Report: Paramount Ready To Get Star Trek Sequel Going + Flashback: JJ Abrams Star Trek First Officially Announced 4 Years Ago Today February 27, 2011
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Trek Franchise , trackback
As we have been reporting here at TrekMovie.com, developing the script for the 2012 Star Trek sequel is now in the final stretch. Now a new report states that Paramount is ready to get things started. This all falls on the four-year anniversary of Paramount officially announcing JJ Abrams’ first Star Trek film. More details below.
Report: Paramount ready to get things going
A new article from our friend Vic Holtreman at Screenrant cites a studio source with a report that Paramount liked the story pitch for the Star Trek sequel and that they are "already willing to spend money on pre-production offices." This report is consistent with TrekMovie reporting, as all indications are that Paramount is bullish on the Star Trek sequel and wants to get things going to ensure they make their June, 29 2012 date.
As previously reported, sequel co-writer/producer Roberto Orci recently said that the writing team (of Orci, Damon Lindelof and Alex Kurtzman) hope to hand in the first draft of the script to the studio by late March, and this week he and fellow co-writer/producer Damon Lindelof spoke about ‘holing up’ in a hotel to the first draft. And on Thursday, actor Simon Pegg said buzz on the script was good, or as he put it "that the "word on the bridge is the new script is AMAZEBALLS", appearing to confirm that insider buzz.
Traditionally films need a script to get a greenlight and budget and to start pre-production, but once Paramount set the June 29, 2012 release date (which they did thirteen months ago) the Star Trek sequel had what one insider called a "soft greenlight" meaning that the studio assumes the film will go ahead even before getting a script. While many aspects of pre-production require an agreed script draft (like casting, designing, location scouting, construction, etc.) there are still things that could be done to lay the groundwork, such as set up offices and possibly lining up the required crew, which is expected to be a close mirror to the team that put together the 2009 Star Trek film.
So things continue to move in the right direction for the 2012 Star Trek sequel, and 2011 looks to be an eventful year for the film moving into to pre-production soon and then production, which is reported to be starting in August.
The 2012 Star Trek sequel could be pulling out of spacedock soon
Flashback: Four Years ago today Paramount announced JJ Abrams Star Trek
It might be hard to believe, but it was February 27, 2007 when Paramount officially announced that were making a new Star Trek movie. In a release titled "J.J. Abrams to direct Star Trek Feature Film For Paramount in Theaters Christmas Day 2008" studio chief Brad Grey stated (in part) "The revival of the ‘Star Trek’ franchise is an important part of Paramount’s turnaround." The release also quoted Abrams, who said:
JJ Abrams (2/27/07): If there’s something I’m dying to see, it’s the brilliance and optimism of Roddenberry’s world brought back to the big screen. Alex and Bob wrote an amazing script that embraces and respects Trek canon, but charts its own course. Our goal is to make a picture for everyone — life-long fans and the uninitiated. Needless to say, I am honored and excited to be part of this next chapter of Star Trek.
Although word about a JJ Abrams-produced Star Trek project was first reported in the spring of 2006 (before TrekMovie.com launched), the only official release from Paramount before Feb. 27, 2007 was the Abrams-designed teaser poster at Comic-Con 2006.
Original Star Trek teaser from Comic Con 2006 – movie "officially " announced Feb. 27 2007 (four years ago today)
The February 2007 official announcement confirmed that Abrams would be directing as well as producing (along with Damon Lindelof), with a shooting start target of Fall 2007 and a release date of Christmas 2008 (which was later changed to May 2009). The release didn’t reveal a title, cast, or any plot details. Even though TrekMovie and others were unofficially reporting that the film would recast Kirk and Spock, it wasn’t until later in spring 2007 that Abrams confirmed this, and not until Comic-Con 2007 that the team announced the casting of Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy, as the two Spocks.
While a Trek film was announced Feb. 27, 2007 – first casting and "Star Trek" title weren’t revealed until Comic-Con 2007 "Star Trek" panel
Assuming that they follow form, then Paramount could be issuing a similar official announcement about the 2012 Star Trek sequel as early as March (which would hopefully also confirm JJ Abrams as director). Pre-production for the sequel will be a much simpler process as Abrams and Bad Robot already have a crew in mind, and most of the principal cast they need. Also much of the work designing and building sets for the USS Enterprise are done, so the focus for the sequel will be designing, building and scouting for new elements in the film, along with casting new characters.
This article’s Star Trek sequel icon comes courtesy of the linked article from our friends at ScreenRant.
Loading ...
Comments»
Hoorah!
And we are off……..
No real news though.
No surprise there.
“a soft greenlight” – how romantic….
Word is that there might possibly be some starships in the next movie!
There might even be some space scenes…
Amazeballs!
Ha ha…
click on the link for the announcement from 4 years ago and read the last comment!!
Priceless with hindsight…
@5
Ha Ha. You are right that is bloody hilarious.
Hindsight is a wonderful and amusing thing at times…
Whats the meaning of “amazeballs”!?
It’s been a long road fellas. I hope you outdo yourselves on this one!
…wow…way too much time between films. Oh well, that’s Hollywood.
