Anton Yelchin: It Would Be ‘Bizarre’ For Abrams To Not Direct Star Trek Sequel + Bob Orci Soliciting Steven Spielberg To Help Convince Abrams |
jump to navigation

Anton Yelchin: It Would Be ‘Bizarre’ For Abrams To Not Direct Star Trek Sequel + Bob Orci Soliciting Steven Spielberg To Help Convince Abrams January 23, 2011

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

As previously reported, producer JJ Abrams is awaiting the script for the 2012 Star Trek sequel, before deciding if he will also direct the film. However that isn’t stopping others involved from weighing in. Star Trek’s new Checkov Anton Yelchin says it would be "bizarre" without JJ Abrams in the director’s chair. And co-writer Roberto Orci says he is trying to solicit Steven Spielberg to help convince Abrams.


Yelchin "doesn’t know anything" about Trek sequel – but  wants Abrams back

Speaking to MTV at the Sundance Film Festival, Anton Yelchin says "I really don’t know anything" about the next Star Trek movie, which should start shooting this summer, but Yelchin is sure that he would like to see JJ Abrams return to the director’s chair. The actor notes it would be "very, very bizarre to do it without him."

Watch the clip via MTV:

Movie TrailersMovies Blog

Yelchin explains his view thusly:

"I think the reason [‘Star Trek’] works is because he’s so wonderful and he’s such a bright, bright fantastic human being and he just has this amazing energy, and I’m very grateful to him," Yelchin said. "It’s each director: [‘Like Crazy’ director] Drake [Doremus]! Drake crafted this movie, he picked those moments so well. Seeing it on screen, you see that touch of picking the right moments, and J.J.’s like that. He picked the right moments, you know, and I think that’s why people liked ‘Star Trek.’ "


Bob Orci trying to get Spielberg’s help to convince JJ – says it isn’t about money

Abrams decision on whether or not to direct the 2012 Star Trek sequel mirrors discussions from 2006 and 2007 when he also talked about awaiting the script for the first Star Trek to make his directing decision. In that case Abrams and the writers later noted that he had a lot of encouragement from those close to him, including his wife and one of his personal heroes, Steven Spielberg. So our report last week about Abrams waiting the script for the Star Trek sequel are par for the course.

And it appears there are those who are trying to replicate more from that period. Commenting on the TrekMovie talkback, Roberto Orci (when giving an update on what he is up to) says he is again trying to convince Steven Spielberg to help:

BobOrci: I’m multitasking. currently in the editing room of Cowboys and Aliens with Steven [Spielberg] and Jon [Favreau], telling [Steven Spielberg] to help us convince JJ [Abrams] to direct Trek, like he helped us convince him last time!

Orci also weighed in on the supposed idea that Abrams decision is about money:

BobOrci: read a lot of posts wondering if JJ is holding out for more money. You should know that all of our deals are pre-negotiated, so when JJ says he just wants to make a decision based on making sure he is right or the material, he means it, and we should all respect him for that.


1. Karen - January 23, 2011

I’ll weigh in too, saying, I really hope JJ directs the next movie. He did such a great job starting it off, love to see him get it going in the right direction.

2. Marvin the Martian - January 23, 2011

Well, if J.J. Abrams passes on it, I nominate either James Nguyen or Tommy Wiseau, who are masters of their craft.

3. Valenti - January 23, 2011

I hope he’ll finish what he started. =]

4. VOODOO - January 23, 2011

I’d be very surprised and disapointed if Mr. Abrams doesn’t direct the film. He did a tremendous job (as did everyone involved) on the first film and in the process saved the franchise.

5. JP - January 23, 2011

Whoever directs I ask one thing: can we kill about half the lights on the bridge? It was lit so brightly and everything was so white that it had a plastic/sterile look to it. It just had no atmosphere on the bridge. Such a contrast from the Kelvin bridge which had atmosphere to spare. Honestly, this was my only gripe (other than the nacelles, but I don’t want to be “That Guy” :) ).

All the same, hope JJ comes back.

6. Red Dead Ryan - January 23, 2011

It’s either J.J Abrams or no one. Can’t see anybody else being right for the job. If J.J doesn’t want to do it, Paramount would be wise to shut the whole thing down.

7. Andy Patterson - January 23, 2011

Has Yelchin been inhaling smoke from rubber tires? Boy that voice sounds hoarse and gruff. Isn’t he not even 20 yet?

8. Chadwick - January 23, 2011

So…shooting in the summer, and release a year later…preproduction should be starting soon….as soon as the script is finished and approved.

I would love to have JJ direct the next one simply because he did such a great job on the first…it should carry to the second. The last person I would want to direct is Michael Bay or McG. Christopher Nolan might fare well with Trek but being busy with The Dark Knight Rises… my vote is still for JJ.

9. Basement Blogger - January 23, 2011

J.J. Abrams is a talented director with a great eye for beautiful visuals. It would be interesting to see him direct the second movie in 3-D. He would have limitations, lack of hand-held camera (yea, tired of getting dizzy) but also have a new toy to play with in 3D assuming Paramount is going to allow filming in 3D. And why not? Spider-Man 2012 is being shot in 3D. Got to keep up with the Jones. This fans agains says no conversions.

10. - January 23, 2011

I would love Tarantino to direct if Abrams can’t. He knows how to milk a scene.

11. Basement Blogger - January 23, 2011

If J.J. doesn’t want to do it, I dont’ think Quentin Tarantino is busy. After all Star Trek 2009 was his favorite film of 2009. (Trekmovie line below) Yeah, a Tarantino Star Trek would have the Mexican standoff with Kirk-Spock-McCoy drawing their phasers with Klingons. Maybe some F-bombs thrown by Uhura. Perhaps a discussion of how to say Romulan Ale in French. But seriously, he is a good director. See Inglorious Basterds. (2009) And he is used to the parallel universe thing because of Basterds.

Unfortunately, David Fincher and Chirs Nolan are busy. Just saw the fantasitc, “The King’s Speech.'” What about Tom Hooper? Steven Spielberg looks really busy, producing. Here’s an interesting one. How about Francis Ford Coppola? He’s still making movies. I liked his Dracula. (1992) What about District 9’s Neil Blomkamp?

The Q man really likes Star Trek 2009.


12. Charla - January 23, 2011

I would hope to speak on behalf of most of the people who loved JJ’s directing in the 09 film in saying that it would be most disappointing to not have him direct the next one.

13. Majicou - January 23, 2011

Funnily enough, when I saw the thumbnail of Yelchin, I thought for a split second that it was Tarantino. Possibly my eyesight is going.

14. keachick - January 23, 2011

Anton Yelchin was born on 11 March 1989 in St Petersburg, Russia, which makes him 22 this year.

Quentin Tarantino as Star Trek’s director? Sorry, no way. Every film I’ve seen of Quentin Tarantino’s I have not liked. They have a horrible, almost evil feel to them. He makes gore fests…Not nice. Something not right with that man…

Star Trek is a whole different genre. Don’t let that man anywhere near Trek. He may have liked the latest Star Trek movie, but that is not enough to convince me he would know what to do with a Trek script, except possibly turn it violent and demonic.

I know this may not read as being very rational on my part. Call it a strong intuition, if you like. Perhaps a warning…

15. somethoughts - January 23, 2011

I would like to see James Cameron, Peter Jackson or Ridley Scott direct a Star Trek movie. JJ was great in Star Trek 2009 but if he’s not available, grab another big fish.

16. Aurore - January 23, 2011

I hope you direct the sequel Mr Abrams.

No, I, respectfully,DEMAND that you do it.

17. somethoughts - January 23, 2011


I thought Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill was pretty good, yes they are a different style and genre to Star Trek but who knows. I rather keep a open mind then to prejudice Tarantino.

18. AJ - January 23, 2011

This is starting to get weird, like when Del Toro dropped out of the Hobbit.

Is anyone actually in control of this thing?

19. Red Dead Ryan - January 23, 2011


I like all of those directors, as well as Quentin Tarantino, but “Star Trek” needs its own kind of treatment. I’m not sure those guys can provide it. J.J Abrams is perhaps the only director currently able to respect Trek canon yet shake up the established lore.

As I have said earlier, its J.J Abrams or no one at all.

20. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 23, 2011

I have no doubt that it is not about the money for J.J I’m sure he has plenty of money. I believe it is about the love of Directing a Fantastic Movie. Maybe if J.J passes we could get Steven Spielburg to Direct. or maybe Ron Howard. But. J.J would be my choice.

21. keachick - January 23, 2011

Great minds think alike? My better half thought that they should get the Scott brothers, Ridley and Tony, to do the next Trek. Ridley for the intellectual side and Tony for the action. Chris Pine has just worked with Tony Scott …

I’d love it if Peter Jackson could direct Star Trek and do some of the filming here in NZ (my planet Menosia – sigh… dreams are free, I guess), but he is too busy working on the Hobbit, which is, of course, as it should be, down here in Middle Earth!

Perhaps, I am prejudiced but I have learned not to ignore the powerful feeling/intuition, call it what you will, that I had when I first read of Tarantino’s name being mentioned in connection with directing the Star Trek sequel.

22. Aurore - January 23, 2011


While you’re “DEMANDING”, he’s probably waiting for a good script (story) before making

any decision.

Calm down.

23. S. John Ross - January 23, 2011

I hope Abrams returns as well; his gift for breakneck pacing was crucial for papering over a lot of the script issues with the last film, and lent it the energy it needed for the kind of movie it was.

24. Basement Blogger - January 24, 2011

We need to get out of the J.J. Abrams is a Trekker and is the only one who can direct Star Trek 2012. Abrams liked Star Wars more than Star Trek and was spoiled on Star Trek by Galaxy Quest (1999) (Entertainment Weekly, 10-24-08, pg. 28-29) Abrams said (on Trek 2009) , “We weren’t making a movie for fans of Star Trek. We were making a movie for fans of movies.” Id. at 30, 31. HELLO TEENAGERS.

That being said, J.J. Abrams is an excellent film diirector. If he’s not interested, then so be it. There are many directors available. Just remember Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. It’s not Star Trek unless it has adventure, heart and INTELLIGENCE.

25. Basement Blogger - January 24, 2011

@ 14 Keachick

You hated Pulp Fiction? Yeah, ti wasn’t a happy ending. But if you’ve read anything about writing a screenplay, Tarantino and Roger Avery broke all the rules. QT wasn’t making a film to appeal to the masses, he was making a late twentieth centrury film noir. And trust me, I was upset wih Inglorous Basterds destruction of history, alternate reality or not. So, I’m not on Tarantino’s bandwagon.. But he’s a skillful director. I got a feeling he likes Star Trek. That might make him the perfect choice. Remember that Harve Bennett learned to love Star Trek by watching all the original series episodes. Since QT loved Star Trek 2009, I think QT understands Star Trek.

26. trek - January 24, 2011

@24 Agreed! Abrams is no trekker. In fact, I’ll take things a step further and say that Abrams StarTrek 2009 was a great little action in space adventure film for kids, but it had little to do with Roddenberry’s vision of Star Trek, which was essentially a collection of moral fables set in space.

27. Pierss - January 24, 2011

One new Trek story every 4 years?

Just make the frakking film.

28. Victor Hugo - January 24, 2011

Yeah, Star Trek is a lady, not a “one night stand”.

Now you must marry her and have four kids.

Take Rick Berman, that´s a gentleman.

29. Dr. Cheis - January 24, 2011

If Abrams doesn’t direct the next one, it will be interesting to see how much of the “feel” of the new movie had to do with him, and how much was the script and cast. I wonder if it could still feel like it fit right within the newly established universe with any other director?

30. Thomas E. - January 24, 2011

If JJ doesn’t Direct, then how about Nicholas Meyer or Johnathan Frakes? JJ created a new universe but it would be interesting to see what Meyer or Frakes could do with it. It may even give the new Universe a more classic feel and bring more of the older fans in who hated the first film because they fear change.

31. NCC-1688 - January 24, 2011


It’s not just your eyesight, I thought it was him too!

32. efm - January 24, 2011


You may want to calm down Aurore……I’m not sure you truly read @16′ post. So when you condescend with little words such as ‘calm down’-when no one was showing any kind of high emotional state-its easy to come to the conclusion that you have a very difficult time with basic comprehension.


33. VZX - January 24, 2011

Hey, JJ, if it’s just too much for you right now, I could direct it for you. You wouldn’t even have to pay me!

34. Philip Dunlop - January 24, 2011

I think it’s fair enough that Abrams is choosing to see the script before deciding to direct. It shows a bit of artistic integrity and keeps the writers on their toes. If they produce dreck, he won’t direct, and chances are the franchise will go down the tubes. Supposition on who else could direct is all very interesting and all, but if Abrams chooses not to direct, then I wouldn’t be very hopeful of a high-quality film.

35. Spielberg to direct Trek 2012 - January 24, 2011

Does anyone else think Bob Orci is missing the point when he says he is in a room asking Spileberg to get JJ Abrams to direct?

I mean come on, your’e in the same room as “The Man” ask the question already!

36. Dee - January 24, 2011

Oh God! more of the same again! … definitely, Anton likes JJAbrams … okay me too … but I confess that at this moment of Star Trek 2012 I’m already a little irritated with him … “this indecision” … Ummmm … Ummm … PATIENCE IS REQUIRED! :-)

37. I'm Dead Jim! - January 24, 2011

My biggest fear is that if JJ sees the script and then says he won’t direct, that’ll mean that the script is not up to his standards?

38. AJ - January 24, 2011

Wouldn’t mind hearing Bob Orci interpret this here on TM.

We know Mr. Orci is one of 3 principals writing the story.

We know JJ is waiting for a script that he likes.

We know that the writing team and JJ have done great work together in the past.

Why is Mr. Spielberg even necessary?

Don’t get me wrong. It’s great PR, but my perspective here is ‘glass-half-empty.’ The film will be competing with the new ‘Spiderman’ film, where we’ve already seen production photos and a suit-reveal, and this one isn’t even written yet? Are we facing another delay?

39. Mark Lynch - January 24, 2011

Let’s get Ron Howard to direct, then it is almost certain to have a starring role for Tom Hanks.
Sounds great to me!!!

Off topic….
If you want to see a truly dire Spider-Man reboot costume, then go no further than
It’s my forum so don’t worry about anything nasty being there.

40. Hugh Hoyland - January 24, 2011

My offer still stands, if JJ wont do it. Ive already got it planned out. It WILL be shot in real 3D, no conversion. (Am thinking Red Scarrlet). And as a cost cutting measure I’ll do all the CGI myself (I have Blender) . And I’ll shot no matter what the guys have come up with, no questions asked! ;}

41. Hugh Hoyland - January 24, 2011

#38 AJ

I hope theres no delay. Im not sure why JJ is dragging his feat on this one. But maybe hes of the attitude of “been there done that”. You know make a big splash, loved doing it and all, but its time to move on to something else. Dunno just speculation.

42. Aurore - January 24, 2011

@32 efm

Yes. I apologize. My basic reading comprehension skills do need improvement.

With gratitude.


43. Some Dude on the Internet - January 24, 2011


44. Aurore - January 24, 2011

@ 16 Aurore

My condescending tone was totally uncalled for. Please, accept my sincere apologies.

45. Ensign RO- (short for Roland) - January 24, 2011

Although I was on the fence for a while, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’d like to see Mr. Abrams continue directing the series. He has a vision. Although I had some issues with Trek 2009, I did thoroughly enjoy it, and would be interested in seeing his vision come to full fruition.

But, since other have been weighing in with their ideas on an “alternative” director, I think I’d like to see Joss Wheadon at the helm. He has a style that accentuates the characters…something that, I believe, would work well in our beloved Trek ‘Verse. ;-).

46. star trackie - January 24, 2011

JJ has built a new foundation for Star Trek. He has set the tone as to what to expect in a Star Trek movie and I really don’t want another director’s “stamp” or “signature”. I liked what I saw, the reviews and box office speaks for itself. More of the same please.

47. somethoughts - January 24, 2011

When jj announces he will direct the sequel, how awesome would that be? Thats like telling the world this script and story is fantastic, the hype and euphoria would reach the ultimate climax. The cast would bring A game and the lineups would be insane.

JJ will direct imo, this is just to create free publicity for the sequel and to tell the mass this story is awesome im directing it, so come see it.

48. Allenburch - January 24, 2011

I think that it is fantastic when decisions are made based on what would be best for the overall quality of a project and not the currently prevailing strong wind of $$$/greed that most of us struggle to move against. The whole work-life-art-money thing can sometimes be a tough scale to balance.

49. P Technobabble - January 24, 2011

I’d like to see Abrams direct the sequel. Regardless what some people are saying, Abrams, having directed the first film, has a perfectly good understanding of Star Trek and the characters. Whether one likes his style of directing or not (which is completely subjective anyway), he, obviously, knows how to direct and you can’t take that away from him. And if the writers think he should do it, and the cast wants him to do it, well, shouldn’t they have their way before any fan has his/her way?

