JJ Abrams: Star Trek Sequel ‘Still Being Worked Out’ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: Star Trek Sequel ‘Still Being Worked Out’ December 10, 2010

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

Last week Star Trek sequel producer (and possible director) JJ Abrams, along with the new Uhura Zoe Saldana, attended a Children’s Defense Fund event in Los Angeles. Both talked briefly about the Star Trek sequel on the red carpet, with Abrams giving an update on the script. See video and photos below. . 


Abrams: Star Trek sequel still being worked out

Hollyscoop caught up with JJ Abrams at the Children’s Defense Fund California Beat the Odds Awards Ceremony on December 2nd. In a video interview, Abrams gave a brief update on the Star Trek sequel:

We don’t have a script yet and it is being worked out so it is too early to talk about what it might be, because it hasn’t happened yet.

Abrams also talks about how much he "loves" working with Tom Cruise on Mission: Impossible: IV, the Children’s Defense Fund, and the upcoming Oscar race, noting that he loved Inception. Watch the full Hollyscoop video.

Zoe Saldana was also at the event, and she talked to Hollyscoop mostly about the CDF, but did note that she expect to be shooting the Star Trek sequel before the Avatar sequel.


Here are some official photos from the CDF California Beat the Odds Awards Ceremony:

J.J. Abrams and Katie McGrath with Ruth-Ann Huvane
J.J. Abrams and Katie McGrath with Ruth-Ann Huvane

Beat the Odds Honoree Jonathan Calderon and J.J. Abrams
Beat the Odds Honoree Jonathan Calderon and J.J. Abram

Zoe Saldana
Zoe Saldana presents at CDF event


1. Chris Pike - December 10, 2010

get on with it..!

2. Ashsprout - December 10, 2010

A year and a half until it comes out! I have no idea if its usual or not to not have a script yet. I would guess that it will happen when it happens and all this speculation isn’t doing any good.

3. ensign joe - December 10, 2010

Not too early for us to talk about though eh J.J.? And when I say us I mean we.. as in you and I.. as in me.. lol

4. THX-1138 - December 10, 2010

Truly illuminating.

But I don’t really expect anybody to say anything until opening night anyway.

5. Trekprincess - December 10, 2010

What is taking them:/

6. Iva - December 10, 2010

Oh…. Zoe seems to go about getting more screen time the same way Nicols did with Roddenberry.
(hint: not just the action whore)

7. nuSpock - December 10, 2010

#6— That was TOTALLY uncalled for and COMPLETELY disrespectful.

8. Harry Ballz - December 10, 2010


Iva………as in Iva good mind to slap you silly for such a tasteless remark?

9. Robman007 - December 10, 2010

I would not be surprised if the film gets moved to a different month, or end of 2012. Just seems to be going along slowly. If it makes for another awesome Trek experience, then take all the time in the world!!

10. Robman007 - December 10, 2010

I’m also surprised that there has been no mention of the fact that last nights “The Big Bang Theory” had Sheldon and Amy using Kohlinar from the Motion Picture and played heavily on Sheldons love of Spock..as well as commenting on how horrible a film TMP was.

I always find it funny when TMP is dissed. It was such a bad film. The Klingon scene and the Enterprise were awesome, but it was just not that good. I’ve felt that way for the last 30 years. I’d rather watch Trek V…at least that played like an episode from Season 3 (still not that good, but better then TMP and Insurrection).

11. SubspaceJock - December 10, 2010

Are JJ and company taking the reins on this script, or might the final scripting of the film end up in the hands of a yet-to-be-determined director? If it’s the latter, this could be great news! If not..And these guys just ultimately aren’t coming up with a primo script, then this next Trek could be in trouble. Guys, I know you don’t wanna rehash Khan, and that decision is right on..But, bring on Nick Meyer! He’ll give you a Trek with a killer story and a ton of passion. JJ + Meyer would equal kick-ass Star Trek…IMHO.

12. CmdrR - December 10, 2010

Just not sure how to react to this non-update. Ah well. I guess life in Hollywood is the art of turning 2-3 years of talking lunches into 2 hours of popcorn-munching.

13. Dee - December 10, 2010

Hey JJAbrams! ….Ok! … when script get ready warns us PLEASE!!!!….hmmmm … LOL!

14. Author of "The Vulcan Neck PInch for Fathers" - December 10, 2010

@10 – Wow, never heard anyone say they’d rather watch Trek V rather than TMP. Despite its flaws, TMP is a decent move. OTOH, Trek V is an abomination.

Abrams comments re script development are surely more tepid than what we had heard previously. Makes me wonder if a “trial balloon” of a script was floated and nixed for some reason, and its having to be reworked.

I’ve maintained all along that waiting until 2012 was too long to wait for the sequel, and here we are at the end of 2010 with no script yet, at least “officially.”

15. Jay - December 10, 2010

I don’t think it’s a big deal that the script isn’t done. I don’t follow movie making that closely, so I don’t know how unusual or not it is, but…. I think I’ve heard and read all along that the script wasn’t due until early 2011. That could be anytime between January and March.

They aren’t suppose to start production until the Summer of 2011 from what we’ve been seeing on this site, so what’s the big deal? I mean, it’s not like they will finish the script in December 2010, and then sit around until June 2011 to start production.

Remember pre-production and casting time will be much shorter than it was for the first one, so don’t compare the timeline of the two movies. It made sense to get a script early on the first movie because the had to use the script to convince actors and Paramount to buy into the movie full force. This time they don’t have to do that. Everyone knows what to expect in terms of quality, so they don’t really need the script so far in advance.

16. Iva - December 10, 2010

@7 – you will change your mind about the “uncalled for ” part
once the sequel comes out and we find out that NuSpock not only cheats on his future wife and abuses both his academy and enterprise position for an affair, like in the first movie, but will also manage to make a baby who will get to be called Renesmee and sparkle in the sunlight.
Because apparently that is what Star Trek got to be degraded to.
Oh, and she will talk J.J. into giving her more of the screen time that should have gone to Bones who is already demoted to a support character both in the movie and the posters, and the triad will continue to be broken down for the sake of a cheap sex interest.

17. CmdrR - December 10, 2010

14 — Wow. “abomination.” Felt that one right in the marshmellons.

18. Jay - December 10, 2010

#16 – What? Abuses his position for an affair??? Cheats?

What are you making up?

I don’t see how anything you said has anything to do with the response to your rediculous comment earlier, or the ST09 movie.

19. The Original Spock's Brain - December 10, 2010

“Star Track”???

20. Iva - December 10, 2010

@18 – Oh, nevermind, I thought I was talking to a trekkie. Nowadays you just can’t tell who is in it because of Sylar and who is real.

Btw, truth is never ridiculous, and if Nicols isn’t ashamed of herself, I don’t see why I should ignore her autobiography for the sake of a misguided Zoe fan.

21. Jay - December 10, 2010

I guess I’m confused.. You said “like in the first movie” so I assumed you were talking about ST09, but nothing like what you said happened in that movie.

Being a Trekkie or not has nothing to do with being “real”.

What Nicols did and wrote in her autobiography has nothing to do with Zoe either.

I still don’t get what any of this has to do with your rediculous comment about Zoe earlier in the thread, and people’s response to it.

But I’m sure you will just keep ignoring the point and spouting jiberish.

22. Remington Steele - December 10, 2010

Iva….I’m a firm believer in letting people voice opinions, but yours just seem to be a spiteful attempt at getting your point across.

What you have written is in bad taste, very insulting, unbelievably rude and insulting.

We can all have issues with the new movie, i do anyway, but you can be consturctive in what you say and not just spit bile out there.

If that’s what you want to do, please go elsewhere and dont try and drag people down with this sort of tripe.

23. liv - December 10, 2010

@ 20.

Chill the freaky boner.

You consider yourself a trekkie? I’m sorry, I was under the impression that Trekkies took life lessons out of the series. Such as respect, acceptance of all people, and love. Congrats on being a self righteous hater, though.

24. Jay - December 10, 2010

Well anyway, back to the point. I think there should be no worry about the script not being done yet.

Seems to me that if they get the script in by March, they still have plenty of time to complete this movie and have it “in the can” by January 2012, which is 6 months before it’s release. So, it looks to me like they have all the time in the world to get it right.

25. Dr. Image - December 10, 2010

#16 Iva- Well I DO agree that Bones has had to take a backseat in the “new” triad. Yeah, for the sake of adding sex appeal to the movie.
Let’s hope it doesn’t get out of hand the next time around.
Urban is too great to waste in a minor supporting role.

26. Aurore - December 10, 2010

In fact, new Spock will manage to have twin babies : Renesmee and Giovanna.

You all heard it here first.

P.S. : I, personally , can’t wait to see them sparkle in the sunlight. However, I think Mr Abrams should also consider the possibility of letting them glow through the lens flares ( I wasn’t bothered by them in the least. I realise it is not a popular opinion ,but, it is mine anyway).


27. Jay - December 10, 2010

#25… i can see that point, but I don’t think it was for the sake of “adding sex appeal”. Star Trek has always had a large amount of sex, especially TOS.

I think there was very little sex in ST09 compared to TOS, which is what this movie is suppose to be set in the time of. There was one love scene that was VERY PG, and a couple of brief “underwear” scenes.

TNG had alot less of it, mainly because Picard wasn’t trying to bed every alian female he met like Kirk was. Maybe that’s why people have this idea that Star Trek doesn’t have sex.

28. Iva - December 10, 2010

Given how far the breach of canon has gone already
(and just how does a destroyed spaceship make ones personality on vulcan take a 180? o.O)
NuSpock could be menstruating too.

29. Jay - December 10, 2010

#28… LOL… so you are one of those huh? Hight and mightly thinking you know what canon is and what makes Star Trek Star Trek. LMAO

There isn’t one incarnation of Star Trek that followed canon… not even TOS followed it from one show to the next.

I get such a kick out of people that get so worked up over this myth of canon.

30. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - December 10, 2010

Ok. Tidbits are nice. But how about some real news. Like J.J Directing or any actors being cast for the movies. Like Maybe Tom Hanks. But could Tom Cruise be in the next Trek. They both love working together. Wouldn’t it be something if both Cruise and Hanks were both cast to be in Star Trek. Hanks as Commodore Decker and Cruise maybe as a bad guy. Talk about big numbers world wide.

31. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - December 10, 2010

#6. For that Lame Post you get 72 Hours in the Agoniser booth. # 8 Harry. You get a lifetime pass from the Agoniser Booth. Because you are just to Kool. Even though you do not like Erica Durrence. Lol.

32. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - December 10, 2010

Bob Orci. Make a great Trek you also get a lifetime pass from the Agoniser Booth. Bad Trek gets you 120 hours in the Agoniser Booth! Got It !!!!!!!

33. Robman007 - December 10, 2010

14..yeah, I prefer 5 over TMP. 5, while having terrible forced humor and bad special effects still felt more like an original episode then anything that came before it. Not that it helped, but I really, really enjoyed the scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy. The villian was not a villian intent on destroying all life but just a misguided religious zealot who found a measure of redemption in the end. Also, the core trio grew to understand the important effect they shared in each others lives. That was the last time we got to see that relationship unfold in the film universe (as VI, while awesome, did not delve into the trio).

I do find it funny that the movies that went the route that many trek fans want the movies to go (adventure over action with a minor or no villian) have been the most hated of the series…1, 5, and 9.

As a note, I do like the Directors Edition of TMP. It puts the movie in the right direction, but still, once a turd, always a turd, even with a new coat of paint. The same would go for TFF if they redid the effects. Both are turds, I just prefer watching 5 instead.

34. Ringo Starr - December 10, 2010

We will start to hear leaks about the script pretty soon. The film is a year and a half away.

The entire process of making a major blockbuster has to travel through too many channels these days for the plot not to leak. As an example think of when Aint it Cool News leaked the basic concept on ST 09 about a year and a half before the film debuted.

We will know what this movie is about by May of this year at the absolute latest. More likely we will have an idea in the next 90 days.

35. Jay - December 10, 2010

#33.. i agree..

I think one reason those movies that had less action and not a big bad villan were such duds was because they were made for Star Trek fans, and not a general movie audience.

Nemesis is a great example also. Man that sucked. I think it was Michael Dorn that said it was made more for the Star Trek fan. That’s the problem. The Star Trek fan is such a small target audience compared to the general sci-fi/action movie, or summer movie going audience. People need to realize this is a buisness, and for these movies to succeeed to a degree that they haven’t before, then you have to broaden the target.

I like those aspects of those movies (the Star Trek fan), but I don’t want to spend money to see them. I guess that’s why I felt like alot of those movies felt like TV episodes. I would enjoy watching them on TV for free, but when I spend money to go to the movies, and especially taking my kids, and all the money that costs…. i want something more than a glorified TV episode.

I think JJ got it right. It was the type of Star Trek movie I have been wishing for for a long time. Something worth the trip to the movie theater and the money spent.

If you want to make something just for the typical Star Trek fans, then make it on TV, where you can still be successfull with a much smaller audience.

Something that you wait 2 or 3 years for and spend good money to go see should be alot more than something you could have watched on TV.

That’s my main complaint about most of the 10 previous movies. I’m much harder on them than the TV shows, because I think a movie should have much higher standards.

36. Robman007 - December 10, 2010

35: Jay…THANK YOU!! That is what I have been saying all along. There are hundreds of episodes with the crew of the whatever ship finding new life and mysteries…movies are a buiz, and you cannot cater to just the fans. When you do you end up with 9 and 10. I don’t want a stupid movie, and Trek 11 was not stupid, but I do want epic and not what I’ve seen on the small screen.

I want to see Trek go on and on, but it won’t if they make TV style fan need film, it won’t last long. Sad, but true.

37. Engineer #1 - December 10, 2010

Where do these reporters come from? She was awful! Abrams and Saldana just looked confused by the questions.

38. keachick - December 10, 2010

To Iva: For some reason, you seem to be confusing characters from Star Trek with the actors.
Zoe Saldana (as opposed to Uhura) recently married her lover of at least five years.
JJ Abrams is married to Katie McGrath (seen in photo above) and have three children.

The affair between Nichelle Nichols and Gene Roddenberry happened more than 40 years ago. Neither Gene nor Nichelle were unattractive people (anything but, when you see old pictures of them), so it is just as likely they were attracted to each other for more “primal”, “pheromonal” reasons… just a thought. Honestly, really…your comments are so tacky and comparing an affair between a couple 40 years ago with events happening now is just plain stupid.

And yes, what if Spock does have a baby with Uhura – in case you haven’t been paying attention – Vulcans have become an “endangered species”.
(Just in case of possible confusion, that does NOT mean that Zachary Quinto will be having a baby with Zoe Saldana).

At this rate, Iva and George Takei could set up their own site “The tacky, tactless trekkies”.

JJ Abrams is a tease. He’ll keep doing this sort of thing, just to…I don’t know, get attention, keep the interest, whatever. For goodness sake, JJ Abrams, just make a decision as to whether you are going to direct the sequel or not and don’t come back until you have decided. I don’t like teases – they annoy me and seem a little deceitful.

As with the story – please get on with it, although I believe that the studio does not expect a completed script to be turned in until the end of this year. They still have almost three weeks.

39. Chang - December 10, 2010

Aside from all the crazy, I do think McCoy has been turned into a supporting character . That said, I don’t think Saldana got a load of of screen time either. More interplay between McCoy and Spock please, that was hilarious.

Saldana has been great for the franchise. Also, is it really so unreasonable to expect the one female lead to get a significant amount of screan time?

40. John from Cincinnati - December 10, 2010

Who cares how long it takes as long as it’s good!

41. John from Cincinnati - December 10, 2010

RE: Zoe Saldana

How much screen time is deserving for a character whose lot in life is “hailing frequencies open Captain”….????

More McCoy Dammit! He’s part of the troika!

42. Iva - December 10, 2010

@39 – If she were a lead character…..yes.
But she is not,
so no – no more screen time for her. Especially not if it means a lead character – McCoy, has to get demoted to make space
serve as a ridiculous best friend parallel of a love affair triangle.

43. Chang - December 10, 2010

It doesn’t really matter what her position on the ship is. She could litterally be the Sigourney Weaver Character from Galaxy Quest, the point is she’s still the female lead.

44. Iva - December 10, 2010

So? That makes her more important then everybody else?

45. Iva - December 10, 2010

Besides, they already threw out both Chapel and Rand on her account
which is a major upgrade to her character,
not to mention demoting Bones and usurping Spock’s relationship with other two main characters. There should be only so much damage one can do by hooking up with J.J. but it seems I was wrong.
Hungry leech is hungry.

46. Chang - December 10, 2010

It means it makes more sense to use her as a character in a male dominated cast. This is a different movie, you can’t look at her as simply the Uhura from the original series, this is a new film and it has to be done in the way we do modern action films. This isn’t the sixties, they don’t just scream and run away from the monster. Now they kick its butt. She’s a breath of fresh air to a franchise that was on its last legs. Get used to it.

47. Iva - December 10, 2010

I know the two things are anatomically close
but still,
you should’t be mixing making your career by kicking somebody’s butt with making your career by stroking your academy instructor’s balls.

Apparently, that breath of fresh air goes no deeper that wearing no underwear.

But, hey, it makes money :D

48. gingerly - December 10, 2010


Note the funny unguarded giant laugh Zoe’s giving in that last photo?

49. keachick - December 10, 2010

Seriously, what is your problem, Iva?

Uhura was wearing underwear and so was Kirk, otherwise the movie would not have got a PG-13 rating. Besides, that was just one scene and I’m sure many people would have liked to have seen more of Uhura (and Kirk) in their underwear…:)

Gosh, you mean to say that the writers showed that a main character (Spock) could actually have a life outside the USS Enterprise “boys club”, with a woman, no less -heavens forbid.
And what’s more, imagine that Uhura maybe genuinely liked Spock, just for being who he is and was certainly talented enough NOT to need to make a good career in Starfleet “by stroking your academy instructor’ s balls”. Gee, more tackiness, and anyway, who says that Spock and Uhura could not be in a relationship? They are both adults.

I’m sure that the friendship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy will be developed and shown. I agree that Karl Urban’s talent should not be wasted and his character, Bones McCoy, needs to be given ample opportunity to shine even more than he did in the first film. Neither should Zoe Saldana’s abilities be wasted on just “Hailing frequencies open, Captain” either. I think the writers have quite a balancing act to do to get it right.

50. Iva - December 10, 2010

Oh, her abilities are being put to good use, don’t worry about that :))

51. CarlG - December 10, 2010

Guys, feeding the troll is illogical. Let Iva slink back under the bridge.

52. CarlG - December 10, 2010

I don’t know; half of me is thinking, take all the time you need to make it wonderful… and the other half is jumping up and down, shouting, “I want it yesterday!!” :)

53. Aurore - December 10, 2010

I want it NOW!!!……………………..ahem………..sorry.

54. Hugh Hoyland - December 10, 2010

I’m a little impatient to (three years between movies! lol) but come on, theres nothing to indicate that this movie is nothing less than 100% on schedule. And the guys (Bob) have said that their still putting it together, and that takes time. But once they get the script really done and in, get the director be it JJ or not, this thing will get filmed rather quickly, thats how Hollywood works from my understanding.

55. gingerly - December 10, 2010

Also, it’s good to see JJ and Saldana putting their holidays to use for the betterment of others.

I remember when this photo was going around Trek forums last year:


That’s at the LA Mission @ Thanksgiving. Some people make silly faces while helping others for the holidays. It’s great to see Zoe seems to be making a habit of doing both.

56. Phaser Guy - December 10, 2010

3 years between movies is nothing. Star Wars did it.

57. gingerly - December 10, 2010


Once you see them you can’t unsee them lol. And they become somewhat of a mini-meme. I’d say easing up would probably be a good idea. :)

58. Chang - December 10, 2010

@ 52

I know the feeling. Really don’t want them to rush it but at the same time I’m Jonesing.