BRING BACK THE SHAT!
jk.. but seriously though, can I get some more Enterprise please? Some nice slow shots.. really get a sense of the exterior/interior.. oh and scrap the apple store bridge..
and for pete’s sake please PLEASE keep the Spock/Uhura stuff behind closed doors..
thanks in advance, Trek12 writing team, for accepting these suggestions.. :)
RE: Shatner cameo: the Maybe’s and No’s on the TrekMovie poll outweigh the 2 Definite Yes’s at this point…
But as I said elsewhere, Shat seems intent upon making himself too darn busy even if he IS asked.
No real surprises here. Paramount is committed to the Star Trek films at this point in time. The only surprise might be that they already want to commit resources to it this early in the game. I think they are committed to making the next film a blockbuster and will invest whatever is necessary. 2012 looks to be a great year for films. I’ll have a new Star Trek film and a new James Bond film to look forward too (I’m a huge Bond fan too–glad MGM got their mess straightened out).
I’ve said plenty on these boards about what I’d like to see and won’t rehash. The only thing I would ask is in addition to the action, explosions and special effects, please give us an intelligent, insightful film also. Some of my favorite Star Trek episodes over the years are the ones that have twists and turns in the story. As an avid Hitchcock fan, I love directors that use symbolism, colors and foreshadowing, things you have to watch the film twice to catch. Try to avoid the cookie-cutter sci-fi action flick that seems so common among sci-fi today.
Whatever you guys come up with, you seem to have full studio support. Take advantage of that to deliver a knockout film. So many times in the past, the directors and writers had to make do with less (though they too put out great Star Trek films). This time, the money is there. Use it wisely.
“This article’s Star Trek sequel icon comes courtesy of the linked article from our friends at ScreenRant.”
I notice it has a “2″.
The next person I find calling it “Star Trek 2″ will be forced to watch “Star Trek Voyager: The Fight” until I am satisfied that they have learnt the errors of their way, and will refer to it aS good old fashion Star Trek XII or ST XII.
Wow. 70 percent would be ok with Shat coming back. Probably won’t happen unless jj wants it. At least the team will put Shat lovers out of their misery early this time
Can’t wait for Star Trek 2!!!!!
I kinda like the new icon there (not knocking the other one used, good to). But this movie is really the second one in this particular series. It fits for me.
Is this the new official icon? Too lens flarey, I think. Oh dear. Not enough of that beautiful blue colour either.
I really hope that August will be the month when the real filming begins, if not before hand. August is also the month of Chris Pine’s birthday (Aug. 26).
At least, that will give Karl Urban plenty of time to catch the Rugby World Cup games being played in NZ this year, before becoming our beloved grumpy “Dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a rugby player”, Bones. Karl wanted to be an All-Black when he was younger. Rugby is sacrosanct here, especially among NZ males. Karl, of course, knows where his roots lie, as well he should…;)
The fact is that the sequel will be Star Trek 2 within this alternate timeline/universe. The Wrath of Khan was actually Star Trek II (Roman numerals). I can’t recall that episode of Star Trek:Voyager (not good with names of episodes but know them when I see them) but probably watched it and enjoyed it. Quite happy to watch it again. I mean, it’s Star Trek, isn’t it?…:)
Find some way to use “red matter” to make the nacelles glow, ya know, RED?! That would be swell.
I can’t wait for the movie, all news is good news. I would love to be a part of this Movie in some form. I would be a dream come true.
I like the new icon! I kept seeing “42″ in the old one…
But isn’t THE answer “42″?
Frackinastic!!
Im already getting a chub just thinking about a new star trek movie! Crossing fingers for JJ to direct.
I am getting excited all over again for all the news that will be coming in this year for the movie. The only thing I am worried about is the date of June 29, 2012. I am just worried that a certain radioactive blood teenager swings into theaters 4 days later. So hopefully that movie ends up moving so Star Trek can have a good box office weekend and be number one again.
Just like in the fall of ‘08, we should be getting photos and tidbits from the set in October or November. Assuming that filming starts in August as planned.
Boy, time just wizzes by!
Now that the Academy Awards are finished, it’s time to repeat my choice for director if J.J. Abrams doesn’t direct the next Star Trek film:
Tom Hooper (”The King’s Speech”) He just won the Oscar for directing. And from what I can tell his IMDB, he’s not busy. By the way, “The King’s Speech” is a great movie.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0393799/
Not really that surprising. Sequels coming off really successful films often don’t need to have a full script ready to go before some financing kicks in. This is especially true when the creative talent is pretty much the same and have proven themselves.
Also, Paramount needs Trek XII to meet its deadline. After what looks like an amazing lineup of films for 2011, they’re current slate for 2012 is surprisingly weak.
CmdR and Dennis Bailey still on board four years later. Stanky went overboard. The rest of us: Johnny-come-lately’s!
No pre-production can begin w/o a director, money or not!
I like the ‘2′ logo, BTW. I doubt that Abrams & Co. see their upcoming film as Star Trek 12. They see it as the second movie in their distinct film series.
26.
I can tell you’ve been spending too much time in the basement. Tom Hooper? You’ve gotta be kidding! The mutual disinterest of both Hooper and Paramount in such a scenario is 1000% certain.