50. RushLight - January 24, 2011


51. kmart - January 24, 2011

God, the only reason to let Abrams direct anything is to make sure it isn’t in 3D. But considering he can create more eyestrain in 2D than most people can in 3D, there isn’t really any upside with him.

Maybe Trek will be like Bond, and somehow do a decent turn second time out to make up for the first one. QUANTUM still had that eyesore Craig, but it was an honest try at good filmmaking, in spite of the ADD cutting.

52. Chadwick - January 24, 2011

24. Basement Blogger

Well said, and that is the key thing, if JJ is not interested he’s not interested, move on.

Yes Star Trek is Gene’s creation and should follow that path. I think those of us who vote JJ are simply doing it because regardless of what he likes he is good spirited and passionate about the work he does and its no different with Star Trek. Nick Meyer, Leonard Nimoy, Jonathan Frakes have all directed two Star Trek movies, and you have Harve Bennett producing four.
On a further note.
Its not JJ we have to avoid simply because he likes Star Wars more or that he made movies for fans of movies (I love Star Trek and movies so the 2009 movie..i loved it,) its the directors like David Carson Stuart Baird with regards to Generation and Nemesis respectfully we have to avoid. They had no passion, vibrance, energy, or insight the way JJ did.

He may not have fully followed Gene Roddenberry’s formula but he did follow a Star Trek formula adding a few new equations to the formula and thats fine. Since JJ has directed one, he has a feel for it. Getting a new director for the next one could just be another Carson or Baird mistake unless its someone familiar with and passionate about Star Trek.

53. Anthony Thompson - January 24, 2011

I just watched it on Blu-Ray for the first time last night and was impressed once more with JJ’s direction of that film. He poured a lot of creative energy into it and it shows! Like everyone else, I have a few quibbles. But the totality of the film is very entertaining and , yes, very ‘Trek’!

54. Vultan - January 24, 2011

If not Abrams, perhaps Orci could get Martin Campbell to direct the next Trek. He did a great job with “Casino Royale.” And hopefully “Green Lantern” will be great, too.

Well, regardless of who directs, it all depends on the script—Bob—nudge-nudge, wink-wink….

55. Bob Tompkins - January 24, 2011

Better yet, Spielberg directing a Trek?

56. kmart - January 24, 2011

Carson was not a bad director at all, and he brought a really good attitude to a project that was really messed up from the start. The studio-imposed producer gave him and his supremely talented cinematographer a very hard time, and basically he was probably in the least-comfortable position of any trek feature director, except maybe for Shatner, in terms of studio interference and budgetary limitations.

Look at some of his TNG/DS9 eps, and they look more like feature films than the Nimoy directed TOS pics. I think if Carson had done FC, it would have been a much better movie than we got with Frakes, and maybe he’d’ve had the feature career he deserved.

Baird doesn’t even count as a director. 3 features, all with Goldsmith scores and decent budgets, and they all are unwatchably bad? Baird is maybe the least talented film director I can think of (not that I want to think of him at all, since I’m no big fan of him as editor either.)

57. Tony Todd's Tears - January 24, 2011

If J.J. doesn’t direct the sequel, then I’m going to cry.

58. John from Cincinnati - January 24, 2011


I wanted to congratulate you on Hawaii Five-O. I am a Jack Lord fan and didn’t think it would be good. My wife got me to watch it and it is really good. Scott Caan is awesome and Alex O’Laughlin does a nice job, although he (Alex) lacks a gravitas in his voice for that role (I’m biased).

59. Trek Nerd Central - January 24, 2011

Darren Aronofsky! Who’s with me?

60. Trek Nerd Central - January 24, 2011

Sorry, folks. Didn’t mean to hit the button twice.

61. denny cranium - January 24, 2011

@ 27. Yeah what you said.

Abrams naysayers- He REVIVED this franchise. Saying he just doesn’t get Trek? I don’t think so.
Yes he turned it upside down a bit BUT HE HAD TO- you have to get people to fill the theatre.
I have been a fan since the 70’s and I felt nothing but respect and reverence for the source material from JJ and the rest of the creative team.
As far as him wanting to wait until the script is done?
It’s his right to choose what projects he directs.
He’s earned it.

62. Michael - January 24, 2011

As for the lighting on the bridge, why do people get miffed about the brighness. If I were on a long space voyage and NEVER saw daylight or sunlight, I’d want it to be bright. The TOS bridge was bright, it’s the movies that slowly made it seem like they were working in a coal mine.
Does it really need to be like a submarine on a state of the art starship?
I used to be VERY anooyed when many of trek series were unduly underlit and could barely make out the face of the characters! With a million and 1/2 per ep., surely some one can afford a torchere or overhead light!

63. StalwartUK - January 24, 2011

If Abrams doesn’t want to do it I sure wouldn’t mind if another director took a turn.

64. Daoud - January 24, 2011

Tom Hooper would be an intriguing possibility… if you’re making:
THE KHAN’S SPEECH. ;) Not sure you’d get him in a Trek film, as he seems destined for Oscar-type films.

If JJ doesn’t want to direct, just as long as *he* gets to choose who directs it, I’m fine with either possibility.

What would be interesting would be for JJ to realize he should be shooting the third and fourth films at the same time to get more Trek in the pipeline. With so many writers in the Bad Robot stable, you’d think they could be creating a lot more to film than once every Olympiad. I mean, we had 8 Apollo missions go to the moon in a period of 4 years… should it really take so long to do Trek?

65. Vultan - January 24, 2011


Heck dude, why not make the bridge even BRIGHTER?! When not striking a J. Crew summer catalog pose and firing off one-liners, the crew should be sitting back with foil reflectors on their laps and cumcumber slices over their eyes. I mean, the Kirk unit has gonna catch some rays.


66. Vultan - January 24, 2011

Correction: GOTTA catch some rays.

67. Vultan - January 24, 2011

Another correction: cucumber. Damn typos.

68. Charla - January 24, 2011

19- I’m with you!

69. somethoughts - January 24, 2011


I thought quantum of solace was the worst bond ever, terrible director and half assed script. Never get a b director kite guy to direct a franchise film like bond, spidey reboot headed in same direction.

70. TrekTech - January 24, 2011

Personally I dont care if JJ directs or not…It seems that the folks involved in the first one are now taking on more work and that concerns me as far as putting out a quality product. It also seems that any momentum the first movie garnered is quickly petering out. 09 Trek is a guilty pleasure for me. It was full of problems for me but I cant say I didnt enjoy it. From an art direction standpoint I think the overall failure of the merchandising shows that several things need to be re-thought. Imagine an ’09 Engineering Room playset for your action figures…lol. Id love to see Nick Meyer take a shot at the sequel and Id like to see MUCH better set, ship and prop design. These are elements that are organic to the experience not an afterthought. Hell, they couldnt even figure out the SCALE of the ship they were so lost. The ship looked like parody of the Enterprise…ungainly and awkward. The props were uninspiring at best and the sets…well…lets just say Chambliss should’ve left Ryan Chruch’s original designs alone. Im sorry but Chambliss has no eye for Trek. The cast I thought was great as was the character interaction. If JJ passes Im ok with that as long as we get someone like Meyer in there to fill the void. What I fear is Michale Bay….

71. Chang - January 24, 2011

You’re Tearring me apart Uhura!!!!!!
They could call it the Wrath of Khan that dripped on Kirk.

I don’t think Tarrentino will do Trek, he’d want to write it too. I think it will be a combination of the script and how strong a stance the studio takes on the 3d element. His style does not suit a 3d film at all.

72. Red Dead Ryan - January 24, 2011

A few people have suggested that if J.J Abrams doesn’t direct the sequel, they should hand the reins over to either Jonathan Frakes, or Nick Meyer.
I have to disagree. While I appreciate the contributions both gentlemen have made to “Star Trek”, I’m not certain their styles would be compatible with today’s movie making techniques and technology. J.J Abrams shook things up. Because today’s audiences have different tastes and what they expect from current movies is different from what audiences expected or wanted fifteen, twenty or thirty years ago.

And if Michael Bay is chosen as the next director of “Star Trek”, there’ll be trouble coming to town. So perish the thought.

73. AJ - January 24, 2011

There is, of course, the chance that the ‘Spielberg’ remark is the first PR salvo. It, well, actually is, because we’ve read it.

Now begins the controlled release of info out of left field. Now we will all be silly ‘ambassadors’ of information twittering stuff that we’ll somehow have seen eventually corroborated on ‘,’ and then Quinto will be seen dining in NYC with Chris Pine, and will cough while he orders ‘flan,’ and someone will hear ‘Khan,’ and it will lead to mass hysteria.

Or not.

74. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - January 24, 2011

Nick Meyer please


Ridley Scott

75. Rusty0918 - January 24, 2011


Yeah I hate this brick wall mentality here. I mean, just because it’s directed by JJ Abrams doesn’t mean it’s the best thing ever. I mean, Stevel Spielberg has directed a few stinkers himself (“Lost World: Jurassic Park” comes to mind). Jonathan Frakes, well, he gave us First Contact but he also gave us Insurrection, which many consider to be very very weak.

I think the worst thing that could possibly happen is if the next movie turns out to be on the level of “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” though critics will praise it like a “Dark Knight,” which, as strange as it sounds, I could actually see happening.

76. captain_neill - January 24, 2011

I don’t care if he directs next movie or not, I will see it no matter what.

Its not like JJ Abrams is the best ever director in Trek.

77. Red Dead Ryan - January 24, 2011


“Its not like JJ Abrams is the best ever director in Trek.”

He’s one of Trek’s all time greatest. And he’s established himself as one of the most important directors not just in “Star Trek”, but in all of Hollywood.

78. Dee - January 24, 2011

Of course, the young cast of Star Trek is loyal to JJAbrams … and this is an understandable attitude … well I liked the movie and I’m grateful for JJAbrams to have done a good job and he brought Star Trek back! .. so if he want to direct Star Trek 2012… great! … but that such indecision is annoying me … oh YES! … Ummmm … ummmm … PATIENCE IS REQUIRED!

79. the Quickening - January 24, 2011

Hey Bob! Forget trying to solicit Spielberg to help convince Abrams; instead work on Spielberg to direct it!

80. Nanite - January 24, 2011

Thinking out of the box for for directing the next Star Trek: Opie Taylor :) Erik Jenderson, Mr, Hanks

81. somethoughts - January 24, 2011

I wouldn’t be surprised if Star Trek was pushed back to 2013, seems awfully tight to release a film in 2012 when the script isn’t even finished?

I would think the special effects department, music and sound department, editing department etc. would require a bit more time than 1yr, assuming they start filming this year?

The majority of films competing against Star Trek sequel is already being filmed and has sets, costumes, etc fleshed out?

I would prefer they push back to 2013 or 2014 if need be, to produce a far superior epic movie instead of a rushed Insurrection tv episode type movie.

How long did it take to produce Avartar or Lord of the Rings or The Dark Knight? Surely it took more than 1year from writing to final product.

That being said, don’t rush it Bob! If you guys need more time to write a epic masterpiece sequel, take your time. Don’t fall victims to predisposed deadlines and schedules.

82. Nanite - January 24, 2011

Ritchie Cunningham to direct next ST properly named Star Trek Canon!

83. Nanite - January 24, 2011


84. jas_montreal - January 24, 2011


-christian bale recorded rant on the set of terminator salvation

but seriously… lets just choose a director and get the production started !

85. thomas5 - January 24, 2011

OK, LoR os Avatar needed more time but Paramont has everything (uniforms, “space devices” etc) yet to shoot a movie.
Telling the truth JJ had to be more carefully before he directed MI3…
The last trek was good but not about its intellectuality.

86. dmduncan - January 24, 2011

I think Spielberg would be a good fit for Star Trek. If he gets a great script he’ll make a great movie. But how practical is it? And even if you could get Spielberg, could you avoid the two-for-one deal and keep Tom Hanks out? Joined at the hip, those two.

87. GarySeven - January 24, 2011

I just want to see Trek more like Star Wars, with LOTS of explosions, little aliens like Scotty’s humorous sidekick in the last movie (so cute!), fast-paced action with no time to think about anything, and definitely no message (well, the intellectual message from the last movie- “kill the bad guy before he kills you”- would be ok again). So cross your fingers for and hope for JJ.

88. captain_neill - January 24, 2011


He did a great movie

But he did NOT direct the best ever Star Trek.

89. somethoughts - January 24, 2011


Be happy Star Trek is alive and well :)


It depends how you measure best, box office? critics? mass? sequel potential?

hmms check, check, check and check or are you referring to personal fan opinion? :)

90. Desstruxion - January 24, 2011

I’ll watch it no matter who directs.

91. somethoughts - January 24, 2011

I’ll watch it no matter what, I’m hungry for a sci fi space movie that challenges the eyes and mind.

92. Christopher_Roberts - January 24, 2011

Don’t rush it.

93. captain_neill - January 24, 2011


I am not denying that it is the biggest box office hit at the cinema for Star Trek, given it’s budget it needed to make the most money.

But as a huge Trekkie I just don’t view this film as the best ever Star Trek.

I am really sorry but the movie is good but there are better Trek movies out there.

Hell even some episodes of Voyager are stronger. And I liked Voyager even though its not my fav Trek.


94. captain_neill - January 24, 2011

Who hopes Star Trek XII will have a much stronger plot?

95. cdp - January 24, 2011

I think that’s a matter of personal opinion on what star trek movie is the best after all their are 11 to choose from. Everyone has their own favorite Star Trek movie some peoples favorite may be The Wrath of Khan, while others favorite may be First Contact, while some of the newer generation of Star Trek fans may find JJ Abrams Star Trek to be the best. No matter witch one you choose to be the best they all have a valid point for why they consider it the best trek. I personally don’t have a favorite as I feel they all have their own place in the star trek universe. I could never pic a favorite Star Trek because that’s like trying to pick a favorite child. The Motion Picture was the best trek movie of its time just as JJ Abram Star Trek is best trek movie of its time.

96. the Quickening - January 24, 2011


I disagree. I think TREK needs quality, artistic, personal directors like Quentin Tarantino, Chris Nolan, etc., and NOT populist panderer-type directors like Abrams, Ron Howard, Jon Favreau, etc., who would want to turn TREK into STAR WARS. I hope they can find a director who can make the movie great, sophisticated, adult, entertaining, and NOT mindless and dumb. A director the calibre of Tarantino would be a good choice.

In my opinion, Tarantino, and creative directors like him, would never have edited out the prison scene in TREK like Abrams did (you have a weak antagonist and you remove scenes that would help make him a better character, just to move the plot along, or because of audience confusion?); they would have forced rewrites–especially that scene on Delta Vega with all those mindless coincidences; they would have forced rewrites concerning Kirk’s too rapid rise to the captaincy. Art, personal directors look at film as quality, not consumer product, and desire to tell stories that reflect life, not distort it. When Abrams and company start showing me they are capable of making those kind of decisions, and films, then I’ll start being impressed.

97. captain_neill - January 24, 2011


Good Point

But I do hate the mentality of the mainstream who seem to think that the Abrams movie is the only good Star Trek.

Star Trek XI is a good movie but is it good Star Trek or does it only capture a small portion of what Trek was about?

Although infused with a little too much Star Wars DNA, I can still see bits of the Trek I love in there. It had the fun moments of what made TOS great but I did find that it was dumbed down.

Still liked it but there are better Trek movies.

98. captain_neill - January 24, 2011

All I am saying is that Star Trek has been round for 45 years and JJ Abrams only did one movie.

Just because Star Trek XI was a massive hit does not make JJ Abrams Mr Star Trek. It was there long before he came on the scene.

Roddenberry was a great visionary and its great that Star Trek has lasted.

99. dmduncan - January 24, 2011

Quentin Tarantino would have had a fifteen minute conversation between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that ends in a sudden, expletive punctuated phaser fight and McCoy jamming his hypo into the eye socket of a Klingon.

100. GarySeven - January 24, 2011

#89- “Be happy Star Trek is alive and well”:

JJ Abrams did make Star Trek “alive” and popular again, but we may have different definitions of what “well” means.

I am hoping the new movie goes even further and this time when R2D2 is on viewscreen, it crashes into the ship, leading to a “Death Star-type explosion” with LOTS of lens flares. So cool!
Now back to playing my video games, all this writing hurts my brain (and is soooo boring)…

101. captain_neill - January 24, 2011

Please don’t mistake my rants for hating the new movie. I like it but there is better Star Trek out there.

I have problems with people liking the film. I guess I feel a bit hurt when people treat it as if it were the only good one because all the shows had great stuff in them. That is all.

102. somethoughts - January 24, 2011


So what is allowing star trek sequel to be made? Was it enterprise series or nemesis? LoL maybe it was the release of star trek tmp on blu ray that has rebooted and relaunced the dying franchise.

103. captain_neill - January 24, 2011

Correction I meant I have no problems with people liking the film.

104. captain_neill - January 24, 2011

103 is a ref to a typo in 101 where I left no out

Do people like the alternate universe of the new movie or do you wish it was in prime universe still?