59. BlackBirdCD - December 10, 2010

At this rate they can re-tell Wrath of Khan in the third movie – the actors will be the same age as the TOS crew was when they filmed ST II

60. Anthony Pascale - December 10, 2010


you are skirting on trolling and posting inappropriate content…tone it down

61. Harry Ballz - December 10, 2010

31. “Harry…a lifetime pass from the Agoniser Booth…because you are just to kool”

Why, thanks, Capt. Mike! I’m glad to see someone enjoys giving me kool-aid!

62. Jarok - December 10, 2010

The problem is that for JJ this is just another film. It isn’t special in anyway.
If the date get pushed out to2012, he don’t, lots of movies have their dates pushed out. This is the problem with putting Trek inn the hands of someone whois not dedicated to Trek. JJ has lots of other things to work on, and the next Trek movie isonly one of them.

63. Basement Blogger - December 10, 2010

Okay, here comes my anti-3D rant. Just saw the trailer for “Thor” which says it’s coming out in 3-D. Researc hed it and found out it’s a conversion. (story below) “Thor” is distributed by Paramount. And so is the upcoming “Star Trek” film.

Conversions in 3-D stink. They’re too dark. And the special effects suffer because they’re not made for the dimension. See “The Last Airbender.” Unfortunately, 3-D movies make money. So, I wonder if there’s going to be pressure to release Star Trek (2012) in 3-D. I’ll bet there will be.

I hope J.J. Abrams uses his clout and convinces Paramount to spend the extra dough to film Star Trek (2012) in NATIVE 3-D. That’s assuming that Star Trek will be released in 3-D. Trek Nation, Star Trek deserves the same quality 3-D quality that Avatar had.

1. Thor and Captain America will be 3-D conversions.

64. Jack2211 - December 10, 2010

I want two of whatever Iva’s having.

60. just ‘skirting’ on trolling?

62. Doesn’t that (plenty of projects, busy schedules) kind of apply to anyone successfully working in film? To me at least, the guy has thoroughly shown himself to be dedicated to Trek. Somebody who didn’t care about it couldn’t have made that last movie. I don’t get the whole ‘J.J. isn’t one of us’ thing. Dude knows the show. The 50 regular posters on here can’t be the only folks who watched all 3 seasons of a tv show that’s been on for 5 decades. Meyer wasn’t, and isn’t, a Trek fan. I’ve never heard that Rick Berman was either.

J.J. can’t like Star Wars too (I sure did/do)?

65. Red Dead Ryan - December 10, 2010

So J.J loves working with Tom Cruise. I really hope this isn’t any kind of foreshadowing.


66. Jack2211 - December 11, 2010

Okay, I just made the mistake of reading all of Iva’s postings here — we’ve apparently got a long, long way to go ’til the no-racism/sexism-glory-days of the 23rd century. Disappointing. Racist. Sexist. And utterly inaccurate.

I’m sad when the discussion on this site turns into schoolyard name calling.

And 63. I agree on the 3D darkness thing — it’s like watching movies through someone else’s prescription sunglasses. And it’s just distracting – which probably helps with some films. Any chance of the 3D fad passing by the time the next Trek is in production? I hope so.

67. janice - December 11, 2010

No new ST news I see.

All I want for Christmas is for PIKE ( Bruce Greenwood ) to have a good role in the ST sequel. That’s it!!

68. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - December 11, 2010

#64. As a Crazy Trek Fan who has seen all of the Tos Eps a million times and on some eps quote a lot of lines I Agree with you. In my Opnion J.J is one of us along with Bob and and Alex and the rest of the court. They had a tough job in making Trek 09 appeal to us hard core fans and to the rest of the masses. It was a thin line but I think they did with with grace and agility and they are trying to do it again on the next Movie. As far as J.J and the court working on other projects that can only be good for Trek. As they do these other projects and make them go then when there names pop up with Trek the general masses will know that Trek will be well made and give it a look. Along with Chris Pine and Zoe Saldona in the movies they have been making and the rest of the Trek Movie Cast and writers. Hawaii five 0 is becoming a top rated show with the writing of Bob and Alex and that can be only good for Trek.

69. dmduncan - December 11, 2010

I don’t think 3D is catching on the way everyone expected after Avatar.

70. P Technobabble - December 11, 2010

69. dm

I agree. And I think part of the problem is some notion on the part of the studios that 3D is a major selling point. 3D or not, a bad movie is a bad movie.

71. Red Dead Ryan - December 11, 2010

3D is clearly here to stay. 3D televisions are on the market, with some channels being broadcast in 3D. True, “Avatar” made the most money from 3D, but “Clash Of The Titans”, and “Alice In Wonderland” did quite well too. Also, 3D gaming has arrived. Even if it isn’t true 3D, people have already latched onto it. There is no going back.

I guarantee the next Trek movie will be in 3D. There is no way Paramount would ignore such a potentially big revenue source. It’s not J.J Abrams’ decision. The choice belongs to the studio, which is in the business to make money.

72. Charla - December 11, 2010

Tepid was a good description.

Bah hum bug

73. Gary Neumann, the WRATHFULL SEQUEL OF STAR TREK - December 11, 2010

So… we will get a tepid sequel then? So much for star trek then…

74. I am not Herbert - December 11, 2010

BETTER GET ON IT!! …time to choose a director who actually understands and cares about Star Trek, Dammit!!

75. Jack2211 - December 11, 2010

Has there been a Sequel in 3D poll on here yet?

And if it’s released in 3D but not filmed in 3D – so there’s a non-3D option — well, I’d be fine with that. It’s just such a miserable viewing experience. It was really nice to see the latest Harry Potter without the darned glasses — although, I know, the next one will be in 3D.

76. Hat Rick - December 11, 2010

This thread seems to have some of the least pleasant postings in it. I’m not sure why.

By the way, lots of things are in process up until the last minute. We’re more than a year away from release. The fact that they’re still working on the sequel doesn’t surprise me.

77. V'Ger23 - December 11, 2010

I think Star Trek fans can be so ugly sometimes.

Unfortunately, people like “IVA” ony represent about 20% of the fanbase, but they are the ones that stick out the most and make the most noise…giving regular fans a bad name.

78. dmduncan - December 11, 2010

71: “There is no going back.”

Nothing is here to stay. And there is ALWAYS the possibility of going back.

Try to stand on the observation deck of the World Trade Center if you don’t believe me.

79. dmduncan - December 11, 2010

Seeing #77 reminded me of a plot hole in STTMP I was thinking about the other day.

Why does V’GER call itself V’GER?

I mean you’ve got this massive artificial intelligence ship that is godlike in its power and it can’t scrub the dirt off the OYA on the plaque to learn it’s name is actually Voyager, not V’ger?

80. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - December 11, 2010

Hat Rick. “This thread seems to have some of the least pleasant postings in it. I’m not sure why.”

not sure either, but I know it has something to do with Zoe.

81. Hat Rick - December 11, 2010

Frankly, the idea that being a Trek fan means that you automatically subscribe to a certain way of conversation no longer holds water — if it ever did, and more’s the pity.

Even academic journals, I might add, are not immune to questionable remarks. People are people all over.

I think that it could be that people feel strongly about certain issues and therefore are passionate in their postings. Believe me, I wish Messrs. Abram et al. would “get on with it,” etc., and I have strong opinions about other things in Trek. Nevertheless, sometimes — perhaps oftentimes — more heat than light is produced on these computer bulletin boards (as we used to call them). People sometimes ask how fans could possibly communicate before we had these sites to post our opinions — and the answer, perhaps, should be — quite well enough, thank you very much. :-)

82. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - December 11, 2010

dmducan. I watched the end of it on cable the other night and wondered the same. It really is like a child -not a very bright one- who needs to read his name off his own jacket.

83. captain_neill - December 11, 2010


I don’t mind real 3D for the odd film but too many films are being converted to 3D and does not add anything.

3D actually annoys me now.

84. Basement Blogger - December 11, 2010

I just want to make my anti-3D rant clear. It’s the 3-D conversion that is the problem. Films shot in native 3-D don’t bother me as much as the conversion. And I am so glad that the new Harry Potter movie was not released in 3-D. That movie would look like mud if converted. There were so many night scenes that crisp special effects would have been a mess. On the other hand, this summer they will release the sequel in 3-D and it will be converted.

Dead Red Ryan (@ 71) is right. The studios are making a lot of money right now on 3-D. Check out the wikipedia article below and the flood of movies coming out in 3-D for 2011. If the production costs drop for 3-D, who’s to say where it will stop. The “Kids are All Right 2″ in 3-D? That’s why filmgoers must protest 3-D conversions. If the conversion doesn’t look right or adds nothing, why convert? Come on studios, films are a mixture of commerce and art. Lean a little on the art here.

How does this effect Star Trek (2012)? Like I said, I can see the pressure for a 3-D release. And if Paramount wants a 3-D release, then Trek Nation must demand that IT BE FILMED IN NATIVE 3-D. Look, Tron: Legacy was filmed in native 3-D. We must have the same quality as Avatar.

J.J. Abrams has expressed his doubts about 3-D. (Trekmovie article below) Filming in 3-D does have some advantages. Directors will likely use less fast edits and handheld cameras. Both of which cause many filmgoers motion sickness. Still, a director is not handcuffed. Look at what James Cameron did with Avatar. Sweeping camera shots. Big actions set pieces. J.J. Abrams chose film over video for Star Trek (2009) for its imperfections. (Disc One, making of doc) I view this as favoring the warmth of film over the reality of video. I like his decision. I think J.J. Abrams can adjust to direct in 3-D. And no matter who directs the next Star Trek, I just hope J.J. Abrams has the clout to demand it be filmed in native 3-D if Paramount wants a 3-D movie.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film
2. http://trekmovie.com/2010/07/22/jj-abrams-talks-3-d-movies-super-8-at-comic-con-full-abramswhedon-panel-report/

85. Bucky - December 11, 2010

There’s no script and Spidey is already shooting. Isn’t Spidey out a week later? Wouldn’t they have comparable amount of FX post-production work?

86. Sachi - December 11, 2010

They just don’t have a final script. They’re still working on it.

Chris Nolan supposedly just turned in the final(?) Batman script on the 6th. PRE-production is rumored to start in March. That comes out July 20, 2012.

It’s no big deal.