#10: I don’t have a problem with the concept of the Spock/Uhura romance, but how it was done in the last movie. I mean, the only thing in it was her throwing herself at Spock at several times. I mean, I don’t have a problem with crewmembers romancing each other, but how it’s done.
#23: I’d say a 10 to 1 chance AGAINST JJ directing.
#26: Not gonna happen. I don’t think Tom Hooper is Trek material.
The one thing that gets me is this: What if the movie is as bad as “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” but gets praised like it’s “The Dark Knight?” I mean, the last Star Trek was a fun romp, but it was no masterpiece, depsite people saying otherwise. I can’t get Kirk’s quick jump from Cadet to Captain, I just can’t, along with some of the other things.
Just around the corner preproduction…some teasers posters, production and then the juicy spoilers and teaser trailer. It has already been two years (more or less,) Just one more year to fly by.
It is the 12th Star Trek movie, but yes, its the second in this series, just like Generations was the first TNG movie, and II, III, and IV were a trilogy.
Why are fans so hyper critical :/ anyway I am so looking forward to this :)
This script has be proscratinated to the very last bitter day.
Nonetheless, Paramount waving the flag GO makes me feel…
in the words of Howard Dean….
yyyeeaaarrgGGhhhhhhh!!!!!
Hi Anthony,
Love the new Star Trek 2′ logo. Its better then the ghostbuster-style 2 logo.
See, and I like Anthony’s Trekbusters logo. It’s clever and funny.
Dear gawd! I just read through the thread’s posts from 4 years ago and I was here even then! Under a different post name, but still…………sheeit, I need to get a hobby! :>)
Delighted to know that Paramount appears to be behind the script for the next movie.
Trek lives!
Bring it on fellas! Can’t wait for 2k12
http://www.deviantart.com/download/197957882/to_uncharted_territories_by_jetfreak74656-d39uxa2.png
Go team!
Some working shields would be nice this time too. Just saying……. :D
ON DIRECTOR FOR STAR TREK 2012 IF ABRAMS WON’T DO IT..
@ 31 Anthony Thompson
@ 32 Rusty
Yes, I’m figuratively in the basement and life is cool here. Anthony, I have not heard that Hooper hates Star Trek or Paramount hates Hooper. Please show it.
Rusty, what is Trek material? Should we force him to do the Vulcan salute? Tom Hooper has got a ton of talent. (See the mini-series “John Adams.”) I think Abrams is the best choice even if I’ve crticized Star Trek (2009.) The “Wrath of Khan” director Nicholas Meyer was not Trek material. If you’ve seen his commentary for the Special Edition DVD, he t knew very little about Star Trek. But he was told directors DIRECT. So he took the job. And the rest is history.
I’m not a big Quentin Tarantino fan but … his favorite movie ffor 2009 was Star Trek. There is a commercial logic to getting him. Francis Ford Coppola is a wild choice. After watching last night’s Oscars, with hosts Franco and Hathaway, I’m not sure the kids are all right. So, maybe he’s available. Please, suggest directors other than J.J. Abrams who willl lead our beloved Star Trek into future. Kahtheryn Bigelow (”The Hurt Locker”) is working on a film for 2012. Oh, by the way, Steven Spielberg is a great choice but really busy producing.
QT loves Star Trek
http://trekmovie.com/2009/12/14/quentin-tarantino-list-star-trek-as-top-film-of-2009/
@ 38 Harry Ballz
Harry, Harry, Harry. You were under a different name? Let me guess. Okay, “Mike Hunt.” : – )
Boys and girls and those undecided. The game is afoot. Can’t belive i have been reading this website for 4 years. May i say hip hip hooray 4 the team here. Brilliant job. Now 4 my spoiler… It will have the colours gold, blue and red in it. Also a close source says it will have swoooshing doors.
There´s one way to jumping thru different parallel timelines, the “Guardian of Forever “!
43.
BB, the funny thing is, you got the first name right! Michael!
13–Have to agree about Star Trek 2. While the last film in essence rebooted the franchise, that tells only part of the story. The writers have said that they are not replacing the prime universe, it still exists. Yes, the next film is next in the new alternate universe, but it is still tied to what came before. You do not need to watch or even like what was before, but it is still part of the overall Star Trek universe. This is not like, say Rob Zombie’s Halloween movies, where his Halloween movies have no link to the prior Halloween movies and are a clean, 100 % reboot.
However, in all fairness, these are just fan made logos at the end of the day, not official posters by Paramount or the Abrams team. I believe they will not put any number on the next film to avoid any confusion. They will not title it Star Trek XII because they don’t want people to think it is required to see the prior films, and they won’t call it Star Trek 2 because they don’t want to make people think they are replacing/remaking Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, an already great film that they all have said they loved as well. My guess has always been that it will be Star Trek: Fill in Blank. Yes, that’s similar to the Next Generation films, but anyone who has not lived in a cave knows this is not going to be a TNG film. There is absolutely no danger of people mistaking the next film for that.
Anyway, I find it easiest to refer to the next film as Star Trek (2012) or ‘12.
How do I get into an alternate universe where this ST09 was never made?
It’s nice to see things finally moving along.