105. Christopher_Roberts - January 24, 2011

104. Wish it all about the Prime (and set during ENT if I’m honest). But since that’s not very likely under the new regime… what’s a 30-ish Trekkie to do? Call it a day, give up and go home? You just have to hope they know what they’re doing to Star Trek and in what direction it should go.

106. Christopher_Roberts - January 24, 2011

edit – Wish it was all about the Prime….

107. somethoughts - January 24, 2011


I really dont care what universe it is in. Im just happy there are new movies made exploring space, issues and the human spirit.

I do want to see new uniforms, sets and ships. Im not a fan of lazy productions reusing already used sets, music, etc.

I want star trek sequel to be the grand daddy of all sci fi space movies, i want wiki to say the sequel took 5 yrs to make, 300mil to produce and 2yrs to film, using 1million extras, most 3dfx shots, coop from nasa and govt, and highest grossing franchise film of all time with most oscar wins.

108. VulcanFilmCritic - January 24, 2011

Star Trek has been directed by Robert Wise, Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy, and a slew of talented individuals over at Desilu. Although I’d really like to see more of J.J Abrams’ personal vision, as long as the story is good, the characters are true and the actors are honest, then Paramount will have another winner.
Believe me, Star Trek will live…on and on and on.

But what doe it say to the Star Trek audience if J.J Abrams decides NOT to direct? Gee kids, the script for “Star Trek XII” really sucked so I’m going to pass on this one. Let some young Turk with no reputation to ruin or some old dude who couldn’t care less tackle this puppy!

109. Hugh Hoyland - January 24, 2011

#99 dmduncan lol

110. somethoughts - January 24, 2011



111. Basement Blogger - January 24, 2011

Even though I have criticized Star Trek (2009) , I still liked it. I have a great hopes for the 2012 movie. J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof have both talked about going deeper which I thought was a problem with the 2009 movie. (Links below.) So, it’s with optimism that I look forward to 2012 film and the move to go deeper.

J.J. Abrams interview with TrekMovie on the need to go deeper.

Damon Lindelof on the need to go deeper.

112. Chadwick - January 24, 2011

55. Bob Tompkins

That would be kinda crazy.

113. Red Dead Ryan - January 24, 2011


I agree. A push back to 2013 or ’14 is a distinct possibility. And I’d be all for it if it means a better movie than if they rush it to meet a deadline.

It wouldn’t be a big deal if the sequel got delayed a year or two. And if they decide they can’t come up with anything, I hope Paramount just shuts it all down for a decade or so. No sense in putting out crap.

114. Trekprincess - January 25, 2011

How long is captain neil’s rants about Star Trek XI going to last in my in my opinion I didn’t think it was dumbed down or anything anyway I hope Mr Abrams does direct the sequel :)

115. captain_neill - January 25, 2011

When I say dumbed down, I don’t mean a stupid film, just in comparison to what came before.

As I said I like the new movie.

Just pointing out that Star Trek did pretty for 40 years before Abrams movie, It will be going on after he has done his stuff.

116. john - January 25, 2011

Captain Neill is right.

I will get flamed for this but here’s my 2 cents…

Full disclosure, I didn’t particularly care for the movie.

I could right an entire essay about what was wrong with it but I neither have the time nor the patience for it.

What I will say is that it was only marginally better than V. Yes V, the one with the fake God.

Moving forward I think that Trek would actually be better in a completely set of different hands.

This is comming of course from someone with many years of emotional investment in old Trek.

I tried to give this new team a chance, I really did. I watched the movie serveral times. Thought about it, watched it again. Tried to like it, but just can’t.

This new Trek isn’t just too much Star Wars; I dare say it is more 90210 with phasers.

IMHO this Trek is purely out for $$$ and the Twilight crowd. Plain and simple. In fact it was like watching one of those Twilight movies, just that it was in space and instead of Vampires we got Romulans.

The days of Gene’s vision/type of Star Trek are long gone sadly. I can only hope that one day it will return with the help of a new director and new script writters.

117. Trekprincess - January 25, 2011

How is it like Twilight that is crap in my opinion I am so glad they made Star Trek 09 and I will be happy with the next one as well so don’t bash other people’s opinions :) Live Long And Prosper Abrams Trek

118. captain_neill - January 25, 2011


Question is do you like only the Abrams movie or do you like the other Treks as well?

119. Trekprincess - January 25, 2011

What is it to you what I like or dislike :/

120. Trekprincess - January 25, 2011

Off course I love all the Star Trek films and tv series they are all awesome:)

121. trekprincess - January 25, 2011

well Captain Neill I wasn’t a Star Trek fan before the Abrams film so yes in a way I do like the Abrams Star Trek is that a crime what i choose to like or dislike anyway I must confess I have all the TOS seasons on DVD and I have watched them over and over again and the other Star Trek series and films they are all awesome

122. ProperTrekkieUk (aka OfficialSpudUk) - January 25, 2011

What would be interest is if JJ did pass on it. Would that mean the script was rubbish and he didn’t want to direct it! After all, he says he will direct if the script is good!

I vote Nick Meyer anyways…

123. Ironhyde - January 25, 2011

Hire JJ. But if he turns a flashlight into the camera again, fire him.

124. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

@121 trekprincess somewhat of a newbie eh. nice :)

125. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

70. TrekTech

I agree with some aspects especially about Chruch’s design, I also loved Gabriel Koerner Enterprise.

Lets not forget about this |

To be honest with regards to Chambliss I like his designs for the bridge, the Enterprise, etc because I have always love the 70’s style of sci fi. I loved the 70’s style of The Motion Picture. So the style of the Enterprise was not what I expected after hoping for Koerner’s style but it grew on me, and she is one fine looking ship.

126. Trekprincess - January 25, 2011

Yes I am a newbie who doesn’t have a clue you might say on what real Star Trek is

127. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

72. Red Dead Ryan

I agree with you. Frakes or Meyer would not be a good idea now, its past their time, they would not be able to give the 2011-2012 audience what they want. Just like Benet would be a bad idea.


I still say David Carson and Stuart Baird were both shitty.

McG or Michael Bay would also be a nightmare. And you can’t use Peter Jackson just because it did a great job with LOTR, King Kong was shitty, HE IS NOT THE TYPE TO DIRECT STAR TREK, just because you live in New Zealand, and it was filmed there, thats a bias opinion. I would also not want John Favreau to direct either. In my opinion Christopher Nolan is the only one in the past 3-5 years who has done something tasteful. What he did with the new Batman. Favreau too low brow with his Iron man, McG and Bay are both “BAM big explosions” and Peter Jackson has never touched Sci Fi, let him stick with the Hobbit he’s good at it.

I get a kick out of people who don’t rationally think things through and just blurt it out their favorite director without thinking logically. Christopher Nolan is not my favorite director but seeing what he did and comparing him to Bay or McG, he is tasteful. I want a unicorn to direct star trek XII! See…stupid. Oh why not have Shatner direct.

128. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

Ridley Scott would be interesting, Spielberg would be ok, but I know his style, some times he hits sometimes he misses. Spielbergs association with Lucas would make for an uneasy choice.

129. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

77. Red Dead Ryan

Well said, someone who thinks rationally using current information rather than saying “oh JJ is bad” why? “because I don’t like what he did to Trek.”

JJ did a great job with Trek and I hope he returns for the next two. When you star splitting up a team which spearheaded this new birth that is when things start to go wrong. The next two movies should be Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, Burke, and JJ. NO one should be replaced

130. Mark Lynch - January 25, 2011

I really do not see what the fuss is about, where J.J. Abrams must direct the next Star Trek film or it will be a “disaster”. He has not directed that many films and those which he has are not exactly indicative, to me, of him being some form of directorial genius. Any film maker which relies overly much on lens flares, quick cuts and shaky cam work to tell their story has, in my opinion, a lot to learn still.

Granted, he made a passable Star Trek film. But if the character, ship names and title of the film had been changed it most likely would still have done virtually the same at the box office. Simply put there was not really anything which made the film “Star Trek” special, with the notable exception of Leonard Nimoy being there and a small smattering of other things. This story could have been told in any Sci-Fi Universe and done as well as it did in the (now altered) Star Trek one.

This latest version of Star Trek is almost totally in name only and I am saying this as a 40 year Star Trek fan, I’ve seen every iteration. Of course the film had some enjoyable moments but that is all. I am also sure I will watch the next instalment of this franchise. But it will not be as avid a follower as I have been of the previous film and television incarnations.

I’d like to see someone with a bit more directing, and in fact life, experience take a go at the next Star Trek film.

The following spring to mind
(in no particular order)
Steven Spielberg
Ridley Scott
James Cameron
John Carpenter
Terry Gilliam
Ron Howard

131. captain_neill - January 25, 2011


Not a crime but as a newbie as a result of the new movie.

I am glad you are getting into the other Star Treks

Are you going to try the spin offs as well?

132. captain_neill - January 25, 2011


I’ve been a Trek fan for 20 years, I don’t mean to criticise the new movie cause I do enjoy it but it is different from the Trek I grew up with.

Hope you understand.

133. number6 - January 25, 2011

I think George Lucas should direct the next Trek film…Just to piss off the “fans” who insist that JJAbrams is trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars!!

134. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2011

Chadwick, thanks for the replies!


That would be funny!

135. VulcanFilmCritic - January 25, 2011

@116. I remember the old TOS Trek also, and reviewing those early shows, I am struck by how much they look and sound like serious TV dramas, except that they happen to take place in outer space. In fact, when I first tuned into Star Trek in 1966, I thought I had the wrong show on. It was totally adult. It was directed by serious directors.

Perhaps that’s what the franchise needs now, a little more drama and good writing, and a little less camp, special effects, and fan-boy action. Why can’t someone make a Star Trek film worthy of an academy award? Look at what happened when a serious director like Stanley Kubrick turned to science fiction. We got two classics like “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “A Clockwork Orange.”

I notice that when it comes to action movies, we think only men can direct. So I’m going to throw out the name of a woman director: Kathyrn Bigelow (“The Hurt Locker” and “K19:The Widowmaker”)

And before you laugh, just remember that some of Star Trek’s greatest scripts were written (or ghost written) by a woman, D.C. Fontana. She gave the show depth and pathos, which is sometimes forgotten in the testosterone-rush to make the next film bigger and “better.”

136. gingerly - January 25, 2011

Still holding out for Brad Bird, if Abrams doesn’t do it.

137. somethoughts - January 25, 2011


I have been a trekkie since TNG, 24yrs, the old formula wasnt working with the poor box office results from nemesis, insurrection and below expectation ratings for enterprise. Star trek had to evolve or die, star trek 2009 gave the dying franchise a fresh start a reboot, like it or hate it, that is the reality.

GR would have been proud of jj n the team.

138. P Technobabble - January 25, 2011

TOS had a look and a feel about it, and then TNG had its own look and feel, which carried over to the Treks that followed. And when TNG came out, there were Trek fans then who pretty much despised the show for even existing. Who would expect things to be different now?

And just as past Star Trek movies were of THEIR time, Trek09 is of its time. While it’s not like comparing apples to oranges, it is like comparing Red Delicious apples to Golden Delicious apples; both apples, but of different breeds.

I don’t think there hasn’t been one female director mentioned. For example, I think Mimi Leder did a fine job with “Deep Impact.” I’m just sayin…

Finally, to quote Spock, “You must have faith that the universe will unfold as it should…” And so it will.

139. P Technobabble - January 25, 2011

138. correction

“I don’t think there HAS been one female director mentioned…”
I do aim to be precise…

140. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2011


Well said!

Though someone did mention Kathryn Bigalow earlier. She directed “The Hurt Locker”.

141. VulcanFilmCritic - January 25, 2011

@138. I agree, but please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not a “dick-head.” I loved the new movie. I saw it eight times, but it is what it is. A very entertaining and sentimental action movie. Nothing more. It just saddens me that the seriousness of intent of the original show in its infancy is just not there.

I would love to see that kind of idealism, creativity, and drive return to the franchise, but if the concern at the studio is pushing 3D for dollars, I can just forget about being inspired, and sit back and enjoy another giant popcorn.

I don’t think the success of a film should be measured in terms of box office, but in terms of the impact it has. By all of the common measures of success, Star Trek: TOS was an abysmal failure. But with super-fans like Martin Luther King and Barack Obama, its success went much deeper.

How many young people (or old people) today are going to sit in that theater and come out INSPIRED as well as thrilled? I wonder.
That is what the producers, director and writers should be concerned about.

142. dmduncan - January 25, 2011

138: “it is like comparing Red Delicious apples to Golden Delicious apples; both apples, but of different breeds.”

I hope they’re shooting for Honey Crisp apples. Best apples ever.

143. John from Cincinnati - January 25, 2011

Calling all Hollywood heavyweights.

I am in need of your support. Today the Parents of Justin Clinton, a 10 year old in Texas, won a lawsuit against the owners of the two pit bulls that managed to escape and mauled the poor boy to death. Clinton’s parents lawyer is filing a new law called Justin’s law to make owning a Pit Bull illegal in Texas as a 3rd degree felony. Pit bulls are worthless wastes of life that are 80% responsible for all human deaths by animals. A startling statistic. I need your help Hollywood heavyweights to petition a sponsor of the bill in the Texas legislature. The world should be rid of these terrible creatures once and for all.

144. dmduncan - January 25, 2011

143: “The world should be rid of these terrible creatures once and for all.”

I’m confused. Do you mean pit bulls or Texans?

145. dmduncan - January 25, 2011

Keep your chaps on Texas, I’m kiiiiding! ;-)

146. James - January 25, 2011

Bob get Spielberg to have a word with Tom Hanks for the role of Commodore Matt Decker!!

147. somethoughts - January 25, 2011


You should consider calling in the dog whisperer, humans are the ones that do not know how to handle animals and are not aware of their language and warning signs.

Texans should be more worried about gun control than pitbull control imo, there are far more senseless deaths attributed to guns than pitbulls.

The gun person would say, properly licensed responsible people do not kill with guns, people kill people.

The dog person would say, properly licensed responsible people do not let their dogs kill, people kill people.

Why blame guns or dogs? Blame stupid people.

148. somethoughts - January 25, 2011


If I wanted to be enlightened I wouldn’t watch Star Trek, I would go far east and climb a mountain and join the monks.

Movies are to entertain and make money for studios, anything else is a bonus.

I just don’t want to be preached at or watch a pretentious film that harks about the betterment of something for the sake of something, as long as I can watch the movie more than 3 times, it’s A in my books.

Yes moral stories are nice but shouldn’t be the building block of a good star trek movie or any movie for that matter.

149. Mutant Child - January 25, 2011

I’ll do it!

150. John from Cincinnati - January 25, 2011


Do I need to explain the difference between bullets and pit bulls?

Bullets are inamimate objects, pit bulls have minds of their own, and in spite of fences and training, pit bulls still manage to get out, defy their owners and maul people. It’s a fact that’s academic. 80% of human deaths caused by animals are by Pit bulls and Rotweilers. The only reason to own such an animal is to kill people.

151. Trekprincess - January 25, 2011

Does anyone wish the last Star Trek wasn’t made :/

152. somethoughts - January 25, 2011


If you ever owned a animal or a pitbull you would know that to be false, any dog can be made into a “killer” if given the proper training or lack of training.

I do not own a pitbull but there are quite a few here in Toronto still and they are very gentle loving dogs provided they are loved and nurtured. Have there been cases here in Toronto that have resulted in cases where humans or dogs were hurt by pitbulls yes, but to simple blanket and label all pitbulls as bad is no different than saying all x race are thieves or lazy, pretty ignorant imo. Reminds me of racial profiling.

Why not destroy all pitbulls if you are so against them in their very design? Just put them all into burning furnaces and pile their bodies on top of each other, wait…

153. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

81. somethoughts – January 24, 2011

I thought so as well but I hear Nolan is just finishing up the Batman script (end of January) and its also said that preproduction has started to get underway and its scheduled for a July 2012 release. Star Trek XII is in the same stage, I am sure the script is being finished but it also has to be approved, if it is then things should be ready for June 2012.

90. Desstruxion
So will I

91. somethoughts
Same here.

95. cdp – January 24, 2011
Exactly, and to further your point not only do people have different favorite Star Trek but as you age your favorites might change. As a kid I LOVED the Voyage Home but new, meh, im indifferent about it. I have my favorite but I like you like them all as they all have their place and all offer something different.

154. kmart - January 25, 2011


Hell yes!j I also wish they hadn’t made the bond flicks they did between 1971 and 1985.

155. dmduncan - January 25, 2011

Not to be plugging Netflix, but great news for all the Nicholas Meyer aficionados. A piece of his early movie writing is now an instant stream on Netflix:

Who knew Nicholas Meyers had an inner Ed Wood?

156. dmduncan - January 25, 2011

Meyers = Meyer (sorry. I always do that).

157. ac - January 25, 2011

I think JJ could do a great job with this one, and I didn’t even like the last one so much, but this one will lend itself to being an even better movie because it can just tell a good ST story without the reboot baggage. If he can’t do it or doesn’t want to, I would nominate someone along the lines of Tony Scott.

158. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

96. the Quickening

I agree with you regarding the prison scene, such a mistake to take it out, it was pure gold. The Tarantino thing…I am not so sure Star Trek is something that is mean to be helmed by him. As a Tarantino fan I love his work, but he was not made to direct Star Trek.

159. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

105. Christopher_Roberts

I am 27, old enough to love the classic trek, young enough to get a blast out of the new movie. But yea, I loved Enterprise.

160. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

I don’t see any star wars in the new movie. JJ says one thing and its all thats its associated with now. I saw it in IMAX opening day, 5 more times after, and say 33 times on blu ray now. I still don’t see any star wars, only the R2D2 when I pause it in the debris field. I have never once felt, oh wow this movie feels like a star wars movie.

161. Chadwick - January 25, 2011

126. Trekprincess – January 25, 2011

Oh yes you do. You said you have watched all the movies and TV series, to know enough to know what real trek is : )

Im 27 so I was 4 when TNG started and watched it from day one as well as TOS reruns with my father. I loved the new movie, but I guess to the grumps I don’t know what real trek is either because I love the new movie.

162. somethoughts - January 25, 2011


The only sense of Star Wars I felt was the impressive aliens in the bar and on the ship of the Kelvin.

The only other scene that I felt had some elements of Star Wars to it was the fact that you had this evil guy blowing up planets with a laser thingie and how Kirk gazed upon the Enterprise being built with moving music and the morning sky coming in.

163. keachick - January 25, 2011

#99 – “Quentin Tarantino would have had a fifteen minute conversation between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that ends in a sudden, expletive punctuated phaser fight and McCoy jamming his hypo into the eye socket of a Klingon.”

Exactly. Bad energy…(My objection has little to do with his general skills as a director or writer. It is just what he choses to write and direct, and what he choses to show…) Yes, I have no doubt he probably would have left the Klingon scenes in, especially the one where Nero was being interrogated and tortured and probably even upped the anti, the violence, the nastiness, the gratuitous violence in general. Not good Star Trek. Not good FOR Star Trek.

#116 – “IMHO this Trek is purely out for $$$ and the Twilight crowd. Plain and simple. In fact it was like watching one of those Twilight movies, just that it was in space and instead of Vampires we got Romulans.”

Have you bothered to watch any of the Twilight movies? You do realise that one of the favourite pastimes of non-fans is to slag off any movies that may have a following, especially if it is a youthful one? Duh…Heard it all before. Soooo predictable.

#127 – “And you can’t use Peter Jackson just because it did a great job with LOTR, King Kong was shitty, HE IS NOT THE TYPE TO DIRECT STAR TREK, just because you live in New Zealand, and it was filmed there, thats a bias opinion.”

Actually, I was not the first to suggest Peter Jackson as a possible director for the next Star Trek. Another poster here suggested him. It was I who pointed out that the likelihood of getting Peter Jackson was pretty remote because he was working on the Hobbit. How do you know “HE IS NOT THE TYPE TO DIRECT STAR TREK” (not sure why the caps)? What “type”is he exactly? Has he even been asked?

Some people believe that Quentin Tarantino may do a good job on the next Trek, but personally I don’t think so. So why shouldn’t some, including me, think that Peter Jackson might not be a good choice? He has a lot of experience with doing epic fantasy type stuff and owns WETA and he has very good screenwriters working with him, Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walshe (FW is also his partner and mother of his two children). And if there is one franchise that needs something of a good woman’s touch, it is Star Trek. Not that there is anything wrong with Bob, Alex or Damon’s work so far. Is it my fault that Peter Jackson prefers to work where he lives, here in NZ? A collaboration between Spielberg and Jackson perhaps? Actually I had that idea many, many months ago when I was fantasising about who could turn my own Trek story into movie reality.

King Kong, the original film, was also “shitty”. We have both versions. Peter Jackson did a more modern, but fairly faithful rendering of the original movie. Much more watchable than the original and actually more enjoyable.

Come on, JJ Abrams, stop farting around and make a decision…

164. VulcanFilmCritic - January 25, 2011

@148 Have you ever watched Star Trek:TOS?

165. somethoughts - January 25, 2011


Yes, I went back to watch tos after watching tuc. It was interesting watching it backwards. TNG is still my fav, loved the episodes dealing with anomolies, paradoxes and the friendships formed in space, also the exploration component. Never enjoyed ds9 as it was too political, religous and war heavy, the characters imo were boring also. TNG and TOS still my fav

166. Basement Blogger - January 25, 2011

@ 148 Somethoughts

The original series was full of morality plays (see Nichelle Nichols comments below) and smart science fiction.. There were metaphors for race (“Let that be your last battlefield”) , the Viet Nam War (“A Private Little War”), the costs of war (“A Taste of Armageddon”) arms control (“The Doomsday Machine”) etc.

Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. If it’s Star Wars, it ain’t Star Trek. If you watched the PBS special on the pioneer of science fiction television, Gene resisted the networkts attempt to make Trek more popular, i.e. add monsters etc. All the series followed Gene’s vision. I distill to three elements. Heart, adventure and INTELLIGENCE. Gene’s vision includes Star Trek movies. If it’s not Gene Roddenberry’s vision then those films are not Star Trek.

Yes, I agree studiios are out to make money. But filmmaking is unique. It’s a mix of commerce and art. Movies that are purely entertainment and not of quality don’t last long. Fans of movies want some quality with their entertainment. And not all movies are made to just entertain with visceral thrills. The best film of 2010 is “The King’s Speech.” Maybe it’s the emotional and thought provoking appeal that entertains but it succeeds without explosions. So there’s a mix of commerce and art.

Clip of PBS Science Fiction pioneers embedded in TrekMovie article, check out Nichols comments at 2:19 about getting Gene to admit Trek was doing morality plays. and the narrarator saying that Trek was the sci-fi show with “something important to say.”

167. somethoughts - January 26, 2011


There isn’t anything wrong with ethics and morality embedded into sci fi or a movie, I just prefer it to be minimal and not punch me in the head over and over for 2hours. GR used Star Trek as a template to get his views out in the open in regards to the issues prevalent in his era/time, which was smart, he was given the chance to voice his opinions on important world issues at the time.

If I go into a sci fi space movie, I expect to be thrilled, entertained, challenged intellectually and moved emotionally, the morality and ethical play is fine as long as it doesn’t come across as forced or deemed too left or right winged.

I still have to see The King’s Speech, but after seeing The Fighter, I was really impressed with Bale and the quality of the film. It just came across as genuine and not forced nor pretentious. I had to google who Micky Ward was after the film as I had no idea he was such a great epic fighter. I guess I love 80s type movies, they are so grainy and so awesome.

168. somethoughts - January 26, 2011


I suppose my biggest fear is a Final Frontier or Insurrection type story, where it comes across as cheesy and laughable.

169. Basement Blogger - January 26, 2011

@ 167 Somethoughts

I see your point. Interesting though, because Avatar was in your face environmentalism. The Navi lived in a big tree and were literally tree huggers! I wonder why Fox News didn’t go all over James Cameron… oh that’s right Avatar was released by Fox.

And while the Original Series, had speeches, I found the show still intelligent and as the PBS show says, “something important to say.” As I posted earlier, Abrams and Lindelof want to go deeper than Trek 2009 and for that I’m grateful. (@ 111 with links) The Dark Knight and Inception were blockbusters and had something important to say so can Trek 2012.

170. captain_neill - January 26, 2011

If the team do a movie that is worthy of what the ideals of Star Trek are and is good Star Trek, then they will have succeeded in making something that will be a stronger film than the last.

171. VulcanFilmCritic - January 26, 2011

@167 Have you ever read any science fiction? I think people today, especially people making movies have forgotten what science fiction is about.

They confuse fantasy, space opera and action films with science fiction. At the core of these lightweight movies, which can be superficially thrilling, is NOTHING. Now, I don’t mind spending a few dollars on “fluff,” but I’d rather spend on something of lasting value.

In the old days sci-fi was mostly speculation on technological advances, then it became speculation on man’s responses and reactions to these advances. Writers realized that they could comment on the human condition in this genre, sometime more effectively than they could in a realistic style. Because writers were also futurists it gave this type of story a weird sibyl-like quality when their predictions came true.

This is what Star Trek is all about. 45 years ago we didn’t have computers, cell phones, voice-recognition software, faster than light travel, teleportation and multiculturalism. Star Trek was thrilling to watch on TV because its view of the future was mind-blowing, not so much because of the action.

Since then we’ve gotten some of those things, so to younger people Star Trek must seem very old hat. But in 1966, especially after seeing the 1965 World’s Fair, this was jaw-dropping.

Star Trek (2009) is stuck, It can’t really project into the future from here, it has to go back 45 years and project forward from there, and so we are left with what Gene Rodennberry called the Gulliver’s Travels aspect of Star Trek. Almost all of the TOS episodes are little morality plays, and we love them, because they tell us something about OURSELVES. That’s what the best science fictions does. How many times have I smiled to myself in my daily life and said, Gee I sound so much like Dr. McCoy, or have been faced with a stubborn computer system as unyielding as Landroo?

Fluff will not teach you about yourself nor prepare you for anything.

172. John - January 26, 2011

I watched Trek 2009 again last night. My intellect was insulted. I like the film as it does entertain, but the movie is fluff. Here’s some of the moments that bothered me. So a black hole can destroy the whole universe? Kirk rigs the Kobayashi Maru test openly as though he did rig it by mocking the whole experience. Wouldn’t you try to cover up something like that instead of looking obvious that you did rig it? Star fleet cadets getting into bloody bar fights and beating a civilian senseless is not very star fleet behavior and material IMHO. Nero blames Spock for the death of his world because Spock was to late to save it, WTF? If Spock took out the Super Nova everyone on Romulus would then of died anyway from the planet freezing, since life can’t exist on a planet without a sun! So Kirk needed to take over the ship as captain he does it by be a jerk to Spock to get him to kick his ass, again not very captain behavior, the end justifies the means I guess! Scotty is comedic value for the movie, as J.J says in the new cast behind the scenes featurette on Disc two of the DVD release.

173. captain_neill - January 26, 2011


That is the main problem with the script. it is great on character but the story is a bit of let down. I do think that JJ Abrams and his team did dumb down Star Trek for the mainstream. Sign of the times I guess.

Star Trek Xi is a good fun movie and I rate it highly for that fact. But the problem is if you really think about the conveniences and some character motivations then parts don’t really make much sense.

Now I like this movie but I don’t think its strong Star Trek.

The actors did great jobs playing alternate version of the TOS characters we love. Perhaps there were a few scenes where Zoe Saldana nearly destroyed the character of Uhura for me and Simon Pegg might have been used too much for comic relief, but for the most part they did good jobs. But then I will always prefer the originals no matter what.

I still find Nero a badly written villain but then he was a plot device rather than a character.

Although I do agree that Star Trek XI is a better film than Star Trek Nemesis I still believe Shinzon is a stronger villain. But then again I still consider Nemesis canon.

174. somethoughts - January 26, 2011


I rather enjoyed ,The Chrysalids. I’m surprised nobody has made a film version of this novel.

James Cameron seems to do a pretty good job making sci fi movies, with T2 being my favorite, it wasn’t just about explosions but his comments on the human race and war was subtle and not over the top.

Star Trek: The Next Generation won 18 Emmy Awards and, in its seventh season, became the first, and currently only, syndicated television show to be nominated for the Emmy for Best Dramatic Series. It was nominated for three Hugo Awards and won two. The first-season episode “The Big Goodbye” also won the Peabody Award for excellence in television programming. The series formed the basis of the seventh through the tenth Star Trek films.

The original Matrix was pretty good sci fi also.

Inception was great imo.

I don’t see how you conclude the people making movies have forgotten what science fiction is about.

175. P Technobabble - January 26, 2011

140. Red
Yes, I agree about Bigalow. With so few female directors, I wonder if women are less interested in directing, or is it simply a male-dominated arena, or something else…

141. Vulcan
I understand where you are coming from. A number of critical posts suggested that the new Star Trek lacked the serious/socially relevant “morality play” that the original series represented. I’m not really sure what this means. I think TOS, as a tv entity, had to present such things in a more direct way, essentially hitting us over the head with a “message” especially in the third season (Let This Be Your Last Battlefield is an example).
The film is just different. It moves at a different pace than a tv show, which only lasts for about 45 minutes of actual program time. I think films present ideas in a more faceted way. Many people can look at it in many different ways — so, someone gets the message that the film is about overcoming obstacles, while I get the message that the film is about change, and so forth. I’m not saying this is the case, but this is how it seems to me. TOS messages were very: “this episode is about racism.” I don’t see that sort of simple directness in films. They are much more open to interpretation.
So, my question is: what did TOS do that the new film didn’t do, and how should it have been done?

142. dm
I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever had a Honey Crisp apple. I’ve recently grown fond of Fuji apples. It’s the apple of my eye…

176. John - January 26, 2011

The tiny amount of Red Matter that was released to absorb Vulcan to the amount used at the end of the film should have created a black hole the size of the solar system.

177. John - January 26, 2011

The Super Nova that Prime Spock sent into the black hole that was to destroy the universe, when it finally comes to the new time line will it destroy that universe? Lets just hope it doesn’t return and destroy everything before J.J. and team get to finish their line of films!

178. Trekprincess - January 26, 2011

I have only been a Star Trek fan since 2009 is there anyone like me who became a fan because of Star Trek 09:)

179. Trekprincess - January 26, 2011

John take a long look at yourself and see that Star Trek 09 was a success at bringing new fans like me into the Star Trek universe now in my opinion I didn’t anything wrong with the film is it because I am a newbie

180. captain_neill - January 26, 2011


There is nothing wrong with that.

I just hope you learn to appreciate the other Treks out there.

I have no probs with anyone liking the new movie, treating the new movie as if it were the only good Trek is something that does annoy me.

181. John - January 26, 2011

Take a long look at myself, what?!!! If I expose the illogical writing of the new film I should be ashamed, WTF?!!! Trekprincess grow the heck up!

182. dmduncan - January 26, 2011

142. dm
I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever had a Honey Crisp apple. I’ve recently grown fond of Fuji apples. It’s the apple of my eye…

Make it a goal to go get one. They look somewhat similar to the Fuji, Gala, Pink Lady varieties, but taste different.

183. Trekprincess - January 26, 2011

Now let’s not argue about this John I am grown up I am 23 years old ok you didn’t have to be so cheeky about it

184. Trekprincess - January 26, 2011

Captain Neill I do off course love the other treks I watch them whenever they come on so don’t tell me what I should or shouldn’t like ok:)

185. JP - January 26, 2011

#62: Actually, having it be overly bright on a long voyage would be a bad idea. The hazards of artificial light on a person’s biorhythms has been studied and papers have been written. This is why you would see them dim the lighting on the bridge during the night shift in the few episodes where the changeover was shown.

Beyond that, aesthetically speaking, an overly bright white set doesn’t allow for much in the way of atmosphere. It’s shiny and all, but it feels antiseptic. Like a hospital. Mix that with the glass and the ring of large bulb lights and it looked like a hair salon :)

186. Chadwick - January 26, 2011

One thought on the 13th movie. If the 12th movie is out in 2012 and they plan the 13th one three years later that would make it 2015. If the sequel gets pushed back to 2013 even better. Regardless, I say make the 13th movie (the third Orci Trek) release day in 2016 which would coincide with Star Trek’s 50th anniversary. It would be a huge spectacle, just go all out and make it the best Star Trek motion picture ever. For me that would mean better than The Wrath of Khan, The Undiscovered, and First Contact.

Good luck Bob :D (thumbs up)

187. Chadwick - January 26, 2011

Another thought, Its never really talked about what other races might exist within the Klingon and Romulan empires. It would be interesting to incorporate it somehow in a movie. We know of the Remans, and one race who lived with the Klingon empire and an Enterprise episode when Archer aids some refuges.

188. P Technobabble - January 27, 2011

185. JP
“…The hazards of artificial light on a person’s biorhythms has been studied and papers have been written…”

This may be the case in our day, but I wonder if future technologies would be available that did not affect in a negative way? Perhaps there were a couple of episodes which had lighting to simulate “night” on the bridge, but wouldn’t that be akin to a 24 hour Wal-Mart turning their lights down at night? I think the shift coming onto the bridge in the “night” hours are simply going to work, and it’s just like any other day to them.
So, as for the brightness and whiteness of the ship, I think this is appropriate, and there would be other places on the ship delegated to “atmosphere,” such as the arboretum, for example. But, essentially, the ship is a place of “business,” and work, similar to a hospital.
Of course, this is just a difference of opinion. Maybe if Darren Dochterman is around he could comment on the some of the intentions behind the starship “innards.”

189. skyjedi - January 27, 2011

Someone needs to convince Spielberg to do Indiana Jones V.

Get someone other than Lucas and Koepp to write the script.

