like the Borg as a concept, but the execution of the idea was terrible. You’d figure that such a race built on assimilation would be composed of a great multitude of alien species, particularly when they originate from across the galaxy — instead of humanoids in spandex.

Hell, why even bother to coopt individual members of a species when they could map their genomes, destroy the originals, and print out an obedient copy of any particular alien as needed? We are already experimenting with technology for printing biological material. The Borg could be masters of that process churning out any number of a thousand species on some automated assembly line, like Toyota producing cars. Which would make them far more insidious and difficult to detect once they were among a given population.

253. dmduncan - December 7, 2010

You know? They could end up being more like those things from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, both versions of which I love. The Pod People are scary. There’s a visceral terror at being duplicated and replaced permanently by an emotionless copy. But the Borg? Not really.

254. Vultan - December 7, 2010

A villain is only a contrivance when he/she/it has no real motivations other than being in opposition to the protagonist. The best villains are always the ones that have a rich backstory and who the audience can sympathize with on some level (Khan, Gul Dukat, the IRS, etc.) Well, maybe not the IRS, but you get my meaning. :)

Anyway, I have to say I found Nero a bit disappointing as a villain, and I can’t exactly put my finger on why. Maybe it was because his backstory wasn’t explored quite enough—the opposite of Shinzon, who prattled on about his past far too much. Or maybe it was just because Nero was a little too similar to Shinzon and Khan in his motivations. Revenge… again.

Commander Kruge and General Chang—now those are the guys I’d liked to have learned a bit more about, something beyond the standard Klingon out for glory and conquest routine. Lloyd and Plummer, despite their great performances, deserved a bit more to work with.

255. Vultan - December 7, 2010

Oh, I take back that part about Shinzon seeking revenge. On second thought, I’m still not entirely sure what he was after. I’m not sure the writers did either.

256. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 7, 2010

I liked Zefram Cochrane’s approach to time travel in FC.

He ran from it!!!!

: )

257. gingerly - December 7, 2010

@248

It was pretty long and involved. So, a good chunk will be missing :( There were no expletives, no insulting anyone.

I seriously don’t get it.

It was basically agreeing with the poster @ 228, that Star Trek 2009 was in many ways contrived and I gave reasons why I thought that may be, both positive and negative.

I laid out the fact that wide appeal meant that meaty exposition took a back seat to speedier pacing and I laid out some very specific critiques about certain elements in the film that worked very well and others that failed to on that front for me…or why they may have failed for others.

I noted the usage of the Beastie Boys Sabotage as a very obvious failure in trying to tap into “cool”, because Kirk is basically using really classical music as the soundtrack for his rebellion.

I noted the many times Kirk hung from things as a pretty obvious visual metaphor that was hammered home a bit too hard for me.

I said that the romance between Spock and Uhura was likely far too subtle and shocking for mainstream audiences used to both characters being canonically unattached. I suggested that maybe they should have either built it up over the course of many films or made it more obvious from the get-go (though I personally thought the subtlety and maturity was a refreshing change from the simplistic rom-commy banter I’m used to)

I voiced my disapproval with the obvious fanboy/fangirl service that was Kirk and Uhura stripping (I’m fine if they have to strip, but put more effort into giving them a real honest reason for it).

I stated that the writers should invest less in pandering “cool” moments that can seem silly in the hindsight of many year’s time (Beastie Boys) and more in smaller moments that actually are cool… like George Kirk gritting his teeth during the self-destruct countdown, McCoy’s awesome entrance, and Enterprise rising from behind Titan.

I stated that the monster from Hoth taking a moment to kill something and then roar at Kirk (when it could have killed him then) seemed illogical.

…Hmm, what else??

There was a lot. I’ll add more if I think of it.

258. gingerly - December 7, 2010

@254

Anyway, I have to say I found Nero a bit disappointing as a villain, and I can’t exactly put my finger on why.

This was also addressed in the missing post.