I hope Abrams will direct the sequel but more than that I want to see PIKE there!! That’s the most important thing to me about the sequel.
I’m excited but I’m a little scared because of Transformers 2…
Hey Harry. What was your posted name back 4 years ago. Hairless Ballz. Lol.
#48 How do I get into an alternate universe where this ST09 was never made?
Come to the Terran Empire Universe. But bring your Agonier. You will need it.
Agonier?
That will be 2 hours in the agonizer booth for misspelling.. Your Agonizer please.
“…the writing team (of Orci, Damon Lindelof and Alex Kurtzman) hope to hand in the first draft of the script to the studio by late March”
Before we get excited, we should probably get confirmation that they are talking about March, 2011.
I suppose “Amazeballs” is the new “Tripping Balls”?
If they were to get the King”s Speech director to do Trek, there would probably be fewer lens flares but all the scenes would have a nice deep soft bokeh .
@51
Amanda Hugginkiss?
51+56.
Holden McGroin.
Nah, but that would have been good!
Ens Joe. How dare you a lowley Ens ask me a Commodore for my Agoniser. For that Insubordnation you get 3 Hours in the Agoniser Booth.But. Since you did not know any better. I will suspend that. For this one time only.
Harry. Your too much. At least that is what Erica said.
At last… some good news. Can’t to here that filming has started.
Commodore Mike, she should be so lucky!
@ 58 touché
Let’s hope they make the Enterprise at least REMOTELY recognizable as an amped-up version of the TOS Enterprise – instead of that ship that could only double as an Enterprise-Z.
Also, no breweries. Who’s with me there?
My two cents on the new sequel logo design (and worth every penny)….too busy. (Although JJ may like the lens flare.)
I’m still bullish on the Ghostbusters homage.
Best logo yet.
@48
Not sure anyone can help with an alternate universe. May I suggest an alternate website? One where Haters are the majority?
I loved the film for what it was is that a problem
if I don’t criticise Star Trek 09 :/ it seems to me that people are forcing me to dislike abrams Star Trek when I happen to love it and it makes me happy every time I watch it
63–With you there. As much as I loved Star Trek (2009), the sets did drive me nuts. The outside of the ship was fine, but the interior designer needs to be court-martialed. I still can’t get past the windows instead of viewscreen thing. Whenever they projected something onto the windows (i.e. when they were talking to Nero on screen, etc), it was partially transparent. I mean, what happens if you want an aft view of space. You’ll get overlapping images. The windows just did not seem practical to me.
66: Settle down.
67–You seem a tad oversensitive. Most of the posters here loved the new film. There are a few haters, but they seem the distinct minority. Now there are some here (myself included) that liked a large part of the movie but perhaps think there is room for improvement in some areas. For me, I loved the cast and writing, but was not to excited about the set designs. But still loved the movie overall, the good points far outweigh the bad for me.
The few haters on Abrams Trek are greatly dwarfed by those who hate on Berman Trek. I swear there are some out there who want Berman to die a horrible death over and over again. Me, I loved it all, Berman Trek and Abrams Trek included. There is no Berman vs Abrams. It’s all good.
#48 – Go back in time and convince the suits that “ST: The Beginning” will make them gobs more money. And if you sort out the time travel details, let me know, and I’ll join you. ;)
As for yea or nay about a “2″, I actually hope that the next film has a unique title, not a number at all. Abrams Trek is technically something distinct and separate from the rest of Trek, which was one big cohesive story. While the newer films have some loose linkages, they are still separate, and don’t need to be considered part of the rest, numerically or otherwise.
#63 – Well, all things considered, what they came up with–sans the “supersizing” dung, which can just as easily be ignored–isn’t nearly as awful as what might have been. A refit to spread out the nacelles a bit and bulk up the secondary hull a little, and they’d be in good shape. I mean, it’s nothing to compare to the mind-blowingly cool work by deg3D or Jason “Vektor” Lee or Dennis Bailey in terms of modernizing the 1701, but I’ve seen a lot worse out there.
But, yeah, it’d be very nice to see a real engineering set that actually made some sense for the interior of that ship next time.
As it is, the era of my going to a Trek film over and over and giving them gobs of money would seem to be over…or at least on hold ’til they come back to the prime universe. For this upcoming film, they get one ticket sold for sure, maybe one or two more if they deliver a superior film. Though I might give them an extra go-round if they include a brief scene with nuSpock getting a communique from Spock Prime saying that the latter has figured out how to go home and is heading on back. :)
@ 38 Harry Ballz
Did you go by the name Dick Armey? Oh.. there really is a guy named Dick Armey. He was a former Congressman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Armey
#64 I don’t know. I am quite partial to a little beer, brandy and scotch and McCoy has just got the recipe for Saurian brandy…
Why can’t preproduction start without a director, especially when the film is a sequel?
Has anyone asked Tom Hooper about the possibility of directing the next Star Trek, if JJ Abrams can’t/won’t?
“The few haters on Abrams Trek are greatly dwarfed by those who hate on Berman Trek.”
“May I suggest an alternate website? One where Haters are the majority?”
Funny how there are never any self-proclaimed haters.. its always ascribed to them from critics of the critics..