190. John from Cincinnati - January 27, 2011


Don’t be so ignorant. The facts and statistics on pit bulls are undeniable. The fact is when a society has a dangerous breed of animal, what to do with it? Obviously, “people” are not saavy or talented enough to train a highly dangerous animal by themselves. So obviously the pit bull needs to be categorized as a dangerous animal and required significant professional training of an owner before allowed to purchase said pet. It’s easy to scapegoat and say “oh it’s the owners fault for not properly training or securing said dog,” But keep saying that when it’s your 10 year old mauled into ground beef lying on the road.
History, facts and statistics all show pit bulls with a history of turning on their owners of 10+ years for no reason whatsoever, for killing children, for killing small animals. Do you think it’s a coincidence poodles don’t have that reputation? Or chihuahuas? Or Great danes or Boxers? Even Dobermans and German Shepherds don’t kill people like Pit bulls do. Pit bulls were bread to be vicous, killing machines and to say otherwise is ignoring facts.

191. keachick - January 27, 2011

#188 – “So, as for the brightness and whiteness of the ship, I think this is appropriate, and there would be other places on the ship delegated to “atmosphere,” such as the arboretum, for example. But, essentially, the ship is a place of “business,” and work, similar to a hospital.”

Except that the bridge was way too bright. I was just in a hospital at 4.30am this morning and even the work stations were not as bright as the bridge. Hospitals are not as bright and in fact the kind of brightness (along with the lens flares) is not a good work environment, and certainly not good for patients. Such brightness is not conducive to allowing a person to rest – the most necessary ingredient in any patient’s recovery. Such brightness though, can induce headaches, even migraines in some people.

192. captain_neill - January 27, 2011


I was not telling what you should and should not like.

I respect you love the Abrams movie, I love it to.

I just still have preference for a lot of the Trek that came before.

193. P Technobabble - January 27, 2011

191. keachick

I wonder what the bridge actually looked like from the actors’ perspective. Perhaps it looks quite a bit different when you’re standing on it, rather than how it looks on film.
Again, I think we sometimes look at Star Trek and apply our present day technologies to it. I’d like to think if there are lights today that give some people headaches, someone (maybe GE?) will, in the future (if there is one), have come up with a lighting system that doesn’t cause headaches. Just speculating, of course. We may be back to using candles by then…

194. keachick - January 27, 2011

What is GE? Genetic Engineering?

195. John - January 27, 2011

General Electric

196. somethoughts - January 27, 2011


Due to media bias and frenzy, the public has been mislead into thinking Pit Bull attacks are of epidemic proportions.
Did you know….

1.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull.

2.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs – 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls.

3.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.

4.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull.

5.) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull.

6.) It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON’T!

Extensive research and investigation has conclusively identified the ownership/management practices that are at the root of the rare, but perfect, storm when a dog becomes dangerous.
Function of Dog
Owners obtaining dogs, and maintaining them as resident dogs outside of the household for purposes other than as family pets (i.e. guarding/ protection, fighting, intimidation/status, irresponsible and negligent breeding).
Owner Management; Control of Dogs
Owners failing to humanely contain, control and maintain their dogs (chained dogs, loose roaming dogs, cases of abuse/neglect); owners failing to knowledgeably supervise interaction between children and dogs.

Reproductive Status of Dog
Owners failing to spay or neuter animals not used for competition, show, or in a responsible breeding program.

In 2006, 97% of the fatal attacks were the result of one or more of these reckless or criminal ownership practices.

197. Trekprincess - January 27, 2011

Captain Neill I’m sick of your rants that’s perfectly fine if you prefer old trek guess you can’t handle anything new:)

198. captain_neill - January 28, 2011


I can handle new stuff

no need to be rude

Read my post- I like the new film. I like the new film.

Just because I prefer a lot of past stuff over it does not mean I hate the film.

To me the new movie is fun but in comparison to past Trek JJ Abrams did dumb it down.

199. John - January 28, 2011

@198. captain_neill

“To me the new movie is fun but in comparison to past Trek JJ Abrams did dumb it down.”

Exactly, and boy did he!

200. P Technobabble - January 28, 2011

I honestly don’t get why people feel the new film was “dumbed down.” The other Trek films were all pretty straightforward and simple to understand. With the exception of some of the later films, they weren’t being made specifically for Trek fans. They had to do some business outside the Trek audience. TVH hit a chord with a mainstream audience. How was that film not “dumbed down?” I don’t think past Treks have been any more “intellectual” than the new film, nor do I think the film should have been made only for Trekkies. I think the critics should be more a little more specific about what the phrase “dumbed down” means, so that we’re all talking about the same thing, and then what specifically was there about the new film that made it dumbed down?

201. captain_neill - January 28, 2011

when I say dumbed down I am not saying that a movie is stupid.

All I am saying is in line with today’s more mainstream action blockbusters more emphasis was made on visual spectacle rather than narrative.

202. Craig - January 28, 2011

I surprised I like the film, hope he does. Lighten up a little in the next movie. I always like Star Trek Hummer, Bones and Spock arguments. That green blooded son a bitch it is revenge for all the arguments he lost. I guess Bones is a racist know. I hope they use the original cast. That what I don’t like about these remakes. But Star Trek always kept the original cast in mind. Not as wall paper but actually have lines.

203. P Technobabble - January 28, 2011

201. neill
I understand you, but I’m still not convinced. The movie might be more of a spectacle than any previous Trek movie, but I just see that as a sign of the times.
But what about some specifics? Is it just the visuals that spoiled it for you? What sort of narrative should the film have had?
I think there was a lot of story to be crammed into 2 hrs., and the film-makers had to show it happen, rather than tell the story in a contemplative way. Just my 2c.

204. somethoughts - January 28, 2011

I think captain neil wanted prime reboot with more of a allegory that hit you in the head with lots of talking and less eye candy/lens flare with vulcan intact, am i right captain neil?

205. captain_neill - January 28, 2011


Bottom line I liked the film.

Guess there was a few changes that Abrams made that as a hard core fan I would not have done.

But the film was not made for people like me, it was made for newbies who I hope watch all the other Treks, Which I am glad is happening as Star Trek is the coolest show ever.

206. captain_neill - January 28, 2011

No I wasn’t wanting that. Just something that felt more Star Trek rather than Star Wars.

But read my lips I DO LIKE THE NEW FILM

And what’s wrong with hating the destruction of Vulcan? I did hate Vulcan being destroyed, am I wrong for not being happy with that decision?

And I do like action in my Star Trek but I also like good story telling in my Star Trek as well.

But before you twist these comments around I DO LIKE THE NEW FILM.

207. keachick - January 28, 2011

So, the real question is – have Bob Orci, Steven Spielberg and others managed to convince JJ Abrams to direct the sequel? Has a decision been made yet about whether to film this next film in 3D or not?

So many questions, no answers, and time is a-getting on… Even the June 29 release date is more than three years after the release of the first one. Please – no delays.

It seems that some of the cast may be wondering what is with Paramount and the production team as well. I couldn’t blame them if they were.

Why are we waiting? Why are we waiting? Why are we waiting?

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

208. Trekprincess - January 28, 2011

Captain Neill do me a favour give over

209. Trekprincess - January 28, 2011

Well Captain Neill In my opinion because I didn’t grow up watching Star Trek I think JJ Abrams reboot is the best but before you throw abuse at me it’s up to me if I want to like the other treks as well ok:)

210. captain_neill - January 28, 2011


Fair enough. I was not throwing abuse just saying.

I said before I like the movie but to me it is not the best one. But I have been into Star Trek for 20 years.

I am not penalising you for not watching the other Treks. I just think people are missing out on some great Trek if you don’t watch some other Treks

I know on this site its a crime to say anything bad about the new movie so I am giving up. I like the movie but it is far from the best ever Trek in my opinion and just leave it at that.

I guess I have to get use to people preferring Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto over William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. Is this a sign that I am getting old?

211. keachick - January 28, 2011

To be honest, Trekprincess, you are the one who needs to grow up. Stop berating him, please.

Captain Neill has clearly reiterated his views on this movie and the other Star Treks several times and he does not need to apologise for them. He only says that he hopes you will take the time to watch the other Star Treks that have gone before Star Trek 2009. It seems that you have. Good. Nobody is saying that you have to like the other Star Treks nor for that matter does Captain Neill need to like the latest movie more than the Star Treks that came before it.

We all have our opinions on what constitutes *good* storytelling. For me, a lot depends on what mood I am in and I stand by my subjectivity in this regard.

212. captain_neill - January 28, 2011


Thank you for the support

All I was saying that I hope that the new movie is helping people discover how wonderful Star Trek actually is.

Think about the scales does one 2 hour movie outweigh over 700 hours of television and 10 previous movies?

There is so much good Trek out there.

213. somethoughts - January 28, 2011


Its all good captain neil, i loved star trek 2009 and had some gripes about it also. Star trek 2009 is up there with my favourite, the undiscovered country which introduced me to tos.

I still think there could have been a awesone tng flick adventure quest mystery time travel puzzle film with Q and the borq, that would have defined tng as the best film if all star treks, pity paramount was cheap and ram ut like a made for tv movies series.

214. captain_neill - January 28, 2011


My top three films are Wrath of Khan, First Contact and The Undiscovered Country.

Wrath of Khan was my first Trek.

I love all 5 shows.

I do wish TNG got one more movie as they deserved a better send off than Nemesis.

I do apologise for not liking it at as the best ever but I do enjoy it but as a separate entity.

I prob put the new movie about 6th or 7th. I don’t know but the three I mentioned at the top are my three top Trek movies.

215. somethoughts - January 28, 2011


When vulcan was destroyed, i was like holy shit omfg, and felt prime spocks pain and sets up the stakes, this nero guy has to be stopped. You also felt quinto spocks pain and his dealings with emotion and hurt, loss of mother planet, he was emotionaly compromised and was not fit to command. All this imo worked on a organic lvl.

216. Trekprincess - January 28, 2011

Ok Keachick do you know what you are absolutely right I apologise Captain Neill for my berating of you :)

217. Vultan - January 28, 2011

For me, (though I enjoyed its energetic pace) Trek ’09 seemed dumbed down because it was more blatantly marketed towards a specific demographic. The young actors, the shaky-cam, the lens flares, the college-level humor, the hot-rod Enterprise—it all just screamed “committee-made (or “Supreme Court” made) reboot looking for a younger audience to revive an old franchise.”

Granted, the franchise needed reviving, but for those of us looking for old-fashioned, even-handed storytelling in science fiction, we should probably look elsewhere (novels mostly). Abrams’ Trek is about as subtle as a photon torpedo.

218. Vultan - January 28, 2011


Agreed. Your top three are my top three–TWOK, FC, UC.

219. somethoughts - January 28, 2011


I just pretend jake sully in avatar was captain kirk and how he over threw the corrupt federation, sigorney weaver was bones and the blue guy was spock, or since jake was in a wheelchair we saw the adventures of pike

220. Basement Blogger - January 28, 2011

@ 207 Keachick on 3D

Bet money that the new Star Trek will be released in 3D. The competition that year comes from Spider-Man and the Avengers. Both are being shot in 3-D. The studios make money on 3D. The bigger question is whether Paramount will expand the budget to allow it to be filmed in 3D or whether it will be a crappy conversion.

As far as director, I just saw “The King’s Speech.” It is the best film of 2010. It’s director was Tom Hooper. (also did “John Adams”) What about him if J.J. declines? And I know you hate Quentin Tarantino. But he is an excellent film director and is great with dialogue. See “Pulp Fiction.” His favorite movie of 2009 was Star Trek (2009) The director I don’t want is Joel Schumacher. His “Batman” movies are over the top messes.

221. Basement Blogger - January 29, 2011

And speaking of the upcoming Star Trek sequel which takes place in a parallel universe, did you check out Stephen Colbert the other night? Well in the link below Stephen Colbert, who is a Trekker, intervieiws physicist-author Brian Greene on his book about parallel universes. Colbert weaves in a funny reference to Spock in “Mirror, Mirror.”

222. trekprincess - January 29, 2011

off course there is so much more good trek out there I’m not denying that but because I didn’t grow up watching TOS or any of the other series I have to say that I really think that Star Trek 09 is the best prequel of all time hope you understand that is my opinion and I will stand by that

223. captain_neill - January 29, 2011


Thats understandable and if I were in your shoes I would say the same thing.

The film is a lot better than the Star Wars prequels.

But the thing is I don’t treat the new movie as a prequel, I do treat it more as a reboot as the film is in a parallel universe and is not actually an original story i the traditional sense. Its not the story of how they got together, its the story of how alternate versions of the characters got together.

Still good and the beauty of the alternate universe means that nothing contradicts what came before.

224. P Technobabble - January 29, 2011

I think Paramount should have a contest for one of us to win the directing job.

225. Trekprincess - January 29, 2011

I would love to direct a Star Trek film:)

226. somethoughts - January 29, 2011

I would make it a3.5hr epic in which everyone dies one by one like in those horror films and have a re boot of tng to solce the puzzle in part 3

227. skyjedi - January 29, 2011

The new movie was exciting and action packed but broke canon by changing the nature of time travel in Trek.

It also did not respect the audiences intelligence if any was to be engaged, and had that flashy without substance new coke feel to it all.

Some one called it the ADD generation of Trek, i was offended by them making light of a disease, but i agree with the dumbing down generalization.

Some things clicked though themes like loyalty and sacrifice.

228. skyjedi - January 29, 2011

It would not be that bizarre for him to turn it down. Meyer turned down Star Trek III.

In fact he wanted Star Trek II to be the end. The original title was the Undiscovered Country.
He also did not believe in resurrection and thought it cheapened Trek II and demeaned Spock’s sacrifice and character arc.

I also somewhat agree with him, but Paramount is in the business of making money, not art or Shakespeare.

229. dmduncan - January 29, 2011

217: “for those of us looking for old-fashioned, even-handed storytelling in science fiction, we should probably look elsewhere (novels mostly).”

218: “Agreed. Your top three are my top three–TWOK, FC, UC.”

First Contact was good? YMMV. I think Harry is being too kind:

230. keachick - January 29, 2011

This film did not break canon at all. It simply introduced another form of time travel. Given how many people still do not fully comprehend the notion of an alternate universe etc, it was more a case of the writers having too much confidence in the level of intelligence and comprehension of a part of the audience.

I don’t envy Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman and co. Clearly they didn’t write it “dumb enough” for some.

Anyway, Bob, if you are reading any of this – How is Welcome to People coming along? Early days, I know, but I hope all is going well. (Bob Orci is one of the film’s producers). I won’t ask about THE SCRIPT because I know you are doing your level best with that…

Are we there yet?

231. Rebelwolf - January 29, 2011

A trekker since TOS, my favourite series has always been TNG and my favourite film, First Contact. To be honest, when I first heard it was being made I groaned and swore I would never watch it but when it was finally released I realised I was being very narrow minded and should at least give it a chance. I was totally blown away by the entire thing – the acting, the subtle nuances of TOS that were carried through and by the clever way the whole thing paved the way for a whole new set of movies featuring the original characters but now with a different future ahead of them.

Despite being a die-hard trekker, I, like many other, had started to feel the creators had run out of places to go with the franchise but now I am really excited about future possibilities with this ingenious twist. It has certainly re-lit the ST fire for me – can’t wait for the next instalment!

232. VulcanFilmCritic - January 29, 2011

Star Trek (2009) is not really “Star Trek.” It’s a movie ABOUT Star Trek:TOS. And all of the films, from “Star Trek:The Motion Picture” to “Star Trek VI,” are movies BASED on the television show, “Star Trek.”

They are not really a continuation of the series at all. In some sense “Star Trek” never came back. It was cancelled in 1969. That being said, I most certainly CAN enjoy a movie based on the TV show or about the TV show, as long as there is RESPECT for the source material. I think that is all we older viewers are saying.

As for the demographics, Star Trek is unique. It is not just a fan-boy franchise. Older viewers, women, and the general public make up a significant portion of the audience. If the powers that be decide that they need to narrow-cast this franchise to just fan-boys, then it will collapse. I just don’t see as much interest by young people in this franchise, as say, in “Star Wars” or “Spider-Man.”

233. Basement Blogger - January 29, 2011

When Bad Robot was putting together Star Trek (2009), they looked at what they could learn from Star Wars. The writers concede that in the “making of” documentaries. And the fear was that only hardcore Trekkers, (us) would be the only ones to see it. (Entertaiment Weekly 5-9-09; pg. 29) Director J.J. Abrams thought Star Trek was “a little too talky” (pg. 30.) Yeah, and his Fringe isn’t? And that’s a compliment. I love Fringe. But I digress. The reboot’s purpose was to not only get Trekkers in the seats but to make a whole new auidience for Star Trek. “We weren’t making a movie for fans of Star Trek, we were makinng a movie for fans of movies.” J.J. Abrams. Entertainment Weekly, 10 -24-08. Pg. 21 And guess who fills the the theaters on Friday nights? Teenagers. Abrams is more of a Star Wars guy who got spolied on Star Trek by Galaxy Quest. pg. 28, 31. The makers also indicate in the dcoumentaries that they were trying to introduce some rock and roll into Trek’s classical music.