*arrgh!*

I thought the same and said it was likely because we didn’t get to see him experience that lost first-hand. It was all related in hindsight, so it was difficult to empathize with his situation.

Also, he never physically harms anyone with a personal connection to his loss onscreen. He sent Spock off to another planet (the person most responsible) and he killed Robau, the guy who has absolutely no clue what is even going on.

With Khan, if you’ve watched Space Seed, then you know. Also, Ricardo was brilliant at relating that, even if you haven’t, without lapsing into camp. Everything about his motives and targets were more refined and sharply focused.

Though Eric Bana was awesome, I think Nero did become a bit campy at moments and his targets were far bigger and therefore less connected to his personal tragedy.

He just seemed more just plain nuts than the calculating villian Khan was and calculating is ALWAYS waaay scarier.

Even the the reboot!Spock he was mad at in the end, really technically had no personal connection to his tragedy.

You had to wonder why his people even followed him, after a certain point, without even a single question.

259. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 8, 2010

I agree on all points. The movie was all over the place.

But that’s what we fans get from the Hollywood machine. At least it had the label “Star Trek,” and most of the characters remained intact, for the most part, allowing me to mostly enloy the film.

I still have not purchased the DVD, or Blueray. This says a lot coming from me – a TRUE fan of the original series.

260. dmduncan - December 8, 2010

254: “A villain is only a contrivance when he/she/it has no real motivations other than being in opposition to the protagonist.”

But even with “real motivations” villainy is used so often that it appears little more than a device to get a whole bunch of people together for making a fun movie.

You do have exceptions: I’m still not clear who “the bad guy” was in Apocalypse Now. Kurtz was someone that a coalition of bad people wanted dead and whom they wanted thought of as a bad guy, but was he THE bad guy? Kilgore seemed even more nuts, but he played by the rules some other bad guys had established, and hence, he was not a “bad guy.”

They did make an effort to give Nero a different motivation, which I appreciated, but by and large, villains are stlll writer’s reasons to write scripts.

And that’s not a criticism. I absolutely loved Meet The Robinson’s AND The Incredibles AND Alladin AND Toy Story 3. All had villains. All were great movies.

For the most part, villains make for interesting movies. Once a year I watch one of my faves: Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s almost that time again.

Not only do you have that evil bastard banker, Mr. Potter, but you’ve got the two conflicted halves of George Bailey — one half selflessly helping his community, the other half wishing he could run away and experience the wonders of the world — working against each other.

And with that mention I have the opportunity to post SNL’s discovery of the “lost ending” to It’s a Wonderful Life, introduced by WILLIAM SHATNER himself:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4267/saturday-night-live-its-a-wonderful-life-lost-ending

261. dmduncan - December 8, 2010

258: “You had to wonder why his people even followed him, after a certain point, without even a single question.”

The same could be said about George Bush and his flight of fancy into Iraq. We were still angry about 9/1l. Even though Iraq had nothing to do with it we were in the mood for rooting out the possibility of it happening ever again, just like Nero, and Saddam was supposed to have WMDs that he could surreptitiously pass to those who would use them while claiming plausible deniability for himself.

So I think Nero and his people were a pretty good metaphor for Americans after 9/11 under Bush, which was enhanced by Nero being a workingman Romulan. It was even implied that Pike was being water boarded when he was on that slab in a room with Nero pacing knee deep in water and Pike’s hair not looking quite dry.

9/11 did so much damage to us. But apart from the wars, it caused us to do damage to ourselves that I don’t see us recovering from except when finally rising on the other side of a complete collapse. We very publicly went nuts on 9/11. And we’re still going nuts. Just like Nero and the Romulans.

262. captain_neill - December 8, 2010

252

Im sorry but I still find First Contact a far superior film than the new movie.