Hate is a strong word and is used much more than it should to describe something much less than hate.
ensign joe: “Hate is a strong word and is used much more than it should to describe something much less than hate.”
Amen!
Dig the logo and this is good news, but I’m waiting for a director announcement. :)
Is gripers taken?
Hmmmm! …. well! …. ok! … whatever! … I keep waiting … and yes I’m optimistic! … :-) :-)
Have you ever watched Star Trek IV with the commentary by Bob and Alex it’s very great to hear the new films producers and writers talk about Trek IV anyway maybe I am oversensitive
74–Read some of the posts on the Rick Berman articles. You’ll see what I mean. Some of those posters will tell you straight up themselves that they hate Rick Berman’s work.
And no, not everyone who has a criticism of Star Trek (2009) or Rick Berman Star Trek is a hater. But there are some out there.
I loved it all. I even found things to like in Voyager “Threshold”, generally regarded as the low point for most Star Trek fans.
What, no Star Trek: SOMETHING SOMETHING joke? I feel let down.
How about Star Trek: Something’s Brewing in Engineering
or
Star Trek: The Re-Nacelling
I like the last logo with the “‘12″ in it more; I can’t really see the 2 through the flare in this one…
Can’t wait for this next movie! Looking forward to hearing some “He’s dead, Jim”s from Karl Urban next year.
About bringing Will Shatner back: even if they wanted to, how could they do that? He died in “Star Trek: Generations”. Perhaps they’ll resurrect his soul from the Nexus…? Either way, it would be great to see him as a Kirk Prime.
Why am I hearing about the engineering room looking like a brewery and the bridge looking like an Apple store?
(Perhaps they make Romulan Ale down in engineering? Maybe that’s what Scotty was drowning in in the last movie.)
Re Shatner, just to correct an earlier post here – if you total up all the catagories it makes those generally in favour of his appearance at 72%.
I hope the writers take note.
Greg
UK
#80 Yes, I agree with you. There was even a poster who wished Rick Berman dead. If that is not hatred, I don’t know what is. Call it for it is. I can’t believe what I read sometimes – just so mean and unkind. That is not to say that everyone who does not like much of Rick Berman’s Star Trek is a hater, but they are out there, fortunately in a minority.
Haters often don’t realize that they’re haters or they are in denial about it. That’s the sad part.
Haters=so-called “fans” who continually rip into and bash anything to do with “Star Trek” ad nauseum without any sort of logical reasoning and evidence to back their “criticisms”.
“Haters” sometimes suffer from lack of sunlight, post-booze-binge depression, or crabs, but some actually have legit opinions, and it’s important to understand them as such.
It also behooves them to present their opinions in such a way that we can digest them and accept them as part of the discourse. We will not persuade someone who was let down by ST09 on the threads that their opinion is wrong or misguided, because it isn’t. Yet, this IS a fansite, so most of us tend to root for wherever the franchise takes us (Thank God we don’t have the Three Prequels, eh?).
In any case, tolerance breeds healthy debate and more fun on ‘both sides of the aisle’ where Trek is concerned.
@86
Exactly right. For example, post #48.
I agree completely with all the use of the word hate and unfortunalely it is not just with Star Trek. How many times have I read on other sites where people say concerning Brian Singer, “I hate you, Brian Singer.” And why? Just because he did not deliver a Superman movie to their satisfaction? And he did deliver a Superman movie to some peoples satisfaction even if it is a minority just like Rick Berman delivered Star Trek to some peoples satisfaction including myself.
As long as a Red Shirt is Killed. Maybe Anthony Pascale is a Red Shirt. Lol
I’ve got a question for you guys:
Imagine the (first draft) script would leak, would you read it?
I would be torn.
Some feel the need to simplify it down to “they hate what we love” to pigeonhole themselves into the latter (or former) group because they have no other means of doing so.
“Look how different they are from us, my friend!”
or
“Go away! *WE* don’t want your kind around here!”
Sadly transparent, divisive, and highly illogical.
@89
You’re right…”hater” can be taken way too far. For the most part, I think it’s generally accepted as a way of describing people who have a rigid dislike for something and don’t make any attempt to find middleground or support their opinions with intelligent debate. They argue just to argue. Like Tellarites.
When it becomes more literal….a la wishing someone harm because of their creative contributions to a FICTIONAL universe/franchise…send out the guys in white uniforms with nets.
lets all tone down all the ‘hater’ labeling. We are all star trek fans here. We all love star trek.
Or you are at the wrong site
The words “love” and “hate” get used way more than they probably should be. They are strong words indicating powerful emotions. We should probably think a bit before using either words as casually as a lot of people in general use them.
English is a wonderful language, as it has so many words meaning very similar ideas and feelings, but not exactly the same. It is that expansiveness of the language, ever changing and growing. It is this factor which could make our communication so much more than it is a lot of the time.
I do not mean this to be any kind of rant or criticism. I, for one, know I could certainly do better. I just need to learn and understand more of what is in my case, my mother tongue.
“Imagine the (first draft) script would leak, would you read it?”
Nope. I like surprises :)
It’s impossible to please every Tom, Dick, and Harry!