87. gingerly - December 11, 2010


3D also alienates a good portion of folks with vision problems and those that get headaches from the visual dissonance. And yes, I am aware that regular 2D viewing is always offered, as well.

I think it can work well, but I have yet to see anything combine optimum visuals with a great story. Nope. Not even Avatar.

More often than not it’s gimmicky and looks like crap.

88. dmduncan - December 11, 2010

Well, apart from the occasional thing-that-comes flying-out-of-the-screen-at-you effect, what else is there to recommend it? After about 20 minutes I’m not paying attention to it anymore. And if they keep throwing things at me then it’s hard to escape that they’re just using it gratuitously. I mean, for a really good movie I don’t NEED 3D to become immersed in its world, and what argument is there that 3D would immerse me more? Does someone have an Immerse-O-Meter they can measure that on?

As for 3DTV, sales haven’t been great. I suspect they’ll pick up when models start coming out that don’t require glasses, which would more closely match lifestyles like mine where TV watching is casual, something that goes on while I’m doing 3 other things vs. me parking my butt on the couch for 4 hours, which I rarely do.

What about 3D websurfing? Y’know, Trekmovie in 3D where my posts hang in front of yoru nose so vividly you feel you can reach out and corect my spelilng mstiakes?

89. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 11, 2010

Spock and Uhura FOREVER!!!

I absolutely loved the fact that they were an item in this movie, and please, please keep it that way!!! I also loved the open door for a possible romantic interaction between Kirk/Uhura down the line – but keep her with Spock for the long haul!!!

Mr. JJ Abrams, I LOVED the lens flares and the way you made the movie (a little less shaky cam in still scenes would be appreciated though, but that’s such a small thing I can overlook it). Oh, and it would be great if this time we could get a bedroom scene with Spock and Uhura. That would be sooooo nice. :)

Fantastic job!!! Keep it up!!! I hope you do the next movie JJ!!!

90. John - December 11, 2010

Lets hope the next film deals with the intellectual side of Trek and a bit more exploration than the gun blazing kill the bad guy version that has dumbed down Trek.

91. Green-Blooded-Bastard - December 11, 2010

I ate a tire.

92. Jack2211 - December 12, 2010

90. Sigh. Brain and brain. What is brain?

93. Anthony Thompson - December 12, 2010

A month ago JJ said that the sequel story was “very cool”. Now it’s being “worked out”? Hmmmmmmm.

94. Anthony Thompson - December 12, 2010

34. Ringo

I remember folks like you predicting leaks about the last film! And it never happened, did it? Ha!

95. Scruffy the bubble burster vampire janitor - December 12, 2010

I dont care about the other argument in this thread, but I do have to enforce the anti-canon cannon

IN TOS, they made it up as they went along. There was no plan except to make a TV show, and make money. They didnt set out to change the world, that came about later and un intentionally

I had to make a similar argument in another fictional universe chat room! OY VEY.

It’s a TV show, not real! NOT REAL! repeat after me: It’s not real!


96. D-Mar - December 12, 2010

#93 – The story can be very cool when you are looking at an 8 page draft that will turn into a 120 page script hence the “it’s still being worked on ” statement.

97. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2010

Well, since there was no mention of the new script in the WikiLeaks files, I’d say they’ve done a great job at keeping it all under wraps. :-)


“I ate a tire.”

Are you now getting sick AND “tire-d”?

98. Charla - December 12, 2010

Ok, we may have judged JJ’s remarks without thinking JJ may have been distracted by something else. Maybe myself and others here misread his lack of enthusiasm. It might get old to hear the same questions repeatedly.

He also may have wanted to keep the topic about the reason he and other people were there, for the Children’s Defense Fund. Or maybe he was just plain tired and wanted to go home. Who knows.

I think that we Star Trek fans are a little demanding at times. I think it is because most fans long for the day when everyone works, plays and fights for the common good. Without prejudice, and with the ultimate loyalty to each other as portrayed in our beloved franchise, Star Trek.

OK not to sound like I don’t have I life (I do) because of the following:

This way of life doesn’t exist in our world today, so we rely on really good, talented writers to invent this for us, so we can escape the harsh truths of reality for a very short time. But I do think we Trekkies/Trekkers take some of this with us and try to implement the ideas expressed in Rodenberry’s world into our own lives. Though Star Trek is completely fictional, the premise is not, and is obtainable, though very unlikely in today’s world.

So with that said, yes we can get nit picky, demanding at times. But it isn’t just a movie for some of us fans, it’s an idea, one we strive for, that we want to see made into something we too can experience. I believe that is why some of us really can’t wait until the next movie is released and why we die hards come to this website almost daily.

I think the next movie will be as good as the first one, especially with Bob on board. He has shown so much interest in what we fans think and feel. I have never heard of anyone of his stature showing that kind of interest in what fans want. Many thanks to him for that.

It’s in good hands and we do need practice patience regarding what we hear and see in the media, and not jump to conclusions. I did and posted my knee jerk reaction to the clip. I wish I hadn’t posted now so quickly after giving some thought to it.

99. Rastaman - December 12, 2010

I think there is a script, and they are just playing with us at this point. The longer they keep spouting the “there’s no script” response the better for them. Once word is out that the script is finished, fans will be hounding for more details. At the very least, they know exactly what story is going to be told, and I am sure Abrams is well aware of it.

100. Damian - December 12, 2010

A few notes: 3-D is ok as long as it is made for 3D. Don’t do it as an afterthought.

I think Karl Urban needs more screen time. Looking back on Star Trek (2009) McCoy did seem to be dangerously close to being a supporting character. I firmly believe the Kirk/Spock/McCoy friendship/family is integral in any Star Trek universe. I’m ok with a Spock/Uhura romance as long as it does not interfere with that family relationship. I know this is an alternate universe and the prior canon no longer completely applies, but so much of what made Star Trek great was that relationship between the 3 of them. I think it would be a mistake to ignore that.

Also, while we are in a new universe, there are some things in canon that would still apply. Bob Orci says he is a Trekkie, so I probably do not need to worry. Just keep things in mind from the prime universe when writing and don’t throw it all away.

101. MC1 Doug - December 12, 2010

I might remind fans that ‘Star Trek – The Motion Picture’ went before the camera without a completed script and it turned out as the best TREK film of them all.

I’m not kidding. Yeah, I know I’m gonna get slammed for this posting.


102. tiberius - December 12, 2010

Just had a thought. JJ should direct the sequel and then the third should go to matt reeve with jj producing

103. Battle-scarred Sciatica - December 12, 2010


104. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2010

101. “Star Trek — The Motion Picture….turned out as the best TREK film of them all”


(wipes tear)

Oh, mercy! Well, okay, Doug……hey, whatever floats your boat!

They wanted it to soar, but it made people snore!

105. Stanky McFibberich - December 12, 2010

re: 101
I agree. It holds up the best of all.
Unlike this Abrams generic hypercrapola.

106. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2010


Are there any Trek movies you DO like?

As for “The Motion-less Picture”

It was such a bore,
The uniforms were an eyesore,
The overall quality poor,
They left for the door,
Everyone wanted more,
But all they did was snore,
While the critics tore,
After movie number one,
Star Trek was almost done,
But soon Khan took soar,
And boy, what fun!

P.S I actually don’t mind TMP. Middle of the road in terms of Trek films.

107. dmduncan - December 12, 2010

I really wish I could see what Harold Livingston’s original script was like for TMP.

108. gingerly - December 12, 2010


Yours is not an unpopular opinion.

Some people go for extended visual metaphors and don’t mind not being entertained in the process. ;)

A lot of Trekkies will most certainly trade authenticity for quality or watchability.

Not considering the possibility of the both, being contained in the same film.

Just because it hasn’t happened yet, does not mean it can’t.

109. Hugh Hoyland - December 12, 2010

107 dmduncan

I searched for what seemed like forever to find that script. I think just by shear blind luck I ran onto a site that had at least most of, if not all the original script posted and of course read some of it. But it was late and I was tired so I thought I would save it and come back later, and copy it. Somehow I messed up and didnt, and I havent been able to find it since.
But from what I can tell you of what I read, it was at least an easier read than TMP screenplay. Scaled back of course for TV I suppose. One thing that struck me was the “no Spock” part. And if memory serves, V’ger was called N’sa instead.

110. Trek Nerd Central - December 12, 2010

I’m STILL waiting for my JJ bobblehead.

111. dmduncan - December 12, 2010

109. Hugh Hoyland – December 12, 2010

Livingston wrote a teleplay, “In Thy Image” (which was based on a treatment by Alan Dean Foster of John Meredyth Lucas’ story for “The Changeling (TOS #32)) for the phase II ST series. But then he expanded it into a screenplay when that was scrapped in favor of a movie. Did you read what he wrote for TMP or the scrapped series? From what I understand he was very unhappy with the changes Roddenberry made. I’m not sure if Spock was back on at that point or not, but I I think they had all been signed when Livingston wrote the screenplay, in which case Spock should have been in what you read if it was the movie version.

112. dmduncan - December 12, 2010

Did you know that Francis Coppola was one of the directors considered for TMP?

113. Jack2211 - December 12, 2010

Tmp was one of Shatner’s best performances, with 3 and 2 following.

114. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2010


Of course, Ryan. I liked TWOK, TSFS and the latest one by Abrams. The rest are dogshit.

115. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2010


I happen to like them all to varying degrees. But my three favorites are “The Wrath Of Khan”, “First Contact” and “Star Trek”, with “The Search For Spock” coming in fourth.

But “Star Trek” ’09 is the first movie featuring actors who are just entering their prime or are in their prime. Also, unlike the others, this film HAS a cinematic feel. Even TWOK and FC feel like extended episodes or tv movies in comparison. And finally, while death was featured in the new movie, it was done differently in that the characters, Kirk and Spock in particular, have their lives changed and are destined for great things because of it. And no one was pondering their mortality or wondering if they still belong in command of a ship.

One last thing Harry, which Trek shows do you like/dislike?

I like them all, though “Voyager” comes in last because of its inconsistency. “The Original Series”, “The Next Generation” and “Deep Space Nine” are all tied at top spot for me. Then its “Enterprise”, with its third and fourth seasons being spectacular.

116. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2010

My favourite TV Trek is TOS and TNG. DS9 had some good things to it. Voyager just didn’t know what to do with itself. I like what Enterprise tried to be, but could not get into it because I just didn’t buy Scott Bakula in the lead (even though I like him other shows). He didn’t strike me as starship captain material. It’s all pretty subjective, isn’t it? Like debating which music one likes.

117. Thomas - December 12, 2010

95. Scruffy the bubble burster vampire janitor

“IN TOS, they made it up as they went along. There was no plan except to make a TV show, and make money.”

I made that very same argument in a previous post. I also pointed out that it wasn’t just endemic to TOS. It was pretty common in 60’s TV writing to make things up just “for the purposes of this episode”. I cited the example of The Andy Griffith Show, which gave Barney Fife no fewer than three different middle names; interestingly enough, the “accepted” middle name (following the Trek line of reasoning) is the only one shown onscreen, in a mockup of a yearbook page.

118. Trevor John - December 13, 2010

Two things:

1. TMP is my favorite Trek film, although it tends to compete directly with Wrath of Khan, and WOK occasionally trumps it. Yeah, seriously. It’s epic. It’s about big ideas and concepts. Sure, it leeches from The Changeling, but this is basically Changeling 2.0 – it took the original concept and gave it a huge overhaul, so much so that the “leeching” can be completely overlooked. It also has some of the best Kirk / McCoy / Spock scenes in the entire canon. That scene with Kirk and Spock in Sickbay about their friendship is one of the most touching ever.

2. Abrams doesn’t seem dedicated to making Star Trek. This movie could easily fall down into development hell; Abrams seems way more excited and pumped about other films he’s working on. I guess, second best case scenario, he hands the project to another director, citing lack of time available. Actually, that could be THE best case scenario, depending on your satisfaction with the first reboot film. I didn’t like it. It was all flash and bang without substance. TMP is leaps and bounds beyond Star Trek 2009 in depth and vision.

119. balok - December 13, 2010

What, no Mr. Orci post?

120. Aurore - December 13, 2010

Who knows? The man is probably busy.

121. P Technobabble - December 13, 2010

Now, now, let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who…
oops, wrong film…
TMP, as it was originally released, certainly failed on a number of levels. The director’s cut was a definite improvement, but the film stilled lacked any kind of suspense and tension, and V’ger wasn’t much of an antagonist.
However, I find the film has a certain charm about it, and it’s a great movie to watch late at night. The story does pose the grand philosophical questions in a unique way — that machines could evolve to the point that they asked the same questions. And, more than any other film in the series, it was hard sci-fi, and not the space operas the other films were.
Save for De Kelley, the acting was pretty wooden, but it fit the mood of the piece.
I’ve even seen it in b & w. It could’ve been made in the fifties, minus the high-tech design and effects.

122. Hugh Hoyland - December 13, 2010

111 What I read was “In Thy Image” Im certain it was the Phase ll teleplay I have the TMP screenplay as well. Again I brushed over it but there where differences, in this one, Xon was the new Science officer, not Spock. Also I did look for something mentioned in the motion picture comments about Xon making duplicate andriods of himself to fool V’ger/N’sa and that was in there as well.

In the end, from what I glanced V’ger decided that mankind was the creater by outsmarting him and decided not to destroy humanity, then simply went on his way.

I’ll try and find it again on my day off work when Im on my PC.

123. Iva - December 13, 2010

@ 66 –

Calling me a racist won’t make Nuhura any less a cheap Mary Sue.

124. captain_neill - December 13, 2010


I disagree, I feel First Contact does feel like a cinematic movie, its Insurrection and Generations I feel that feel like extended episodes.

I guess the one thing the new movie had over it was a larger budget so it could be more glossy.

THere is an epic scale to the new movie which was cool. With the new movie everything was top notch, the only thing that let it down for me was a weak story.

125. dubb - December 13, 2010

We need to face the reality that the ST09 characters are not the same characters as those from TOS, even though they have the same names. Major events in time travel have completely changed the characters in the ST09 timeline. They show some of the same personality traits, say some of the same things, and they somehow end up together on the same ship, but they are not the same characters we have grown to love (and I’m glad the writers are not trying to make them the same — otherwise, multiply the angry comments by 10). We now have these characters with completely different histories being written in a completely new way before our eyes — but not re-writing, because they are two separate timelines. Love it or hate it. Personally, I think it’s a brilliant so far.

126. Basement Blogger - December 13, 2010

@ 101

I had trouble posting last night, so I apologize if the comments are repeated. Star Trek: The Motion Picture had its moments. It’s the exectution that was lacking. It certainly felt like Star Trek though.

Great moments include the much maligned Enterprise dry dock scene. That gorgeous Jerry Goldsmith score sent shivers down my spine as I saw the Enterprise on the big screen. And speaking of score, Jerry Goldsmith’s score was majestic and inspiring. Of course, the main title was used for the Next Generation show. I also thought the camera catching the logo of the United Federation of Planets at Starfleet and on the Enterprise was awe inspiring. it reminds me of the line that Nurse Garland in DS9’s “Little Green Men” says about mankind taking his place in a vast alliance of planets. Very Roddenberry in both accounts.

You’re not alone in thinking that Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the best of the films. Consumate Trekker and comic psychopath Harry Plinkett of Red Letter Media also thinks like you. (TrekMovie post below with video.) Roger Ebert also liked it. See below.

I consider Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home the best of all the films. One, it had a scientific and enviromnetal idea, save the whales and save the planet. That’s Gene Roddenberry. It was a great movie without a mustache twirling villain. See The City on the Edge of Forever, etc. And it was original in that it veered to comedy. Funny comedy too, just like “The Trouble with Tribbles.”

1. TrekMovie Story with Harry Plinkett’s video review of Trek ’09 where he says ST: TMP was his favorite.

2. Roger Ebert’s review of ST: TMP

3. Roger Ebert’s review of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

127. Polly - December 13, 2010

53. YES! Gimme!………whoops…I mean, agreed.

128. Jai - December 13, 2010

TMP has definitely grown on me over the years; I’m finding that I increasingly appreciate it as I get older. These days I actually like it as much as I’ve always liked TWOK; both very different movies, of course, but both very epic in scope and both very, very Star Trek in their respective ways.

I also think that, in terms of its cinematic depiction and the eerie tone of the movie, TMP feels extremely realistic in a number of ways — the reality of what it would be like to be part of a spacefaring human civilisation hundreds of years from now, the vastness & coldness of space itself, and (notwithstanding V’Ger’s earthly origins) what it would actually be like for us to encounter a truly “alien” (in every sense) extraterrestrial civilisation thousands or even millions of years more advanced than us. With regards to the final point, I though that the incomprehension & gulf in communication along with the brilliant visualisation of the interior of the gigantic spacecraft portrayed this particularly well. Plus Spock’s awestruck remarks about V’Ger having “knowledge that spans the universe”.

I remember reading a while back that the creators of TMP were deliberately going for a “2001: A Space Odyssey” tone. It’s obviously not necessarily to everyone’s taste, and it’s also very different from some kind of ‘alien forehead of the week’ and ‘pew-pew’ theme – although that’s often entertaining & enjoyable enough too; however, as a really thought-provoking, grown-up movie which dealt with a number of very serious and very big philosophical issues, I think TMP is superb. And, as I mentioned, some of it could quite possibly be very realistic indeed.

129. John - December 13, 2010

Star Trek the Motion Picture is also my favorite Trek film, especially the Director’s Cut!

130. Red Dead Ryan - December 13, 2010


I thought Scott Bakula got better as the show got better.

And yes, its a bit like debating music!

131. dmduncan - December 13, 2010

128: “Plus Spock’s awestruck remarks about V’Ger having ‘knowledge that spans the universe’.”

Well almost, anyway. It couldn’t scan under the dirt that Kirk rubbed off to discover it’s real name was vOYAger.

132. Jack2211 - December 13, 2010

131. It would have benefited from another draft. I always liked the mood, though. But even simple things like what the shields were called hadn’t been ironed out (screens, forcefields) if I remember correctly. And the character conflict didn’t feel natural to me, although the regular actors sold it. The weakest part was the ilia/decker romance — it did nothing for me (much like the seemingly identical trio/riker romance written into the TNG pilot.

It’s funny, iv was my least favorite because, at least at the time, the characters didn’t seem like professionals. Some of the comedy felt forced to me. But to each his own.

And not to resuscitate Iva, but was Uhura a Mary-sue in 09 — a very different argument from iva’s earlier rant. Weren’t all the characters kind if presented as exceptionally talented? Chekhov, Kirk and Spock, at least.

133. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - December 13, 2010

Hey, I have to admit that as a starry-eyed 15-year-old in 1979, I thought TMP was magnificent. And in many ways it was. Yeah, I remember it being pretty lethargic at times, and missing some things I was hoping to see in a Trek rebirth, but hey, the Enterprise was back, the crew was back, it was majestic if flawed.

TMP and Jerry Goldsmith’s score taught me how to start appreciating movie music, and while I’m no musician, I actually learned enough to start recognizing certain composers’ work, and learned to appreciate adaptations of style versus duplication.

What amazes me even to this day is that no one responsible for the production of TMP, right down to Roddenberry himself, ever noticed that the core script was a rehash of an original series episode (“The Changeling)….

134. Iva - December 13, 2010

@ 132 – all of them are talented and show it
she is the only one who speaks about being talented and we are supposed to believe take that at face value, but we never see.
In fact – what we do see is quite the opposite of deserving to be on a starship.

135. dmduncan - December 13, 2010

133: “What amazes me even to this day is that no one responsible for the production of TMP, right down to Roddenberry himself, ever noticed that the core script was a rehash of an original series episode (”The Changeling)….”

I’m very sure they noticed. Its lineage all the way back to John Meredyth Lucas is transparent. Roddenberry had a problem giving credit where it was due. That’s how that gets explained.