263. dmduncan - December 8, 2010

That isn’t surprising. But the reason why has less to do with the comparative talent pools behind each movie and the skill with which each was made, and more to do with your own previous commitments. You easily ignore what is in my opinion the far greater contrivance of FC — it makes up the very heart of the plot — while complaining about contrivance in ST.09, which demonstrates that something other than your stated objection to contrivance is really behind your lower opinion of ST.09 in relation to FC.

Just be honest about it. You love TNG and fell in love with FC and nothing is going to force you to recant your confessions of abiding love for it.

And nothing I say here should be construed as an attempt to divorce you from your true love. But you shouldn’t expect everyone else to agree that you married the most beautiful woman on earth.

264. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - December 8, 2010

Ah dmduncan, my OLD adversary. (Old, get it? As opposed to new). Insightful -both posts.

265. dmduncan - December 8, 2010

264. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – December 8, 2010

Thanks!

266. MJ - December 8, 2010

@262 “I’m sorry but I still find First Contact a far superior film than the new movie.”

Apology accepted.

267. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - December 8, 2010

I love it.

268. MJ - December 9, 2010

Well thanks, but it wasn’t that funny…he just said he was sorry and I made a literal response remark of it. I’ve been funnier! :-)

269. Harry Ballz - December 9, 2010

Yes, yes you have! :>)

270. gingerly - December 9, 2010

@261

The same could be said about George Bush and his flight of fancy into Iraq. We were still angry about 9/1l.

I do understand and appreciation the allusions made, but I do feel realism was sacrificed to make that point.

With Bush, you had a large pool of people out to protect their own personal interests. I can see why they would be selfish and ignore the war crimes committed in exchange for a guarantee that their personal interests would be protected.

But for a miner’s ship? For which everyone pretty much has nothing, in the the first place??

I just can’t see it.

271. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - December 9, 2010

Now MJ, you’re not taking my remark literally. I didn’t say it was funny. :}

272. dmduncan - December 9, 2010

270: “With Bush, you had a large pool of people out to protect their own personal interests.”

What I mean is that by and large more average Americans backed GW and what he was doing than didn’t. We invaded Iraq in 2003. GW won reelection the next year with a voter turnout not seen since 1968. A war based on fear which drove a preemptive first strike policy which probably most average Americans accepted as necessary because of what happened on 9/11 — not because Iraq under Saddam Hussein had anything to do with it.

Like Nero, it’s as if we wanted to get rid of the perceived threat around the world one hotspot after another.

Hell, that’s what we’re still doing. If we really wanted peace we’d stop creating blowback and own up to what we do.

273. gingerly - December 9, 2010

Agreed about American politics but I still think in the case of the film, Ayel or somebody would have said something after a certain point.

274. ulva - December 10, 2010

How about a really good script? You can have the most brilliant director ever but it won’t help if the script is bad.

275. Arlo Scot - December 10, 2010

So glad that all that baggage was stripped away for the new movie. It crippled the next gen series and all the big screen attempts in the past. If someone can get the feel from the original series right, the film could be a hit, but the tired old formats with little new being offered, will surely be theeee death of the “franchise”.

276. Matthew - January 21, 2011

Love the film or hate it (I personally adore it…2nd only to TWOK), this community owes JJ Abrams a HUGE debt of gratitude. The community was dying on its arse…forums and newsgroups were havens for spammers, and this pop icon/cultural phenomenon was breathing its last breath… but now we’re thriving again. Only an idiot would deny it.

Even if they make 2 more, and you STILL don’t like them, they will keep the franchise alive, and you will still stand a greater than ever chance of seeing a new small screen series commissioned, which is the traditional and rightful home of Trek.

277. ugg boots cleanrance - December 13, 2011

This is a great and helpful article.

278. uggs on sale - January 4, 2012

I receive here from google, but unfortunatelly Im not found the things i want. But it’s a great article! THX!Kate Ruhn

279. ArrolfLor - January 4, 2012

[url=http://www.nikeshoesonlineaustralia.com]nike shop[/url]

http://www.vibramsydney.com

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