I think you are taking the posts way too seriously. The words “hate”, “love” and some of others have different meaning in virtual life than they do in real life. Most often all they really mean is – I enjoy this/I don’t enjoy this.
The same way a fbf is not really a friend, just somebody whose request you accepted, but he/she gets to be called that anyway.
97.
Hey, don’t drag me into this mess!
“Can’t we all just get along?”
99
Only if your brothers happen to be named Tom and Dick!
“We are the world, we are the children…..”
“Live and let die…”
“Star Trekkin’ across the Universe…”
“Red, Red Wine…”
The word “hater” is being mis-applied here.
It’s slang, meaning a person who has nothing positive to contribute about a subject and so they only throw “hate” in that direction.
Quotations important, because it is hardly ever real hate.
It simply implies that a person is jealous of another’s success and respond by throwing shade in that (usually a person’s) direction, in lieu of seeking their own or simply being happy for them.*cough*Uhura*cough*
Sorry Red Dead Ryan. I would rather have Klingon Blood Wine. Not just plain old Red Wine.
Harry. *I’m Surprised you can remember that far back. We are the World was way back in the 80s.
The Ghostbusters homage 2 fingers still rocks the boat.
.
For a poster, I’d like to see someone with the photoshop gifts… take the 2 from the 2008 ComicCon poster, scale it up, and place it in the center of the Starfleet Delta just right…. that’d look nice with the yellow-to-blue fade poster.
.
Suggest “not a fan of…” for those who ‘hate’ something.
.
Suggest “really a fan of…” for those who ‘love’ something.
The 12 logo was better! You know since this will be Star Trek 12
@ 91
If the first draft leaked, I would not read it. However, I would like the writers to leak a complicated concept such as the last film’s “alternate reality” or “parallel universe.” I believe that in the 2009 film, it went by way too fast. That was evidenced by the large number of fans who got it wrong when Anthony P. asked them about it at a convention. (Link below) I got it wrong too, that’s because I’m a blogger not a physicist! :-)
I would also suggest that the writers have enough exposition. An no it’s not dumbing down the audience. Dumbing down the audience would be like pounidng the audience with one action scene after another. See “G.I. Joe.” There is nothing wrong with adequately explaing a concept and letting the audience think about it. See TNG’s “Parallels”, of course “Mirror, Mirror” and there was twenty five minutes of exposition in Iron Man (2008) before Stark escapes. And before you bring up 2001, Kubrick left a ton of clues to let you know what is going on.
http://trekmovie.com/2010/08/21/video-trekmovie-star-trek-fan-panel-at-trek-las-vegas-con/
I designed a poster but it got rejected.
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/189581_10150114117373758_566023757_6321930_7456437_n.jpg
#110 I cannot recall seeing this thread. Odd, since I remember a thread at about the same time which mentioned Chris Pine’s birthday. Oh well, no matter.
An interesting aspect noted was that they said that the majority of fans did not like the Spock/Uhura relationship in Star Trek ‘09, except the women, most of whom did approve of the relationship. I don’t have a problem with the relationship, nor would I have a problem with a decent Kirk/? (maybe “my Jasmia from the planet Menosia”?) romance. Not before time. Somehow though, I suspect most of male fans would probably object.
I guess this is why Star Trek has always been seen as more male centred and not having much appeal to most women. It is also interesting to note that some of the best TOS episodes, enjoyed by the majority of Star Trek fans, who appear to be mostly males, were written by DC Fontana, as in Dorothy Fontana. Star Trek does need more positive female input or at least the male writers/producers etc taking into account some of the ideas/wishes of the few female fans Star Trek does have. After all, in most of the countries, including the US, where Star Trek is most popular, the female population of these places make up slightly more than 50% of the overall populations.
How about when speaking about female trek fans, we just stop, think, and start using “I” instead of “we”, it will prevent inaccurate generalisations.
Thank you. :)
Iva, if you read my post, you will see that I did use the word “I” when talking about what I would like to see, eg a Kirk romance. I also said that *I* had no problem with the Spock/Uhura relationship.
In the article, link posted by Basement Blogger, it stated that the vast majority of female fans did approve of the Spock/Uhura romance/relationship. I did not make it up. Read the link for yourself. Was the thread posted on this site back in August last year by Anthony Pascale making “inaccurate generalisations”? Anthony?
I think there is more than a minority who like RIck Berman’s Star Trek, I have been to the conventions and the later shows have loads of fans.
Yes The Original Series is the one that started it alll but Next Generation was a very popular show as well. And don’t forget it was Gene who created Next Gen.
Seriously some people on this site seem to make it seem only a handful of fans liked the later series’.
Rewatching Enterprise again and I still think it works for the most part, there are some great episodes in that show.
114. Agreed. I had a much longer reply – pouring my heart and soul out – but after working on it for half an hour… the darned thing hasn’t shown up, after I hit ‘Say it!’ Overzealous spam filter, or just directed at me because I’m occasionally the dissenting voice, I don’t know.
Basically what I posted, is that the type of poster attracted to Trekmovie.com are inherently bias to the new movie. That’s why anyone comes here isn’t it? To read news about where Star Trek is at right now. Stands to reason those who like what came before more, are outnumbered by those predisposed to supporting the new direction.