136. st-fan - December 14, 2010

Oh no! Not another disaster from Abrams and Company…!

i sincerely hope someone else, a REAL Star Trek fan, gets to make the next movie. Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman were so keen to profess their fanhood, talking all sweet and saying the movie was going to be so great and whatnot, but then ended up making Star Trek – with its water treatment plant engine room, , meat-locker plastic curtains (the purpose of which was…?), Titanic-era water valves and iron beams, Apple Store bridge and completely disfunctional Romulan mining ship from the future (jumping from level to level, each about a story or two down with one false move meaning falling to your death – that’s really logical. Yeah, they’re ‘fans’ all right. i’ll bet the first time they watched any episode of ST was when someone in management decided Abrams et al. were going to do the movie and that part of the gig was having to know what ST was, and also talk with the fans, and they needed to sound at least semi-literate, say the right words in the right order, etc. So they had to watch a few episodes. Talk is cheap. The proof is in the movie they made, and it says it all.

Hope that the next movie is done by a REAL fan, someone who truly loves ST and that entire ST universe, not someone who really doesn’t care and who wants to ‘play’ with ST just for kicks and personal ‘i worked on that’ association. (put out any ol’ crap – the fans will pay to see it). i know there are a LOT of real ST fans out there that could do a hell of a better job than any of these studio-hired hatchet men.

If the next movie is anything like this last one, i will pass on it. One big indicator for me will be if Abrams, Orci or Kurtzman are involved with it in any way. Fool me once…

137. Aurore - December 14, 2010

I, on the other hand, will be there ,no matter what.

Good luck, gentlemen.

138. P Technobabble - December 14, 2010

Not enough could ever be said about Jerry Goldsmith’s score for TMP. Absolutely brilliant.

139. captain_neill - December 14, 2010

To me The Motion Picture is a very interesting idea. I have become more of a fan of it as I get older and The Director’s Edition has really improved the film.

I loved the idea of a satellite sent from Earth and modified and sent back to find it’s creator but has become sentient on it’s way back. The idea was one that I feel is unique to Star Trek.

The problems with TMP is that at the time it was rushed and I think more time was spent on the effects than on the characters. The visuals in TMP were gorgeous and the music by Jerry Goldsmith is still one of my favs of the series.

It’s not my favourite but I think it is cool. Also it is a similar idea to the season two TOS episode “The Changeling”

One thing I do hope they do for Star Trek XII is slow the pace down a tad. I love fast paced action movies but I also love good story and character development as well. First Contact is an excellent example of good action and story.

I guess the one thing that annoys me is fast cuts in scenes as it seems to say that the studios think that the audiences are dumb and teens cannot stay interested if a shot is longer than 10 seconds.

140. keachick - December 14, 2010

“…the studios think that the audiences are dumb and teens cannot stay interested if a shot is longer than 10 seconds.”

Actually I think the studios are saying the opposite – that the audience can keep up with the faster pace and should be able to catch onto what is happening with the plot, (unusual) ideas presented and characters. The real problem lies with some people not being able to do just that.

Fortunately, there are DVDs and Blu-Rays, so that people can go back and catch what they missed the first time they saw the movie.

I agree that there does seem to be some “dumbing down” when there is an over-emphasis in the amount of explosions, chases, fights etc – they become rather boring and tedious after a while, not to mention very loud, noisy and discordant. I don’t think that Star Trek 09 had too much of this sort of stuff though.

141. gingerly - December 14, 2010

…the studios think that the audiences are dumb and teens cannot stay interested if a shot is longer than 10 seconds.

It’ true though. The way our world has evolved has shortened the average attention span of American youth.

Between small carry-on communication devices and quick convenience items, we expect our entertainment to come a much swifter pace these days.

Out collective patience is thinning. An artfully slow-paced story that is also a big hit with all audiences is pretty much a dead thing these days (not judging for better or worse, though, I can always watch a foreign film or an arthouse movie for the slower involving stuff).

Don’t believe me? Try finding a movie theater with a mainstream film where every single person in the audience pays attention to an entire showing without texting.

Many films released in the 70’s that were hits with lots of great reviews back then would flop or be maligned for being too boring today (see: 2001: A Space Odyssey).

Star Trek: TMP is one of them.

Interestingly enough, the film that changed the trajectory of American film-making forever, making that hard right-turn that we continue to follow to this day when it comes to pacing was Star Wars.

That said, I still don’t think TMP had much to offer beyond beautifully filmed extended shots, visual metaphors for copulation and various body orifices, and just plain getting “the crew” back together again.

142. Chadwick - December 14, 2010

95. Scruffy the bubble burster vampire janitor

It will be real one day.

143. Chadwick - December 14, 2010

Well like Star Trek 2009 the sections which seemed to take the longest were script writing, the pre production, and post production. Production/filming only took three months. I remember reading about it and thinking wow, to get filming done in three months, its not really a long time. They said the script wont be done till early 2011, they started working on it in October, so indeed I can see it taking three months to hammer out the script.

144. John from Cincinnati - December 14, 2010

J.J. Abram’s ego tells me he is too obtuse to fix the bridge and will not change it just for the sake to not to change it.

145. Damian - December 14, 2010

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was my favorite of all the 11. Usually when I tell people that I get strange looks. Not too many people outright hate it with every fiber of their being, but very few view it as a fan favorite. I always liked good filmmaking. Whatever you may say about it, the special effects, camera work, music score were all top notch. I also enjoy a good sci-fi story and TMP was pure sci-fi. It’s strange new worlds and where no man has gone before all wrapped up into one.

I miss the old days of filmmaking. Too many movies today look like they were made for an audience with chronic ADHD. I was not a fan of the camera working or lens flares of Star Trek (2009). However, I am obviously in the minority. It’s not JJ Abrams fault, really. He is just making films the way people want them today. It’s all a matter of taste. Mine are more for steady shots. There were some beautiful scenes in Star Trek (2009) that in my opinion were ruined by the shaky camera and lens flares. At times, it was hard to follow the story they were trying to tell because I never had time to digest what they were showing.

People complained about sci-fi and action film stories being secondary to special effects in the 70’s and 80’s. Nowadays special effects have taken a back scene to gimmicky camera work.

146. Damian - December 14, 2010

141–Agree with what you are saying. I have gone anti-texting. I don’t even know how to do it. I mean, do people actually talk to each other anymore. Our kids are all going to have speech impairments because they don’t talk anymore.

147. keachick - December 14, 2010

“Don’t believe me? Try finding a movie theater with a mainstream film where every single person in the audience pays attention to an entire showing without texting.”

Perhaps this is why I read of some many people complaining about a movie’s “contrived plot”, “continuity issues” or not knowing a lead character’s actual name in the film and refer to the character by the actor’s name. They complain about how lame, dumb, stupid the movie is. Then when they are pressed to explain, you realise they weren’t paying attention – probably texting. Duh. I also think that people do not have much comprehension sometimes and that is not just the so-called ADHD youth either.

Gosh – I don’t even know how to text. I’m lousy with cellphones.
In our cinemas (in NZ), all cellphones have to be turned off, while the movie is running. I suppose people can quietly text though.

Honestly, I never noticed the shaky camera in Star Trek – no motion sickness at all. I did notice the overuse of lens flares in places though. The lens flares were a bit annoying at times.

148. Dubb - December 14, 2010

I’m willing bet there were some fans when TMP came out who called the special effects in that movie “gimmicky.”

149. P Technobabble - December 14, 2010

Let’s not forget Meyer hammered out the final script for TWOK in 12 days. And I’ll bet Orci & Kurtzman are in some phase of writing something that looks like a script, so I don’t think there’s any cause to jump up and down.
This isn’t TMP. These guys are pros.

And I’ve grown rather weary of some people claiming they are the only true and real Star Trek fans, presuming that others are not. What is the difference between a Star Trek fan and a REAL Star Trek fan? If I liked every Trek tv series AND I liked the new film, doesn’t that make me a REAL Star Trek fan? And if I only liked one or two of the tv series I’m less of a Star Trek fan?
People like what they like, period. There are Star Trek fans and they’re all real. Not always grounded in reality, but real, nevertheless…

150. P Technobabble - December 14, 2010

149. I must clarify…
“This isn’t TMP. These guys are pros.”
I don’t want anyone to think I was implying those who made TMP were not pros. I should have said “This isn’t TMP, where they’ll be writing the final page of the script on the last day of shooting.”
And I should have said “These guys (the Supreme Court) are pros, and know when the script needs to be finished by, etc. etc.”
Sorry, I wasn’t speaking (or thinking) clearly.

PS: If they threw out every person texting in a movie theater, there’d only be a few people watching the film. It’s unreal…

151. Basement Blogger - December 14, 2010

“Galloping around the cosmos is a game for the young.” Captain Kirk. Star Trek II : The Wrath of Khan. Maybe Hollywood has taken that literally. I’ve written that Hollywood looks to teenagers as the one audience they can depend on to come to the multiplexes. (See NPR article below.) Dame Helen Mirren said that filmakers “worship at the altar of 18-25 year old male and his p**is.” She was decrying the idea that filmmakers are too often looking at that demographic much to the negative effect it has on older actresses. (Link below.)

How does this relate to Star Trek, the film franchise? J.J. Abrams is more of a Star Wars guy. “All my smart friends liked Star Trek. I preferred a more visceral experience.” Entertainment Weekly, (10-24-08, pg. 29.) The filmmakers freely looked to Star Wars for inspiration. (See Making of documentary, Disc One.) Abrams further added, “We weren’t making a movie for fans of Star Trek. We were making a movie for fans of movies.” Id. at 30, and 31. We all know that Star Trek is not Star Wars. But will the new Star Trek cater to the Twilight and a G.I. Joe audience? I hope not. But remember the ad campaign. “This is not your father’s Star Trek.”

For fans of intelligent blockbusters, we can thank director Chritopher Nolan. He has shown that you can make action packed films with brains, in “Inception” and “The Dark Knight.” I hope the next Star Trek looks to Nolan for guidance. The good thing is that they have signaled “Dark Knight” as an inspiration. (TrekMovie link below.)

1. Movies are directed to teenagers

2. Dame Helen Mirren slams filmmakers for focusing on young males.

3. Damon Lindelof looks to “The Dark Knight ” as guidance for the next movie.

152. captain_neill - December 14, 2010


I guess it’s the way the new movie is shot, with the lens flares and the shaky camera that annoy me. JJ Abrams has a great film with Star Trek XI but I think the style of shooting is not my style.