The reboot worked, Star Trek 2009 was a huge boxoffice and critical success. It’s a well made film. The alternate reality gimmick allows Bad Robot to break from canon. Destroy Vulcan. Done. Kill Spock’s Mother. Done. Have Uhura give birth to Spock’s love child? Coming.

But is it Star Trek? Sort of. Being older, this movie is not made for me or veteran Trekkers. Remember the ad, “This is not your father’s Star Trek.” Trek 2009 constantly was moving, at times literally with handheld camera shots, lens flares, and shaking the camera. There was no room to breathe. It’s not made for people to think. That’s because Abrams preferred a more visceral experience. Pg. 29.

The filmmakers dedicated the movie to Trek creator Gene Roddenberry yet is it Gene’s vision. Becasue at the end of the day, if it’s not Roddenberry’s vision, then it’s not Star Trek. Roddenberry fought the network’s ideas to make Star Trek more commercial. They wanted more monsters, Gene said no. (PBS “The Pioneers of Television”‘) And Gene made science fiction “that had something important to say.” LInk to TrekMovie story with video below.

Let’s have a better film than the first. One that is Star Trek not Star Wars. Heart, Adventure and Intelligence.

234. Vultan - January 29, 2011


I never said FC was perfect. I just like it more than the others (a lot more than the other TNG films… and Trek ’09).

235. captain_neill - January 29, 2011


First Contact is quite simply a better film than Star Trek XI

236. JP - January 29, 2011

Back to the issue of lighting. It’s not so much the kind of light or the technology used, its more the brightness of the lights. The human body works on a 24 hour clock. Of course in space that may mean less and therefore for a crew that’s been in space a long time it may be less of an issue. But for whatever hour clock your body is on we are attuned to having the lights off/dimmed when we sleep, hence why many workplaces turn down the lights during the graveyard shift.

As far as aesthetics go, I just find extremely bright rooms unattractive to the eye and with all those glass surfaces on the bridge it just seemed sterile for some reason. And with the Kelvin it was the opposite, mostly due to the lights being dimmed. The action scenes on the Enterprise lost something due to the brightness for me. Though your mileage may vary.

On a side note, I always thought Voyager’s bridge was very attractive when they would go to red alert and the lights would dim and those dark blues in the lighting would be accentuated. Say what you will about the show itself but that bridge looks fantastic during battle.

237. Vultan - January 29, 2011



Like Trek ’09, FC has plot holes as big as a black hole, but I found the latter more… hmm, I guess ‘adult’ is the word I’m looking for. Plus, James Cromwell is always a lot of fun to watch—even without a sheep-pig at his side. ;)

238. Basement Blogger - January 29, 2011

@ 237 Vultan

The things that make Star Trek: First Contact a better Trek movie than Star Trek (2009) is that it has “important things to say.” The idea of Picard wrestling with the emotion of revenge, a role reversal compared to Khan. Data experiencing humanity in person. Mankind unites through space travel. And the postitive changes that came with first contact with extraterestrials. Gene Roddenberry would have been proud.

239. Vultan - January 29, 2011


Well put.

I guess that’s what I meant by ‘adult.’ Although I found some themes in Trek ’09 to be as interesting, it just seemed more of a sampling rather than a full course. I’m hoping, as Orci and others have suggested, the next film will dig deeper.

Because that’s what I’ve always loved the most about Star Trek—it’s deep, maaan!

240. dmduncan - January 29, 2011

238: The things that make Star Trek: First Contact a better Trek movie than Star Trek (2009) is that it has “important things to say.”

LOL! Not to me. Tried rewatching it recently. Failed. Can honestly say I’d rather be waterboarded for five minutes than sit through that movie again.

ST.09 was fresh, fun, epic in scale, with an ingenious and original MWI centered plot that recalled the best of Star Trek’s thought provoking past with acting talent, particularly in Chris Pine, that elucidated a felt depth to his character’s experiences greater than the screen time explicitly devoted to them.

Okay, in comparison to the stinkers the other NexGen movies were, I spose FC WAS special, but in comparison to TOS, and even some TNG, it was an uninspired pastiche of better Treks gone by.

241. Red Dead Ryan - January 29, 2011


To each his own! I do think both TWOK and FC are slightly better than the new movie. I happen to rank TWOK and FC first, “Star Trek” ’09 a close second.

But what the new movie has, and the others don’t, is a sense of epic scale. There were many more locations, as well as a bigger size to everything. You can only get that by spending at least double that of “Nemesis”. The previous movies were pretty much low budget, with a great emphasis on recycling and redressing sets, limiting the number of shooting locations and hiring fewer extras.

J.J Abrams did a great job. I think the overall plot could have been better, but because the writers had to reboot the franchise as well as stick to canon, I thought everyone involved did a great job. The sequel will be even better. I guarantee it.

But I’d like to see the brewery gone in the sequel. Can’t have Scotty drinking on the job. :-)

242. Vultan - January 29, 2011


Speaking of recycling, anybody else think the Razzie for worst recycling in a Trek movie should go to ST: Generations for the deaths of the Duras sisters?
Strange how Bird of Preys blow up so similarly. ;)

243. Red Dead Ryan - January 29, 2011


Yup. And the scene featuring the Bird Of Prey cloaking was also from TUC.

The Duras sisters should have had a Vor’Cha class attack cruiser. The battle scene would have been more believable, plus the Bird Of Prey had been seen in the previous four movies.

244. Trekprincess - January 30, 2011

I must be the only one who didn’t have any problems with Star Trek 09 because it is just fun and enjoyable and I though the acting was well done etc:-) hope that doesn’t bother you obviously mileage may vary

245. Vultan - January 30, 2011


I’m thinking the sisters had fallen on hard times since their failed attempt of taking over the Klingon Empire. Probably couldn’t afford a brand new Vor’Cha off the lot, settled with a pre-owned Bird of Prey instead.

As a wise old (very old) knight once said: They “chose poorly.”

246. captain_neill - January 30, 2011


I completely disagree

There is more on offer with First Contact, and I still find it a better written script than the new movie.

Ok some plot holes in First Contact but the plot holes and contrivances in the new movie were bigger than a Galaxy Class starship.

Even though I still enjoy the new movie the more I watch it the more the less sense some plot points make.

There were stronger themes i nFirst Contact mixed in with great action and the main thing at stake in First Contact was Star Trek. Awesome movie

247. captain_neill - January 30, 2011


I would love to direct a Star Trek movie as well

248. P Technobabble - January 30, 2011

The matters of straying from canon, to set design, to whether or not some previous Trek movie was better than Trek09, have been rehashed ad infinitum. What else can be said about the film that hasn’t already been said?
I think the writers (Mr. Orci in particular) might have taken some of the (intelligent) comments made on these boards into account, at least to some degree. Perhaps some of these comments have given the writers a different perspective on what the fans thought about the movie. But I wouldn’t expect them to throw out the script based on some criticism they find here.
The bottom line is: the Court put their heart and soul into making Trek09. I’m willing to bet they did not feel they were specifically breaking canon, but rather taking it in a new direction. I’m willing to bet the designers gave their very best in creating a new look that would more represent a “futuristic” starship. I’m willing to bet that JJ Abrams wants every picture he directs to be even better than the last.
IMO, some of the criticisms leveled in here seem to imply the Court did not put their heart and soul into the film, or take it seriously, or they came into it unprepared. I certainly wouldn’t agree with any of that. The notion that the film-makers shouldn’t have let Star Wars influence some of their approach is most likely based on some archaic rivalry between Trek fans and Star Wars fans. Lucas has already admitted that Star Trek was one of his influences in making Star Wars. It can’t work both ways?
As long as I’ve been a Trek fan, I’ve always found some people to be rather condescending toward anything or anyone that isn’t aligned to their way of thinking. Well, that’s just human nature, I suppose. But I believe we should really be focusing on the future of Star Trek, what it will mean, how can it remain relevant, and why it should even exist years from now. Trek fans have always said that Star Trek is important because it shows a promising future, the stories were about the human adventure, and there was something inspiring about the messages it offered. Meanwhile, our planet is a mess. I have repeatedly wondered how THIS humanity could ever transform into a Trekk-ian humanity, which, I believe, is far more important than the producers using a brewery for engineering. Star Trek is not important for what it looks like. It’s important for what it means.

249. captain_neill - January 30, 2011

The guys are talneted but I don’t like them being referred to as the Supreme Court. Sounds a bit too full of themselves

250. P Technobabble - January 30, 2011

C’mon neill, you know it’s not to be taken seriously. It’s humorous, tongue-in-cheek.

251. VulcanFilmCritic - January 30, 2011

@249 P Technobabble. I’m sure you’ve all read this before, but if you haven’t, I’ll give the last word on that score to Mr. Solow (Yes, THAT Mr.Solow!):

(or go to BBC Online and search for Herb Solow)

252. the Quickening - January 30, 2011

158. Chadwick – January 25, 2011
99. dmduncan – January 24, 2011
163. keachick – January 25, 2011

I feel that thinking out-of-the-box is precisely how creative art, new directions in film, new trends, progressive leaps, etc. are born and flourish. Yes, on the surface Tarantino might seem an odd choice, but that’s how you open up new frontiers… by expanding possibility and taking risk.

These comments remind me of what TOS fans were saying about TNG when it first started, “You can’t do TREK without Kirk and Spock!” Well, they were wrong. Then, they said, “You can’t do TREK unless it’s on a star ship!” DS9 (My favorite, and in my opinion, the best TREK in the last 20 or so years–TV or movies.) proved them wrong again. And, again, “You can’t do TREK dark… TREK is about a positive future!” Well, DS9 proved them wrong again. When you stop taking chances, art, life in general, goes stale.

Tarantino has worked on more traditional films–at least as script doctor. He would be smart enough to know how far to take a scene, sequence, dialogue, etc. in a TREK film (he is a fan, you know), but he has an adult, dark, realistic sensibility in his film style that would make TREK unique… something Abrams, Ron Howard, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, etc. don’t have. They, in my opinion, are just technocrats, and because Paramount cannot and shouldn’t spend the kind of money to make a purely technocratic TREK film–let’s face it, these are the kinds of genre films that bring in the MAJOR BUCKS–TREK producers should look to other means to make interesting films that will generate interest and potentially bigger box office. Stylist directors would be a good starting point.

253. dmduncan - January 30, 2011

246: “Ok some plot holes in First Contact but the plot holes and contrivances in the new movie were bigger than a Galaxy Class starship.”

You mean you whipped out your Stanley measuring tape, measured the holes, and found the ones in ST.09 were bigger? To quote George Bush Jr: “Well dat dudn’t make any sa-ense.”

“Even though I still enjoy the new movie the more I watch it the more the less sense some plot points make.”

And the more you watch FC the more sense its own plot points make? Like what? Give me an example of what in FC actually increases in sensibleness each time you watch it.

254. dmduncan - January 30, 2011

252: “I feel that thinking out-of-the-box is precisely how creative art, new directions in film, new trends, progressive leaps, etc. are born and flourish. Yes, on the surface Tarantino might seem an odd choice, but that’s how you open up new frontiers… by expanding possibility and taking risk.”

You’re preaching to a guy who once suggested on this site that they ought to come up with a 20 or 30 minute short Trek script and assign the same story to 5 radically different directors to see how they’d all interpret the same idea in one long movie that contains all five interpretations. It would be like five alternative universe Treks in one movie.

Tarantino is not Coppola. He does things the way HE does them and as much as he might love Star Trek there is no reason to expect from his history that a Star Trek project would differ in style from his established past projects, which Paramount is unlikely to support for their franchise.

Coppola could do it, but he’d have to come out of pseudoretirement making wine and independent films to harken back to his illustrious past, and there’s no telling if he still has it in him to do.

255. dmduncan - January 30, 2011

At the very least, while I enjoy his work, there isn’t a lot in his history to recommend Tarantino as a good “fit” for Star Trek, at least not on a movie, though on a TV show I think it would be cool to have him do a few episodes.

256. captain_neill - January 30, 2011


Well it seems I am being penalised for liking First Contact more than the new film.

It’s just my opinion. It has a stronger story and a great enemy and I think the scenes between Data and the Borg Queen are fantastic.

The Borg are a better villain than Nero, who I think was a poorly conceived villain.

257. dmduncan - January 30, 2011

256: “The Borg are a better villain than Nero, who I think was a poorly conceived villain.”

The Borg are actually one of the best villain concepts in Star Trek. Someday I hope to see them done properly in epic scale, minus the spandex and overwhelming majority of humanoid species in their ranks.

258. josepepper - January 30, 2011

Yea well I hope he:

1.) stops shaking the damned camera

2.) Stops shining flashlights in the damned camera

3.) Finds an Engine room to film in that doesn’t have every gate and globe vale, centrifugal pump and steam line that makes me think of the frieking Titanic.

259. Basement Blogger - January 30, 2011

@ 240 dmduncan Yourr “LOL” on First Contact that it has something improtnt to say. And your argument that Trek 09 is a deeper movie and like old Star Trek..

Oh come on, you didn’t even address First Contact’s ideas. Instead you make a joke about you’d rather be waterboarded. You didn’t get Picard’s struggle with revenge? How illogical it was to let emotions control you. SEE SPOCK!!!! And how was revenge handled in Trek 09? It was Nero’s mad because Spock failed in a negligent act to save his planet. Really? Okay, you do get why he’s mad if you read the graphic novel but they should have put that in the movie. And no, it would not have made the movie too long. That explanation would take one minute.

You didn’t get the idea in First Contact that mankind’s reaching for the stars is going to raise us past our petty tribal differences into a brighter future? That’s as core as Roddenberry can get.. The basic premise of Trek 09 is how Kirk and Spock get together.

You didn’t get in First Contact, Data’s temptation to betray his friends for a taste of humanity? AGAIN SEE SPOCK!!!!!

Let’s talk about Trek 09’s MWI or parrallel universe plotline. It’s not central to this movie. It’s used primarily to break new Treks out of canon. I’ll go over it again. You can’t kill Amanda in Trek canon. But in Trek 09, destroy Vulcan. Done. Kill Spock’s mother Amanda. Done. Have Uhura do the wild with thing with Spock. Done.

You want a plotline where parallel univrse is central to the story? See “Mirror, Mirror” and its DS9’s prgoeny. See The Next Generations’ “Parallels.” How was MWI or parallel universe handled in Trek “09? One line. That’s right. One line from Uhura. “An alternate reality.” That’s it. Again the parallel universe plotline’s purpose was for one thing, to break the new Treks out of the old canon. The way you describe Star Trek (2009 you would thinkit’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Want more proof that Trek 09 was not made for “something important to say.” Okay let’s hear it from the star. Entertainmnet Weekly (5-8-09, pg. 30) “Some viewers may find metaphors in Star Trek…. but for the most part, the film goes easy on the allegories. Instead the screen is filled with eye popping phaser battles…. Pine (Kirk), for one, is happy to hold off on metaphors, at least for now….. ” (As Kirk would say, here it comes)


Let’s hear from J.J. Abrams. “WE WEREN’T MAKING A MOVIE FOR FANS OF STAR TREK. WE WERE MAKING A MOVIE FOR FANS OF MOVIES.” Entertainment Weekly, 10-24-08 pg. 31. Hello teenagers.

So even the filmmakers disagree with your premise that Trek 09 was a deep movie like the series. I would type something like you did but I have a lot of respect for you. So Trek 09 is like The Doomsday Machine? (Arms control) It’s like “A private little war?”” (Viet Nam War) It’s like “A Taste of Armageddon?” (War and peace) It’s like “Mirror, Mirror?’ (A MWI show where that’s the main premise) It’s like “Arena?” (war, tolerance, It’s like “The City on the Edge of Forever?” (intelligent time travel with a doomed romance) So , Trek 09 which the filmmakers concede is not like Star Trek of old is like Star Trek of old? Really? Really? REALLY?

Look, I notice you like Red Letter Media’s reviews. That’s because Harry is a consumate Trekker. But his review of Trek 09 is correct. It’s a good space adventure movie. It’s not made to make you think. I like Trek 09 because it’s a well made movie. Is it Star Trek? Sort of.

TrekMovie story where Harry Plinkett likes Trek 09 but says it’s made for “popcorn eating dim witted masses” … translation, it’s not intelligent science fiction. He actualy likes Star Trek: The Motion Picture better! Check out the story and video.

260. JP - January 30, 2011

At this point you guys should just agree to disagree. You’re both entrenched in your positions and you’ve both made it abundantly clear your not going to budge. Time to cut your losses and agree to disagree.

261. dmduncan - January 30, 2011

Well, before the bar closes and that JP guy shows us the door, I could put it succcinctly this way: FC is to the theme of “struggle with revenge” what John Wayne’s Stagecoach is to the theme of “clash of cultures.”

262. JP - January 30, 2011

LOL! I’m not the bar maid. Simply a patron :)

p.s. I like both First Contact and Trek ’09. Does that make me a heretic? ;)

263. Basement Blogger - January 30, 2011

JP, believe me I liked Star Trek (2009). I may crticize it but I saw it three times in the theater. One time to see other Trekkers reacation and to enjoy it on the big screen. I own the DVD. So, I’ve seen it a bunch of times.