I try to watch something from all the Star Trek series in a week. A couple each from TNG, DS9 and VOY. But my favourite part of the routine is always Sunday, when I watch an episode of ENT back-to-back with remastered TOS.
I recommend doing so if you haven’t ever tried it. You too, Bob Orci! ;)
My original post probably went the way of Admiral Archer’s prized beagle!
114. captain_neill
While there is certainly a substantial crossover of fans of TOS and TNG, without doubt there are a lot of TOS fans who were pushed away by TNG and it’s cohorts. I was one of them. I don’t hate TNG etc and do rate them as franchise sci-fi shows, but I don’t rate them as Star Trek series.
Frankly I don’t care whether Gene Roddenberry or Richard Nixon created TNG: I just think it was a different TV show that stole the Star Trek name and some of Trek’s superficial fixtures and fittings. In short, many of us felt it was a fraud and had a disturbing interest in promoting a fascist utopia. The real TNG pilot episodes were Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Questor Tapes and every other failed pilot Gene Roddenberry didn’t sell. By using the name Star Trek, Rodders got a show sold that would never have made it past Farpoint Station otherwise!
In an era where a portion of us came back to Trek because of the Abrams team’s new film and new fans have been created by the film, it’s little wonder that Abrams’ film’s fans are coming to a site called Trek***movie*** and have a bias towards the Kirk/Spock/McCoy Trek. We have three seasons, a cartoon and seven movies. Berman fans have 25 seasons and four movies, so they really ought to quit sulking and clam up a bit! They make Ted Heath look positively cheery!
It’s officially four years since I became a Star Trek fan again. Nice feeling.
88, 93: If you read #48 you’ll find that it consists of a question. And a question which is obviously not to be taken too seriously. That does not constitue arguing.
I don’t even know what one should argue about here or what a constructive goal of the debate should be. We’re all simply giving away opinions and impressions and fun remarks. Except for the obvious fact that some people here cannot tolerate other opinions than their own about Abrams work in Star Trek and will immediately attempt to cleanse this forum of dissent with their own opinion.
118: …that’s: constitute
Oh goody. Another “Trek for the masses”. Yay. If STXI is any indication, I’ll wait for the DVD, thank you. I don’t plan to waste my hard earned money on another Star Trek parody from Abrams and his cronies. The first one was quite enough. Maybe they’ll listen to some of the feedback and scrap that stupid iBridge and budgineering and redesign the fuglyprise so that it actually looks like a starship from the TOS era. I won’t hold my breath, though. This is JJA’s Trek now and there’s not a frakkin’ thing we can do about it. And he knows it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he dismisses Trek fans again this time around just like he did with the first one. This is only the second Trek film (counting STXI) that I am not looking forward to seeing. And that makes me sad. I’ve never dreaded seeing anything from Star Trek until Abrams took over. That sucks.
120. I shared the same opinion as yours for a little while.
But thanks to the new movie, the shelves are filled with Star Trek pocket books once again, both old and new. The DVDs are easy to find on the stores.
I find that most agreeable.
@110
If the first draft leaked, I would not read it.
I would like to say that would be true, but honestly, I think the temptation would be too much for me. :)
But I like the idea of leaking early concepts from the ST ‘09 film.
Especially juicy info on all the side-characters, Robau, George Kirk, the big-eyed alien obstetrician, et al.
LOTR and STAR WARS all excel at providing full worlds of information about even the most minor of characters.
See the cult status of Flight of the Chonchords’ Bret Mackenzie’s LOTR character “Figwit” and the many Jedis in the prequels, for example.
I think it would be awesome to see that done for the background characters, species, planets, and tech details in the ST AU.
I love that kind of stuff! :)
117–In a way, I almost feel bad for Star Trek fans who only liked the original series. You’re right. You only have 1 series, a cartoon series and the 7 movies. And there are those who don’t like Abrams take, so they take away a movie.
I feel lucky. I have 5 TV series, an animated series and 11 movies. I can watch one a day for what, 2 years and not see the same thing twice. I sometimes argue my points a little passionately, but I try to keep an open mind that not everyone likes everything out there called Star Trek.
I came into the fold with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and a Trekkie was born.
120.
“There’s not a frakkin’ thing we can do about it”. Who’s ‘we’, homeboy??? Most of the folks on this site, unlike you and a few other close-minded folks, liked ST09!
Did I mention? The new avatar is very nice. Spotlight. Delta. Number 2. The light shining through a crack between the doors. Works at that size too.
The Trekbusters II is popular though. Hopefully my comments about the earlier ‘12 one weren’t taken as hate. That word is bandied about too much. Just my attempt at constructive criticism.
Save your HATE for stuff out there in the world that deserves it…
“And there are those who don’t like Abrams take, so they take away a movie.”
I have been fairly critical about the flaws in Trek09.. and deservedly so I might ad.. but I’d still watch it over ANY of the TNG movies..
loves me some TNG but it pains.. PAINS me to watch those movies..
123. Damian
I agree. Just because I don’t like TNG as Star Trek and think it has a flawed, downright disturbing world view, doesn’t mean I don’t think it was a good sci-fi show at times, notably in stories such as Conspiracy, Darmok, The Best of Both Worlds I and The Inner Light.