153. Phaser Guy - December 14, 2010

Wow, lots of trolls in this thread.

154. Disinvited - December 14, 2010


Well, I think I’d agree that canon is largely a fan invention, but it is also a fact that each season from ToS forward had what one could call a “Writer’s Guide” that was maintained and updated. It didn’t dig into minutiae but definitely set out enough guidelines to serve as a template for how to construct a “Trek” story for each of the productions. My point being: it is entirely fair to compare and contrast how well the various fare, including the present product, adhere to the Trek storytelling conventions that have gone before.

155. dmduncan - December 14, 2010

Canon is a fan creation and, I think, a measure of our desperation to believe in something good after religious tradition becomes an unviable option for many people. We want consistency because we want it to be real, true; if not the world that is now, a world that might be possible in the future. Star Trek has become for some a modern faith, and when there is inconsistency in it, it reminds us of those very traditions we abandoned because of what we perceive as their flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions. The canon of Star Trek is a modern religious mythology…that for some replaced older ones. We replaced one set of stories and adventures…with another.

156. Jeffrey Jacobs Abrams - December 14, 2010

Just to placate my fans, I’ve decided to give you all a smide of a hint about what will appear in this next film…




Also, BTW, how would you all like it if I decided to direct this script we are developing?

157. Phaser Guy - December 14, 2010

Those steampunk pics aren’t canon.

158. trekprincess - December 14, 2010

Is that really you:) well sounds good

159. Harry Ballz - December 14, 2010


Ooooh, I smell instant permaban coming!

160. gingerly - December 14, 2010


In our cinemas (in NZ), all cellphones have to be turned off, while the movie is running. I suppose people can quietly text though.


161. Harry Ballz - December 15, 2010

Most people in movie theatres are boorish and inconsiderate. I will simply stay home with my 60″ Pioneer Elite Plasma (with full surround sound), enjoy any movie (in Blue Ray) at my leisure, and avoid the morons!

Who needs to “share” the experience when it only leads to irritation?

162. P Technobabble - December 15, 2010

161. Harry

I do agree with you, in principle.

However, movies such as “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” and “Blazing Saddles” just don’t seem as funny when watching alone. There’s something about the sound of a live laugh-track that adds to the experience.

Meanwhile, could you keep us up to date on what movies you’re watching? We may want to stampede into your house, depending on the movie. I’m sure everyone would be happy to bring their own popcorn. And you’d also have the pleasure of being able to toss out anyone caught texting…

163. Harry Ballz - December 15, 2010


I appreciate your comments. Funny that you cite Blazing Saddles as an example of shared laughter. Back in 1974 I had a job as an usher at the Uptown Theatre in Toronto, where Blazing Saddles ran for an entire year. Three nights a week I would stand inside the theatre and enjoy the explosion of laughter that ensued from the audience during the funniest bits. I must have watched that movie150 times over that year and never tired of experiencing the shared joy of the audience. Your point is well taken.

p.s. I just watched Flipped, a delightful little movie with a lot of heart. It was directed by Rob Reiner. I would recommend that you check it out.

164. Jack2211 - December 15, 2010

151. Dude, you’ve seen the original series, right? And the original series movies? And Star wars? Speechy, patronizing and pedantic (ar worst) doesn’t equal smart. I know Roddenberry called his stuff intellectual and often repeated the suits’ criticism that the cage was too cerebral. What does an “intellectual” film even look like? Star wars films weren’t trying to cure cancer but they weren’t mindless action films… (yes, kids loved ’em, but kids loved Trek too). That said, inception and dark night (and moon and gattaca and solaris and memento) are great films.

But a pedigree doesn’t necessarily lead to a great film — look at the tourist, directed by the guy who did ‘the lives of others’

165. Trekboi - December 15, 2010

pretty outragious- they clamed to delay the film so they had time to wdo it properly what they have been doing is pushing off the film to focus on other projects- they should pass it on to other people who are willing to spend the time developing it or focus on it.

166. keachick - December 15, 2010

Has the Star Trek sequel been delayed? I believe that it is meant to go into pre-production in January next year, with filming to start May/June 2011. Is that still the case? Hope so.

167. Basement Blogger - December 16, 2010

@ 164

While I can agree that Star Trek , the original series would preach a little too much, I can’t agree with you the the original series wasn’t smart. Saying so, is like calling Harlan Ellison (The City on the Edge of Forever), Norman Spinrad (The Doomsday Machine) and Jerome Bixby (Mirror, Mirror) a bunch of hacks. Hopefully you know these getnlemen are well respected science fiction writers. By the way, there’s nothing wrong with a metaphor or messages in science fiction. Two films with messages were District 9 and Avatar. Both were nominated for Best Picture for 2009.

You asked what does an intellectual film look like? Well it’s not Star Wars. Star Wars is action- fantasy. And that’s not a put down. Interesting that you name two recent films as good that fit the description of intellectual. “Moon.” and “Inception.” Of course, if you want to look for intellectual science fiction, look no further than 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I’m not sure if you like Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek or not. But if you’re going to make a film or TV show called Star Trek, you’ve got to follow his vision. Why? Because it’s not Star Trek if you don’t. Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. I distill that into three elements. Heart. Adventure. Intelligence.

May I suggest you read this letter posted on this site from Gene. It’s where he defends Star Trek, specifically the “Cage.” Note he talks about presenting a show with substance and pride.


168. ensign joe - December 16, 2010

The script has to be reworked because some recent tech has thrown a slight monkey wrench:



169. Tina Thomas - December 17, 2010

I just hope to God that you bring Ben Cross back to play Sarek! You guys get so wrapped up in the younger actors that you have no clue that this guy has fans worldwide that anxiously await his return to the sequel! This guy is a great actor and that was one of his best parts in years! I’m surprised he got overlooked AGAIN at awards time…

IF ANYONE makes another series, and they are going to have Sarek in it, they should offer that to Cross on a platter! He’s damn good!

170. Charla - December 18, 2010

# 156-

Anthony, is that REALLY JJ?? You have told us in the past that you do check these ID’s – So I am inclined to believe it. So cool if it is!

If it is really JJ, YES YES Please direct it!! And Happy Holidays to you and the crew :D

171. captain_neill - December 19, 2010


I don’t believe that is JJ Abrams.

172. Charla - December 19, 2010

Thanks Captain Neill,

Wishful thinking! I haven’t seen Bob on in a while either, hopefully he is just busy with the holidays and writing and not fed up with all the nit-picking~ Nice to see Chris on from time to time as well!

At any rate, I hope everyone has a wonderful and Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Le Re’veillon or Los Posadas! (I hope I haven’t left anyone out)

173. Jack2211 - December 20, 2010

167 wrote:

“Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. I distill that into three elements. Heart. Adventure. Intelligence.”

I wholeheartedly agree.

174. Iva - December 20, 2010

Apparently, I was right. She will go down on any movie producer for more screen time. You can kiss your pretty sequel script good bye, it will be Uwhorea-centric.


175. Jack2211 - December 20, 2010

Er, Iva? The exec. in question was in a relationship with Burlesque director Steve Antin. Sigh.

176. captain_neill - December 20, 2010


I agree with that as well.

If you don’t follow that vision then its not Star Trek.

177. keachick - December 20, 2010

“Apparently, I was right. She will go down on any movie producer for more screen time. You can kiss your pretty sequel script good bye, it will be Uwhorea-centric. ”

Well, if posters must talk about Trek actors and going down on there, perhaps it could be somewhat more complimentary in nature.

For example:
I’ve been reading some filmgoers comments about Chris Pine aka Will Colson (Unstoppable) being “well endowed”, looking like he is “packing his own runaway train” etc and when I query this, I get the question, “Have you actually watched that scene?” Unfortunately, I have not yet. Roll on 6/1/11 (ie 6 January).

However, having read something Chris Pine was quoted as saying a while back and having talked to one or two men about what makes a man feel really good about himself – the fact that a number of people think that Chris is exceptionally normal (and that is no small thing) could not really be considered rude or uncomplimentary. At least, I hope that if, by some small chance, Chris reads this he would not be too offended or upset. This is not my intention.

This is hardly in the same vein as to how Iva referred to Zoe Saldana and calling the sequel Uwhorea-centric.

If we are going to go there, when referring to some of the current Trek actors, let’s not get bitchy, nasty or make lewd, unsubstantiated suggestions about their sex lives. This is not the first time that poster Iva has made comments about Zoe Saldana’s personal (sex) life.

178. Jack - December 21, 2010

A note on the vi”vision” talk: It was Roddenberry’s idea, apparently, although he didn’t invent utopian science fiction, but, yeah, he created a tv show, oversaw the writers and had to fight meddling from the studio — like other show creators did and still do — and, again, I’m a fan, but the “vision” stuff sometimes sounds like he wandered back from 40 days in the desert with a crazy stare and the script to the cage . But i, again, agree that, at its best, star trek did indeed have heart, intelligence and adventure… And they’re all equally important.

At it’s worst, it was just an awful lot of repetitive, hokey talk about those three things.

Visceral doesn’t mean dumb.

179. Basement Blogger - December 21, 2010

@ 174

Iva, you’re an interesting Troll. You know something about Star Trek. Enough to be concerned that Uhura is usurping McCoy’s role in the Kirk-Spock-McCoy troika. @ 42. That’s interesting. Yet, you make all these baseless comments about Zoe Saldana’s ethics. I don’t understand what pleasure you get in agitating your fellow Trekkers. Might I suggest you listen to the better angels of your nature.

180. Iva - December 21, 2010

@ 177 – We will see how “unsubstantiated” my suggestions are when we get the sequel and see even further damage of her getting down on J.J.

181. Iva - December 21, 2010

@ 179 – Any agitation one might experience from reading my posts is their own problem and I am in no way obligated to keep quiet for the sake of somebody’s fragile peace of mind.

182. Harry Ballz - December 21, 2010


either you’ve become more forgiving of troll-like behaviour or are yet to read Iva’s disgraceful posts! You would normally have stepped in by now!