One thing I’m very optimisitc about is the new direction for the second movie. Damon Lindelof and J.J. Abrams have talked about going deeper like “The Dark Knight.” So, I am very interested in seeing the new Star Trek whenever it comes out.

264. dmduncan - January 30, 2011

I’m watching Forbidden Planet right now and I JUST now noticed the similarities to The Cage. The Krell might as well be the Talosians!

265. captain_neill - January 31, 2011

YOu know I really hate the hate spewed about First Contact

Its a classic and some people here seem to forget the themes of that film.

266. captain_neill - January 31, 2011

I have been a Star Trek fan for over 20 years and always will be. So I know what makes great Star Trek.

I do think the new StarTrek was NOT made for us fans but rather a mainstream who does not get Star Trek but does get explosions and and silly humour.

Unfortunately we need that kind of audience to make Star Trek popular again, that I understand but I do feel that what we love in Star Trek has been sacrificed for that audience.

Star Trek Xi is a good fun movie and I really like it. I gave it 4 out of 5. To me it captures the fun of the original series but I don’t think it is true Star Trek. At times it plays more like Star Wars.

To me Star Trek and Star Wars are two different things.

Star Trek was the meat and potatoes while Star Wars was the popcorn. With Star Trek I love it all but with Star Wars I only liked the original trilogy.

I don’t see any harm in injecting more action in Trek. I love action but I like it balanced with a good story. especially in Star Trek.

I have no problem with people liking the new movie, I enjoy it as well. But I despise it when people act as though it was the only good Star Trek, makes it seem they never liked the last 40 years worth and that is I believe is disrespectful to Gene.

Instead we get penalised if we have gripes with the new movie. Weird that.

267. Mark Lynch - January 31, 2011

@138 I totally agree that Mimi Leder should be given a shot at the next Star Trek movie. Deep Impact was a wonderful film.

Consider her added to my previous list! :-)

Hmmmm, must check if that is available on Blu-Ray…

268. P Technobabble - January 31, 2011

164. dm

One of my all-time favorites, of course. I saw Star Trek before FP, so when I saw it I thought, “This is where Star Trek comes from.” Everything about it reminded me of WNMHGB, as well as The Cage, in particular. There were other episodes that owed a lot to FP. The mood, the style, the intelligent story. I think this is why FP still holds up well today, IMO.
Who said, “If you’re gonna copy, copy from the best?”

269. somethoughts - January 31, 2011


correction, *Vulcans.

270. dmduncan - January 31, 2011

270. P Technobabble – January 31, 2011

Well look at it. On that other thread I called FP a preboot of The Cage. Both The Cage and FP were about an advanced civilization that had destroyed itself through the use of a technology that could turn their thoughts into reality. In FP Dr. Morbius references the large size of Krell craniums. In The Cage the Talosians had huge heads. In both stories the remnants of the civilizations were deep underground. You had a pretty girl raised by her father as the only surviving members of the original crew in FP, and a pretty girl raised by a bunch of old men in The Cage as the only surviving members of their own crew.

Lots of differences too, but you can see the parallels, no? And I was struck by how much bigger in scale FP was compared to The Cage, and seeing that type of story done that way makes me excited about the prospects for the sequel if in fact it is a reboot of The Cage. The scenes of the underground Krell complex were really cool.

271. dmduncan - January 31, 2011

In FP I liked how Captain Leslie Nielson chased all his men away from the girl so that he could have a clear shot at her for himself. Freakin hilarious.

272. dmduncan - January 31, 2011

Rank has its privileges.

273. Harry Ballz - January 31, 2011

Don’t know if it’s been mentioned yet, but in Forbidden Planet, when they land on the planet, they note the time to be 17:01 hours.

Huh! Roddenberry ripped off all of Trek from that movie, including the friggin’ registration number! Homage? Yeah, right!

274. dmduncan - January 31, 2011

268: “I do think the new StarTrek was NOT made for us fans but rather a mainstream who does not get Star Trek but does get explosions and and silly humour.”

Unlike Kirk buried under a mound of tribbles. One of STs best eps. Unlike a duel between the Enterprise and a certain Romulan Bird of Prey, another one of STs best eps. Got it.

275. dmduncan - January 31, 2011

lol. Didn’t notice that.

276. Red Dead Ryan - January 31, 2011


Well, as they say, “If you can’t beat ’em, copy ’em!”

277. dmduncan - January 31, 2011

NCC 17:01 hours.

278. dmduncan - January 31, 2011

Seems that Gene Roddenberry was the James Cameron of his day!

279. Basement Blogger - January 31, 2011

@ 273 Harry Ballz

Hey Harry, they’ve announced the actor to play the new Supreman. It’s Henry Cavill. No word on whether your fellow Canadian, the lovely Erica Durance will play Lois Lane. (Story below)

280. somethoughts - January 31, 2011

what happened to my post about the pros and cons about First Contact? Anthony?

281. somethoughts - January 31, 2011

ah there it is, nevermind :)

282. Trekprincess - January 31, 2011

What does penalised mean :-/

283. Chadwick - January 31, 2011

OK….its now the end of January 2011 and still no news on the script being completed. Then we have to wait and see if it approved. This is NOT looking like at June 2012 release.

284. Chadwick - January 31, 2011

266. captain_neill – January 31, 2011

You mention your a 20+ year trek long exactly? I have been watching since I was 4 so im a 23 year vet…geeze almost a quarter century.

I agree with you, I loved the new movie, it was fun, I have it in blu-ray up on my shelf next to the other Star Trek movies, but I too cringe when people say its the only good one.

I also do not mind more action, as long as the essence of Trek is still there and it was lacking in the 2009 movie. Having Starfleet uniforms, the Enterprise, and the crew does not make it Star Trek.

285. Basement Blogger - January 31, 2011

@ 283

Chadwick, I think they can complete it in time for 2012. I just wonder if Bob, Alex, J.J. are too busy. I recall there was a TrekMovie story about the guys possibly being too busy. Remember they don’t have to redesign the Enterprise. Done. And unless you want a different engine room, I can’t see any problems with the Enterprise. For the record, I do want a different engine room. I want one that is more futuristic..

286. Chadwick - January 31, 2011

And with regards to gay characters on Star Trek, being straight im not really anxious to see two men kiss but I am a hypocrite because Ill watch two women anytime, that kiss with Jadzia and her past lover on DS9…loved it! But I can see why it needs to happen, to catch up with the times, to be fair, to offer respect, and represent all peoples which does not simply include skin colour, it includes sexual preference. And as we move into the future its going to happen more and more often. Its not like the future is the dark ages where people fear God’s wrath because they disobeyed something written in a book.

287. Harry Ballz - January 31, 2011


BB, nah, it won’t be Durance! That hag is too old to play a romantic interest to Cavill! Thank God!

288. Chadwick - January 31, 2011

P.S. don’t mean to offend anyone with my last comment in 287…I do not wish to start a hotheaded religious or philosophical debate.

286. Basement Blogger

Yea to be honest I do also feel they can complete it in time, but I cant help but feel it will be a tight squeeze, or delayed. If that happens I would agree with most in that I would love their third movie to take two years to make and simply be an epic send off of this interpretation of Star Trek. For the third movie to coincide with the 50th Anniversary would be awesome!

I remember actually a few stories regarding them being too busy.

I was also thinking along those lines in that they have most of the Enterprise sets built, bridge, some corridors, sickbay, transporter room. I am sure they will add to the Enterprise sets and I too hope for a wicked engine room worthy of being the Enterprise engineering. Since this is an alternate timeline there is no excuse why we cant have a nice antimatter glowing warp core. I cant help but think of TMP when they execute the warp trials, both times, the way that core lights up, I f*cking love it!

289. Basement Blogger - January 31, 2011

What would help push the situation would be a decision on director. The problem is that the script has to be completed before J.J. Abrams will say yes. I understand that. Once the script is done and we get a director, we could get excited about it. And speaking of excitement, what’s CBS doing with Star Trek? Oh, never mind.

I’ve posted suggestions. But a name directpr could really help boost excitement. I’m begining to want Quentin Tarantino more, assuming they Abrams doesn’t want to do it. Here’s why. He’s an excellent director that has balanced action and dialogue. Star Trek 2009 was his favorite movie of the year. So, I’m guessing he might be a Trekker. His announcement as director would bring excitement to the project and get even more people to watch it. And who wouldn’t want to see a Mexican stand off with phasers? : ) Plus QT doesn’t look busy according to IMDB.

Of course, it would be wild to mix Tarantino’s love of violence with Roddenberry’s vision of the future. But if he loves Trek, I would bet QT gets it. And by the way, don’t know if this is true, but think about a Tarantino film in 3D.

290. somethoughts - January 31, 2011


Why not grab the guy that did Terminator(cyborg from future), Aliens(space), Titanic(big ship), Avatar(guy in wheelchair meets blue aliens and becomes hero) to direct the next Star Trek? He’s Canadian and gets sci fi and understands sci fi and the word epic.

If JJ is busy or does not want to do the sequel, please see if James Cameron would like to direct Star Trek II 3DIMAX

291. somethoughts - January 31, 2011

correction #291 dam numbering lag

292. Basement Blogger - January 31, 2011

Just checked James Cameron’s IMDB page. He does look available. But would Paramount shell all that money for him? It might be worth the investment. Think about the buzz it would generate. There would be no need to see if CBS will do anything with Star Trek until 2012. Yes, I gripe about CBS but really? They’ll do nothing until the new movie comes out and then release some special DVDs.

But getting Cameron would definitenly put people in the seats Think about this. The merging of Avaterds (is that derogatory?) and Trekkers. It would be a “federation” of geeks. .

293. somethoughts - January 31, 2011


I bet James Cameron would build a life size set of the Enterprise with a real engineering set, demand $500million for the budget and ask for 2014 release date to film it in 3D. It would be the ultimate sci fi space movie I rekon. James would ask Nasa to film some scenes on the International Space Station and ask the Army to simulate zero gravity via airplane dives.

James Cameron would also demand a new kind of special effects technology from ILM so that the script can come alive. He will instruct NASA to find a real alien planet, and shuttle the cast and crew there to film ;)

The cast and crew may hate him, but he sure knows how to make awesome movies.

294. somethoughts - January 31, 2011

correction #294, anyone else getting weird numbering lag?

295. captain_neill - February 1, 2011


21 years. I was 7 years old when The Wrath of Khan was showing on TV. I was fascinated by Spock and his pointed ears.

Well I was suppose to go to bed early but I really wanted to see this film so my mum allowed me to stay up late. I cried at the end and mum told me that about the The Search For Spock and I rented it out/

Within a few months TNG was starting up on BBC2 in the UK and ever since I have loved Star Trek as the coolest thing ever.

I have watched all the Treks and I love the characters and the adventures. Characters I could aspire to. Not just that but Star Trek had a great vision and I loved that it shows us that we can have a positive future, a future I would love to be part of. What I also loved about Trek was each story was about something and I loved characters such as Spock, Data, Odo et all as they were great to study the human condition.

Star Trek works on so many levels, to me that is why it is much better than Star Wars.

What JJ Abrams captured in the new movie was a fun adventure and classic character traits from their alternate selves but I think there are nuances of what Trek is about that Abrams jettisoned in favour of attracting the mainstream audience. I understand why he did it, so the film can make more money.

Hope this makes sense.

296. Trekprincess - February 1, 2011

That’s fine Captain Neill if you prefer the original cast over the new cast but as I am a new fan and only have been for 2 years I will take the new cast their futures can be written now in the sequels and new stories can be told now I knew there was going to be a backlash of anger against the reboot :)

297. captain_neill - February 1, 2011


So I take it you prefer Chris Pine over William Shatner?

Thats fine that you prefer the new movie, it got you into Star Trek.

My fav movie is The Wrath of Khan.

As I said before I have no problems with people liking the new movie, I like the movie myself but I just hate it when people seem to think of this movie as the only Star Trek there is.

All I ask was to embrace the other Treks. Impossible as it is to understand I do like the new movie but was just saying in comparison to past Trek’s it is a bit lacking in Trek essence thats all.

298. captain_neill - February 1, 2011


Out of curiosity how much of the other Treks have you watched and you planning to try out the spin offs?

299. Trekprincess - February 1, 2011

None of your business :)

300. Trekprincess - February 1, 2011

I don’t mean to be rude but Captain Neill is it your business what I watch :) anyway I just want to know is it a crime to prefer Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock and Karl Urban as Doctor McCoy etc. I do like the original cast as well don’t get me wrong

301. captain_neill - February 1, 2011

It is not a crime. I never implied that.

I was only asking out of curiousity, just like to know that the new movie is getting people into the other Treks that was the reason I ask.

I was just wanting to know if the movie has been successful in converting into watching other Treks was not asking if you had a boyfriend or anything like that.

AS I said before I have no problem with your fav Star Trek being the new movie. I just hope it was a gateway into this cool universe that is Star Trek.

302. the Quickening - February 1, 2011

254, 255. dmduncan

Independent, creative producer-directors, like Tarantino, can and do quite frequently, accept projects from other sources that vary from what they themselves might initiate; projects that differ in tone, and are more tame than what they themselves might do. There is a difference in Tarantino being given complete creative control over the TREK movie franchise (something Paramount would never do anyway), and giving him a TREK script to work from where he would just be adding his creative talents to the project. The suggestion that he, or any creative artist are one dimensional, and can’t do anything else just isn’t true.

303. captain_neill - February 1, 2011

Is it sign of the times that the newbies would prefer the new actors over the originals?

304. Trekprincess - February 1, 2011

give the new actors a chance:)

305. greenappleman7 - February 1, 2011

I wonder when we’ll see the teaser trailer come out!

306. dmduncan - February 1, 2011

304: “The suggestion that he, or any creative artist are one dimensional, and can’t do anything else just isn’t true.”

It’s not that I think Tarantino is one dimensional or could not do it. But if the corporate mindset at Paramount has any say in the decision about who directs then I’d say his history would probably disqualify him in much the same way that one’s long history in operating a nightclub probably wouldn’t qualify one for a loan to start a business building turbojet engines.

Some directors DO have a history of excelling at different types of movies, which is why I mentioned Francis Coppola, who did Apocalypse Now AND Peggy Sue Got Married, and who is now off making wine and small movies only 10 people see.

Beyond that, Tarantino is best when he is doing himself, which is probably true for most of us. So I’m not sure what would distinguish his work when he’s conforming to another group’s rules, such as would make him a desirable pick for Star Trek. When he can’t play his strengths, which is his peculiar style that doesn’t exactly fit Star Trek, then what advantage is there in having him for Star Trek particularly when there are other directors who do seem to fit Star Trek better?

That said, if he was interested and I was in charge, I’d take his offer seriously. O’ course, HE has to feel he’s right for the project as well. Can’t just assume he’d be on board no matter what.

307. dmduncan - February 1, 2011

302. Trekprincess – February 1, 2011

303. captain_neill – February 1, 2011

I think we have a love connection. Name one of you tribbles after me, please. ;-)

308. dmduncan - February 1, 2011

you = your. Obviously.

309. Harry Ballz - February 1, 2011

Remember, no tribbles if he dribbles.

310. dmduncan - February 1, 2011

captain_neil is such a fan I suspect he only eats blue and green dyed mellon pieces sprinkled with quadrotriticale.

311. captain_neill - February 2, 2011

I do like the new actors

Shut the hell up. Your too opinated for my liking

312. Harry Ballz - February 2, 2011

Oh, please, captain_neill……you should be pleased that someone like dmduncan is addressing you…………by half!

Get over yourself!

313. captain_neill - February 2, 2011

Before anyone gets the wrong impression I like the new movie, the new actors are good.

But I do prefer the originals.

When I am at a Star Trek con I love meeting fellow Trekkies.
But I don’t know but I seem to get annoyed at a few of the fans here.

People here don’t like the new movie being criticised in some camps, I can understand that. But I have to say I hate when Next Gen or Enterprise etc get bashed because they are good shows.

If fans had given Enterprise the chance they would have seen how good the show became and it would have had 7 seasons . But oh no you criticised and didn’t watch.

Sothe question I got to ask is why is it ok to criticise past stuff but every one goes mad when the criticism is towards the new movie.

Overall I am sorry but I do hate the mentality now, a lot o members seem to have no love for the past Star Trek now.

Star Trek XI should not eclipse the rest of Trek, it should be embraced as part of the legacy of Star Trek.

Please read everything before some idiot turns this into another piece of hate from me.

314. Harry Ballz - February 2, 2011


just because you CAN post, doesn’t mean you should.

(and, no, don’t point the finger back in my direction)

315. captain_neill - February 2, 2011


You mean I am not allowed my opinion?

Since when did Star Trek fans promote a more fascist outlook rather than IDIC

316. captain_neill - February 2, 2011

Bottom line I love Star Trek, I LOVE Star Trek

Sorry if my last message seemed a bit rude but please remember thst even though I had gripes with the new movie I am still proud to be a Star Trek fan.
Of course JJ ABrams did changes I was unhappy with but he still made a good movie.