183. Jack - December 21, 2010

Iva — I kind of admire your orly-taitz-like tenacity.

This has been a bizarrely entertaining thread.

184. Iva - December 21, 2010

Why, thak you Jack. /bows

On topic, I really hope the sequel doesn’t de-vulcanise the rest of the vulcans too. I’ve read a Zoe comment (really, can’t get away from that creature) something along the lines of – now that the vulcan is destroyed, maybe vulcans will have to learn learn to be more like humans yada yada

And it made me wonder…

…. this is not the first time the vulcans are in a similar situation of near-extinction, the first time around they almost destroyed themselves by their volatile nature and it took Surak and logic – or in other words discipline and dedication to get them to both survive and evolve.
To do the same now and preserve themselves as much as possible would be both logical and cannon.

Will J.J. change that?

Now that he destroyed vulcan and there is little of them left?
There is also a deleted scene of Spock’s birth that happens before the Nerada/ creation of alternate timeline, that was a breach of vulcan culture
(hint – real star trek version of birth)
which shows how little he cares of perserving vulcans. Not to mention Spock acting like a 100% human.
Or romulans not being romulan at all.

I get this feeling in Abrams-verse, that the only way for aliens to be accepted and still have place in the movie is if they get “humanised” .
Will the pointy ears be the only thing that’s left from original vulcan?
I’d really hate to see that.

185. mr. mugato - December 21, 2010

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

186. Aurore - December 22, 2010

Come on. Don’t sugar coat things for my sake . Tell me what you really think about Zöe Saldaña and the character of Uhura ( whom you have so poetically rechristened).

: )

187. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2010

@ 182

Hey Harry,

I get it. Iva is part troll and part comedian. Read post @ 180. It’s so wild, you can’t take it seriously. I mean if you read her posts, Iva seems to have Zoe having sex with every producer in Hollywood. Now if Iva”s serious about her obsession with Zoe, I have one word for her. THERAPY.

188. Harry Ballz - December 22, 2010


My, how things have changed. Just a few years ago on this site, if one of us even inferred or implied such an accusation, Anthony would sweep in like an avenging angel and threaten a permaban! Now nothing. Who knows, maybe he agrees with this simple-minded moron’s suggestion.

189. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2010

Anthony and staff are probably on vacation. Or Anthony must be attending to some very personal/family matters. It’s been five days since we got a new article and we haven’t heard from him since then. Even on slow news days, he usually pops in.

I hope everything’s alright.

190. Iva - December 22, 2010

If he were to delete my posts, he’d have to delete all of the aggressiveness coming from the “good” board members too… *drinks camomile.

191. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2010


Camomile or camel’s milk? Whatever you’re drinking, it must be tainted with something. Like crack!

192. Iva - December 22, 2010

I’ll have you know that camel milk is very healthy, no need to insult the Africans.

193. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2010


I didn’t mention anything about Africans, idiot.

194. keachick - December 22, 2010

As memory serves, it was actually Pine/Kirk who extolled the talents of Uhura’s tongue, not JJ (Abrams). Both Pine and Kirk are single. Zoe is not, nor is JJ Abrams.

Besides, JJ is a producer and director, he did not and is not writing the Star Trek scripts. It appears that he reads the script first (presumably at its (near) completion stage) and then decides whether it is something he can and/or wants to direct.

BTW, what has camel’s milk got to do with Africans, or Arabs for that matter? Newsflash – people don’t make the milk, the animals do (cows, goats, sheep, camels) except of course human milk, which is yet again another warm, sweet concoction of proteins, calcium and fat soluble vitamins, designed to be the perfect food for babies. Adult humans seem to like it as well.

195. Harry Ballz - December 22, 2010

Boy, talk about milking a topic!

196. Jack2211 - December 22, 2010

It’s kind of nice having to sort this out like, er, grownups, without anyone threatening to pull over the car. Iva, you sounded kind of civilized when talking about worries that they’ll be changing Vulcans.

Personally, I think they got Vulcans right, in the last flick.

And in the unlikely event this thread doesn’t keep going, I wish everyone a swell holiday.

197. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2010

Stop paying attention to troll Iva.

Guys, I shouldn’t have responded to Iva because she is a troll. She doesn’t deny it. She just wants us to get upset and then comment back at her. She then puts more inane stuff up. It’s like that Simpson’s episode Treehouse of Horror VI , segment “Attack of the 50 foot Eyesores.” To destroy the advertising statues that are attacking the town, Lisa tells the town to stop paying attention to the statues. Same thing here. So, let’s ignore her.

198. Harry Ballz - December 22, 2010

Iva is obviously short for either Ivabadideasoimgoingtopostit or Ivasickandtwistedmindsoletslashoutattheworld.

199. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2010

@ 195

Oh, Harry……. Oy vey.

Just for that here’s some Jewish surf music.


200. keachick - December 22, 2010

Just me attempting to bring things back to what is wholesome, healthy and natural…:)

201. Harry Ballz - December 22, 2010


BB, always a pleasure if I can bring a smile to your face (as you’re groaning). Try the veal! :>)

202. Charla - December 22, 2010

Anthony! Where are you? !

203. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2010

Happy Holidays everyone. And Harry (@ 201) I’m not Jewish. I’m half Wookie and half Andorian. In honor of Harry Ballz’ love of puns, here’s the classic seasonal skit from Saturday Night Live “Scweddy Balls.”

From NBC and Hulu

204. Harry Ballz - December 22, 2010


with my living in Canada I couldn’t access/watch the video, but I appreciate the sentiment.

Happy holidays, big fella!!

205. P Technobabble - December 23, 2010

I’ve been shoutin about peace and love as passionately as John Lennon did. If peace and love aren’t possible, at least respect and compassion are. It’s not good karma to be derogatory toward others. I suppose it’s inevitable if you have world leaders on the verge of war speaking ill of each other, but they don’t seem to mind living in darkness.
On the other hand, we’re just talkin about movies and actors. Why would anyone feel compelled to make thoughtless, mean-spirited comments about actors or people who make movies? It’s not like such comments really amount to anything, except to show the “dark side” of the commenter.
Like many others, I’ve been a staunch supporter of Abrams and the new version of Star Trek. I do not believe he is obliged to please all Star Trek fans, especially the rigid, intolerant ones. We are no longer living in 1968. This is the high-tech 21st century, where people’s tastes and orientations toward things are quite different than they were in the 60’s. It was entirely necessary to shake the Trek snow-globe and see where the snowflakes fell.
If you don’t like the film, you are entirely free to comment. However, derogatory remarks won’t get you a part in the film or put you in the director’s chair. Try to maintain a sense of civility, which is, after all, part of the heart of Star Trek.
Oh, and Happy Holidays to all!

206. Charla - December 23, 2010

Very well put, P Technobabble!


207. Jack2211 - December 23, 2010

197. I know, i know. I can’t stop.

Er, I’m out of con-troll? Sigh. That hurt me more than it hurt you guys.

And for you and everyone after, thanks for steering the thread back into civility. Especially, 205 — P. Technobabble, well said sir (or ma’am).

208. Harry Ballz - December 24, 2010

….and don’t forget to capitalize your words in the New Year, ladies and germs…

There is a world of difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and……….helping your uncle jack off a horse!

Good advice for us all!

209. P Technobabble - December 24, 2010

208. Harry

Good point! Although Uncle Jack could have a thing for horses…

210. Harry Ballz - December 24, 2010

So you DO know my family! :>)

211. Me - January 3, 2011

Ugh. The sequel is moving SO SLOWLY. I was hoping it’d move faster for my mom. She loved the new movie, but by the end of the year was having major brain surgery to remove a malignant tumor. GBM. She’s doing well today, but its the type that is going to come back and I really want to be able to share the next ST film with her before she dies. This is a woman who campaigned for Spock to be captain of the Enterprise when she was in school during the original series’ run. She is the one who introduced me to ST and it is one thing we have always enjoyed together.

212. Danock - January 4, 2011

Star Trek The Motion Picture was mostly boring grand views of the ship and boring psychedelic grand views of Veeger. But the worst thing is, that was the best part of the movie.

213. P.F. Undit - January 11, 2011

Script “so close” to release date? There are two possibilities: They will move the release date back; they will hurry the script. Hope for the former.

214. Phat Tribble - January 14, 2011

Just some notes before I forget:

– NO Tom Cruise! He’ll RUIN it!
– I hope the next ST movie is not in just 3D. I couldn’t see Avatar in the theatre for that reason. 3D hurts my eyes (yes, even with those 3d glasses)
– I would LOVE for ST to be ‘epic’. When I think epic. I think of how great LOTR (Lord of the Rings) was. But not that long, either, please!
– I’m still ‘mourning’ for that nice ‘Vette that (a very young and brat) Kirk sent over the quarry edge in the last movie. I know it was comp. graphics (I hope!), but STILL!?! Why couldn’t it have been a Toyota? (the gas pedal got stuck! The brakes failed!) Why trash an American classic?
I was kinda wishing that the Kirk kid would have gone over the edge instead. After all – he’s James T Kirk – he’s used to cheating death,right? Gotta start somewhere!

Okay, back to the reguarly scheduled programming…

215. Phat Tribble - January 14, 2011

More notes:

– Iva….headache. I need Excedrin.
– it’s hard to type on the laptop when there’s a cat on my lap too. (she owns me…sigh)
– I’d rather wait a little longer for the movie rather than it be rushed and thus compromised in quality. I know, it’s been almost 2 years since the last movie, but what’s another 2 years? (*gasp!*)
– More shots of Kirk in his skivvies(or less) please! (Hey, it works for me!) ; )
– I’m so glad that McCoy did NOT throw up on Kirk (or vice versa). Eww..
– #208.Harry: I got a good chuckle from that, thanks!
– I’m not really a tribble, although I played one on tv (just kidding).\
– One of my favorite lines from this movie: “Out of the chair” – Spock to Kirk.
– Also, I really liked the new music score for the movie. It kind of sounded like something that Howard Shore (LOTR trilogy theme) would have written.
– Final note: to Kirk: If you see any farm animals – STAY AWAY from them!!!

(sorry.Couldn’t resist)

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