And Trekprincess I just wanted to know if you got into the other Trek’s, that was all. I just wanted to know that Abrams movie got you into the other Treks/ You didn’t need to get defensvie. Wrath of Khan got me into Trek and I watched all the others.

It seems that the new movie is bringing out the worst in some Star Trek fans.

317. P Technobabble - February 2, 2011

So, about that Super Bowl…

318. Red Dead Ryan - February 2, 2011

Captain Neill

People aren’t always going to like the same things you do. Some may bash TNG. it’s just their opinion. There’s nothing you can do about it so you might as well just move on. Just don’t let anyone stop you from enjoying what you like and you’ll be happy. It’s not worth getting angry about. :-)

319. Trekprincess - February 2, 2011

Captain Neill please tell me what is your problem against the reboot :/ and why can’t you stand new fans loving the new movie

320. captain_neill - February 2, 2011


I don’t think you understand me
I NEVER said I had a problem with people liking the new movie. As I said before I like the new movie

I just was commenting that I hoped the new movie was a window to allow you to enjoy what came before as well.

You’re right

Just saying I wished the movie was successful in getting people to watch the past stuff as it’s all good. Did not not mean to say I hate the reboot.

321. captain_neill - February 2, 2011


You are mincing my words.

The only thing that gets is the mainstream mentality that the new film is the only good Star Trek, a feeling that I don’t agree with as there is a lot of good Star Trek out there.

I never said I hate people for not liking the new movie, please get that thinking out of your head. I don’t have a problem with people liking the new movie.

I guess I was you were confusing it when all I said was liking ONLY the new movie. If you read it like I was condemning all fans of the new film then I am sorry. I never meant it to sound like that.

I just love it when new fans get into the other stuff as a result of the new movie.

322. P Technobabble - February 2, 2011

I wonder if NuSpock plays the Vulcan lute as did his alternate-world counterpart. It seems a rather strange instrument. No fingering of actual notes is required. Perhaps it is a virtual instrument for the ” Lute Hero” game. Perhaps it has a built-in data-base of thousands of songs, including the classics “Beyond Antares,” and “Heading Out to Eden.” Perhaps in the sequel the Spock/Uhura relationship will be further explored as Spock gives Uhura a few lessons.
Making music is a great way to bring people together.

323. Trekprincess - February 2, 2011

What do you have against new minds fresh ideas :) be tolerant

324. somethoughts - February 2, 2011

Would be cool to see the writers give us 5 self contained episodes as the sequel, in each one dealing with action, drama, allegory, discovery and problem solving. Telling the story of 5 stories is far better than seeing one right? :) That maybe the closest we will get in having televised episodes.

325. dmduncan - February 2, 2011

313: “Shut the hell up. Your too opinated for my liking”



317. captain_neill – February 2, 2011

“You mean I am not allowed my opinion?”

Sure you are. If you would at least vary the language in expressing the one opinion you have the rest of us would appreciate it. Y’know…make like a Talosian and create the illusion we are reading something different in each of your posts.

326. keachick - February 2, 2011

“Is it sign of the times that the newbies would prefer the new actors over the originals?”

Yes. Why would the newbies not prefer the new actors over the originals? They are current and for many, original. The new actors have not played these characters before. They can give these characters (which is what Kirk, Spock & co are – FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) their own interpretation, their own spin, if you like. The present actors are naturally constrained by the fact that the characters have already been fairly well developed by Star Trek’s creator, writers and original actors anyway.

I would not call myself a newbie, but I am looking forward to watching the new, younger and likeable cast play my favourite characters. The others have been there and done that, and very well too, but…well, time and life goes on…

327. the Quickening - February 2, 2011


You wrote-
It’s not that I think Tarantino is one dimensional or could not do it. But if the corporate mindset at Paramount has any say in the decision about who directs then I’d say his history would probably disqualify him…

The Quickening–
And that’s been my point. The suits need to make risker decisions in order for TREK to excel in the climate of contemporary cinema. They are off to a good start–not just by hiring Abrams, but also finally spending adequate money on a TREK film. J.J. was a good choice as director, but not a great one. Adding a creative talent like Tarantino–or another contemporary stylist, would be an even better decision in my opinion.

Also, I’m commenting on what Tarantino can add to the project as an artist. Whether Paramount would actually hire him is speculative. Given the climate in Hollywood today of not taking risk–preferring to play it safe–I agree, I doubt they would hire him anyway.

You wrote–
… in much the same way that one’s long history in operating a nightclub probably wouldn’t qualify one for a loan to start a business building turbojet engines.

The Quickening–
But those’s are totally different businesses, whereas we are talking about different entities in the same industry.

You wrote–
Some directors DO have a history of excelling at different types of movies, which is why I mentioned Francis Coppola, who did Apocalypse Now AND Peggy Sue Got Married, and who is now off making wine and small movies only 10 people see.

Agreed. I like Francis Coppola, and he would be a good choice, especially from a technocratic perspective, but he’s not a contemporary stylist in tune with the current zeitgeist of the filmmaking process and audience like Tarantino. I know he’s very elitist in his artist interests, preferring opera, classic music, etc. I’m not sure Coppola is a TREK fan, or would even do it. I really believe Tarantino, if asked, would seriously consider it, and wanting to do it is half the battle. Also, hiring Coppola almost reminds me of Roddenberry hiring Robert Wise to direct ST: TMP: an elder statesman working on a contemporary film. Questionable, but not a bad choice.

You wrote–
Beyond that, Tarantino is best when he is doing himself, which is probably true for most of us. So I’m not sure what would distinguish his work when he’s conforming to another group’s rules, such as would make him a desirable pick for Star Trek. When he can’t play his strengths, which is his peculiar style that doesn’t exactly fit Star Trek, then what advantage is there in having him for Star Trek particularly when there are other directors who do seem to fit Star Trek better?

The Quickening–
Yes. We all excel at what we do best, but here we are talking about the same activity and in the same industry… filmmaking; it’s not like asking a medical doctor to do an engineer’s job and design a ship. Just because he has a definitive, personal, ascetic style as a film maker doesn’t mean he can’t excel at something else in the same industrial arena; slightly conforming his talents to said material, and applying his approach and artist sense to each page of the script he directs, in this case TREK. Directors have been doing that since film began. I don’t agree that artist are locked in like that unless you are talking about extreme differences, or where the artist is out of touch with the audience. Tarantino is not. I guess because I look at TREK as being adult–or, at the very least, trying to be, it’s easier for me to see the possibility of a Tarantino, than those who look at it, and desire TREK to be STAR WARS.

What would Tarantino add to TREK? Witticism; a greater sense of reality; dark, penetrating humor; adult sensibility; deeper, richer characterizations; zippy dialogue; crisp editing; more complex creative structure; inventive camera moves… quickly come to mind. These would compliment TREK… they would compliment any film, and make it better. Tarantino true strengths. Does he have attitude and are his films violent? Yes, but he can contribute the things I listed above to a TREK film without attitude and violence (and would it really be so bad if he did add those?). Of course, some would say, this is not TREK. I say it should be.

I have never agreed with this notion that TREK is so different and unique that only certain artist can do it and others can’t, or this is STAR TREK, and this is not, or a TREK film can contain this and not that. TREK is only marginally popular. There is plenty of room to improve… more of an audience to capture. You’re not going to find that audience by playing it safe. With the exception of ST:TMP, TREK constantly avoids big name directors–preferring actors as directors. Don’t know why. I really hope Abrams chooses to pass on directing the film. It’s time to take an even bigger risk.

328. VulcanFilmCritic - February 2, 2011

KIRK: Do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese on Vulcan?

SPOCK: Treif

329. dmduncan - February 2, 2011

329: “The suits need to make risker decisions in order for TREK to excel in the climate of contemporary cinema.”

It’s a lucrative tentpole franchise with a loyal fanbase and a newer fanbase that ST.09 brought in. They probably don’t see ST as art, and they know that as long as they keep doing what they just did, i.e., making fun, fast, intelligent, epic Star Trek, they’ll excel just fine.

“But those’s are totally different businesses, whereas we are talking about different entities in the same industry.”

The relevant point of comparison is the risk in hiring someone to do something that is out of his norm. So you could keep it in the industry and make the same point. They took a chance and upgraded Stuart Baird from editor to director for Nemesis, and he produced one of the biggest stinkers in all ST.

They could also hire a writer to be a first time director. There’s lots of ways to take interesting risks, but when you’ve got a proven talent pool of directors and a formula that works, what are the odds that they are going to get experimental? I’d love to see Joss Whedon direct a Trek. The guy is brilliant. But there would probably be issues with that choice as well, so…

Personally I think Copolla is now like George Lucas: Past his prime. Coppola seems to enjoy what he’s doing right now, and doing a Star Trek would be a big switch back for him. Still, he’s one of the greatest filmmakers out there. If I knew he was kindling some passion for it, then I’d be interested. Otherwise, probably not a good fit.

“Just because he has a definitive, personal, ascetic style as a film maker doesn’t mean he can’t excel at something else in the same industrial arena; slightly conforming his talents to said material, and applying his approach and artist sense to each page of the script he directs,”

It doesn’t mean he CAN excel at Star Trek either. And in the case of Tarantino, his approach and artistic sense ARE the very things that do not fit what Star Trek was and still is, so again, a conformist Tarantino would not be the Tarantino that we know for doing the brilliant things he does.

Tarantino’s brilliance is in his unpredictable character moments, quirky timing, and sudden radical juxtapositions, all of which are bizarre in a way that Star Trek has never been, unless you count TFF.

“I have never agreed with this notion that TREK is so different and unique that only certain artist can do it and others can’t, or this is STAR TREK, and this is not, or a TREK film can contain this and not that.”

And if you get to direct, then Star Trek will be whatever it is you do. But in the discussion of probabilities, we won’t see Tarantino or Joss Whedon, and given the success of the crew that made ST.09 what incentive do they have to get experimental?

But I do hear what you’re saying. I always wanted Star Trek to be the stuff that great directors did. I didn’t want ST movies to be great compared to what Star Trek usually turns out, but great, PERIOD, and as much as I do like the Meyer involved films, I never felt Star Trek reached that mark or broke the habit of being just a fan thing, until ST.09.

I think JJ has a style and a talent that blends well with Star Trek, but I also think a lot is riding on Bob’s script. It’s a testament to JJs skill that he got the performances he did for ST.09, but it’s a testament to Bob’s skill that JJ got something great to work with.

330. JP - February 2, 2011

Why are people attacking each other? We’re posting messages about a tv show. We’re not determining the politcal future of Egypt. I love you guys but sometimes you act like crazy grandpa yelling at the tv (and or the wall).

This is supposed to be fun remember. “Remember” (*touches McCoy’s face*)

331. captain_neill - February 3, 2011


You’re right

I apologise for being critical.
But I was not criticising people for liking the new movie.

And I apologise if it sounded like that.

And dmduncan you dont have to be so rude. I am sorry

332. captain_neill - February 3, 2011

I meant 320 in my last message.

I guess I don’t hold JJ Abrams in the same light as everyone else does. And I am sorry about that.

To me JJ Abrams is a chain in the history of Star Trek, It has been going on 40 years before him and will certainly continue after his involvement.

Now thats not me being critical of JJ Abrams but I don’t feel that he is the ONLY guy who can now do Star Trek.

To me Nicholsa Meyer is a stronger director but that is NOT me saying that I hate JJ Abrams directing style. Abrams is not my favourite style of shooting. Once again not criticing Abrams just a thought.

If anyone actually bothered to read my messages I was NOT saying I can’t stand people liking the new movie. Did they EVEN bother to read the comment that I like the movie as well.

I was just saying that the mainstream reacts as if the new movie was the only good Star Trek, again I am NOT saying I hate the move. I am annoyed that the Star Trek I grew up with was not getting respect because of the new audience.

I just feel that past Trek should not be forgotten because of the new movie. To me the new movie is part of the legacy of Star Trek, A PART of it.

I love it all, including the new movie.

I just hope the new movie is helping get the newwbies into the other Treks.
I am sorry it came out wrong.

333. P Technobabble - February 3, 2011

Personally, I don’t think we’d ever see a director such as Coppola, Scorsese, Tarantino, Spielberg, Scott… If JJ doesn’t want to direct, I’d bet Paramount would go with a “newer,” (and less expensive) director. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in any case…

334. Trekprincess - February 3, 2011

Will you please give it a rest Captain Neill I’m sure everyone is fed up with you saying the same thing over and over again Live Long And Prosper :):) Star Trek

335. captain_neill - February 3, 2011


Now you are being rude for no apparent reason.

I was trying to make amends but yet you are still being a total bitch.

SO forgive me for trying to apologise.

Your kind of comments are why I hate this site at times.

I respect that you love the new movie.

Listen to me again, I LOVE THE NEW MOVIE.

I am trying to be as polite as I can but you seem to take offense just because I don’t like the new movie as the best ever Trek.

But it comments like that that that really, really make me despise this site.

When people still bitch to me even when I was trying to explain that I don’t hate people for liking the new movie, never have. People seem to be twisting my words.

334 For your information I gave the new movie 4 out of 5.

Bet you will now argue with me because I did not give it 5 out of 5 but believe me 4 out of 5 is still good.

No doubt you will twist this round into an insult but I do apologise if you read into the fact that I don’t like people for liking the new movie. I never said that.

I was just saying that I sometimes feel disappointed if the other Treks would not be watched by the newbies, that is NOT ME saying I hate people for liking the new movie. Just pointing out that it would be a shame if that was the case as there is so much good Star Trek out there..

I was not saying people must watch it all but I like to see the new movie as a window to the other Treks. Star Trek has a great universe.

OH why bother I am sure this will be twisted into something hateful.

Please tell me I am making sense here because Trekprincess seems to think I am insulting the new movie just because I don’t like it as the best one.

So trekprincess please acceot my apology if you read my messages wrong.

I have been into Trek for 20 years, I guess this divide must have been similar to the one back in September 1987.

Star Trek is the coolest thing ever and it will always be my favourite.

336. captain_neill - February 3, 2011

I want to apologise to all who mis understood my comments.

337. Arsenal - February 3, 2011

I wanna apologies cus I’m a Trekkie !
No ? oh well you win some and ya loose some.

ANyway if Arbrams doesn’t direct then what Nicolas Mayer ?

338. Vultan - February 3, 2011

Stop apologizing, captain neill. If these people have a problem with your opinion, that’s their problem, not yours. It’s not like you’re being unreasonable about your particular dislikes of Abrams’ movie.

Don’t be afraid of the pitchforks and torches. You’re not alone.

339. captain_neill - February 3, 2011


Thank you. I really really appreciate that.


I’d love to see Nick Meyer return

340. Trekprincess - February 3, 2011

I have only been into Trek after 2 years :)

341. Trekprincess - February 3, 2011

That’s fine Captain Neill now let’s put aside our differences and get on I apologise as well for being a total bitch and being rude about your different views :) well there certainly as well a lot of great trek not just the new movie :)

342. Trekprincess - February 3, 2011

That’s what the sci fi pipeline podcast guys Darren and Chris gave Star Trek 09 4 out of 5 :)

343. somethoughts - February 3, 2011


Trekprincess you should see if you can get the complete 7 seasons of The Next Generation :)

Top 10 Episodes:

1. “Yesterday’s Enterprise”
2. “The Best of Both Worlds”, Parts I and II
3. “The Inner Light”
4. “Tapestry”
5. “All Good Things…”
6. “The Measure of a Man”
7. “Sins of the Father”
8. “First Contact”
9. “The First Duty”
10. “Chain of Command”, Parts I and II.

344. captain_neill - February 3, 2011


Agreed lets put our differences aside.

I think you would love Star Trek: First Contact, it is an excellent movie

345. Trekprincess - February 3, 2011

Yes it is an excellent movie I love all of Star Trek :)

346. captain_neill - February 3, 2011


That is great to hear.

Star Trek is the coolest.

347. dmduncan - February 3, 2011

333. captain_neill – February 3, 2011

Not rude. Entertainingly blunt, or trying to be, but not rude. Nobody holds it against you that you have your own opinions, so you are wasting your energy fretting about that and apologizing for it. You are EXPECTED to have opinions that don’t necessarily agree with others.

348. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - February 7, 2011


349. crash83 - February 16, 2011

Some movie franchises have suffered from changes in writing staff/producers/directors (X-Men comes to mind), and others that do have consistent directing/etc sucked anyway (Spiderman, Transformers)… but there are some that have done very well, Nolan’s Batman and Favreau’s Iron Man (which I’d call slightly above average yet entertaining when compared to Batman but then again Favreau is not Nolan). Anyway, point is, Abbrams should realize what he’s started and stick with it. A continued “new” Star Trek series will not be the same without him. At least do a trilogy.

350. Sibyl Patt - August 8, 2011

My spouse and i without doubt must think even more in that way and find out a few things i can do over it. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.