Rather than those of us who don’t like Berman Trek being seen as curmudgeons, look at it this way: when I was 12, a new series of Star Trek was announced, it took three years to get to UK television and I discovered I didn’t really like it, no matter how much I persisted and tried to like it! That’s absolutely gutting for a Trek fan!
At least TNG fans have vastly more episodes and there was a pretty consistent run from season three to season six. Then again, the original show didn’t have time to hang itself (even if season three was a bit iffy at times!) Imagine that Trek had gone on as long as Mission: Impossible. Imagine the crew with 1970s hairstyles, flared 70s uniforms, new set and ship designs. Imagine some of the iconic cast had left before the end of the run. On the other hand, I often felt the weakness of TNG was that there weren’t enough changes to the cast!
Yeah, there’s a rump of fans who dislike ST09, although they’re mostly disaffected TNG fans, which is understandable because their show had little to do with Star Trek except its name. If they dislike it so vehemently, they should walk away. I did with Star Trek during the Berman interregnum. I did when Russell T Davies created the steaming pile of poo that was nu-Who, although I returned when Stephen Moffat took over. That’s life: things move on and people should deal with it! Who knows? Further down the road Trek and TNG might converge again. For now though, it’s Kirk, Spock and McCoy all the way and this Star Trek fan is very happy!
“For now though, it’s Kirk, Spock and McCoy all the way and this Star Trek fan is very happy!”
I’m sorry, but, where exactly did you see the triad in abrams movie? There was none, unless one calls that poster thing a triad.
#112: If I were them, I’d put another female senior crewmember in to shake things up, make her a lieutenant commander, give her a position like security chief, and have her wear the pants and not the miniskirt. (NOTE: Keep in mind I’m not saying get rid of the miniskirt, you can keep it on Uhura). I do NOT want to see a character like Yeoman Rand.
Iva – the Abrams film was about bringing the crew together. There is no real triad yet, as most TOS fans have come to know it, but I think that it will be there in the sequel. Anyway, the triad, ie Kirk/Spock/McCoy, did not form really until some ways through the first season of TOS. It was only later that DeForest Kelley’s name appeared in the opening credits. The only two names that appeared were William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. So much for any genuine triad. Abrams’ movie just reflected how the TOS series began in terms of the relationship between these three characters.
You need to bear in mind that Spock and Uhura are adults. They have grown up. Perhaps some of us here should as well. Adult men and women often like to spend time together for all kinds of reasons. Do I really need to explain the “birds and the bees” and other such stuff here?
87.AJ- nicely said. We (Trekkies) love discussion and debate and we have the choice to disregard. Love this forum! My guilty pleasure!
131
“Do I really need to explain the “birds and the bees” and other such stuff here?”
No you don’t HAVE to, but we wouldn’t mind some of your thoughts about the subject……. :-D
My biggest wish is that the sequel continues to follow the way of TWOK and TSFS with big events that have powerful emotional impact.
dmduncan, I am in complete agreement with you on that one!
TWOK and TSFS were a great double-bill, then the whaleshit/cheap comedy started with TVH. The movies went steadily downhill after that!
TWOK and TSFS featured some of William Shatner’s best performances as Kirk. Shatner wasn’t at his best in TMP and from TVH on, he was acting more as Shatner than Kirk.
#133 Surely you can tell the difference between a tongue that is talented and one that is not so talented?
137.
Why was her nickname “Timex”?
Because she could take a licking and keep on ticking!
So according to this…
http://screenrant.com/star-trek-2-script-production-vic-103490
…the studio was pitched the entire proposed story for Star Trek 2, and liked it. Although lots of $$$$$$$ likely influenced their opinion!
Probably the only time I’d ever wanted to be right next door to anything, glass pressed against the wall. Does that even work? But then if any of the Supreme Court found out about it, they’d have to dispense some summary justice!
If I may throw in my 2c…
I was one of those original Trekkies who had mixed feelings when I heard about the coming of TNG. On one hand, I was glad Star Trek was coming back to tv. On the other, I was disappointed it would be a new Star Trek, with new characters and, essentially, a new format.
However, as a Trekkie, I began watching TNG faithfully from episode 1.
I liked it, but it didn’t knock me over. The cast (including Patrick Stewart) were rather stiff, and often looked uncomfortable. “Encounter” was a decent enough beginning, mostly because of the magic touch of D C Fontana. The next few episodes were, IMO, dreadful. “The Naked Now” was just a re-written version of “The Naked Time,” and it did not improve upon the original in any way. “Code of Honor” was another dog, little more than an excuse to show Yar as a “tough guy.” Things got somewhat better with “WNOHGB,” written by a couple of legitimate sci-fi writers, Diane Duane and Michael Reaves.
But it took some time for the cast to start looking comfortable and confident in their roles, and the better part of three seasons before the show hit its stride. At its best, TNG was brilliant, and Patrick Stewart pretty much commanded every scene he was in. At its worst, TNG was every bit as bad as TOS was at its worst.
By the time TNG reached its 6th season, I began watching it less frequently. I tended to watch the “big” episodes: “Unification,” “Relics,” “Chain of Command,” and so forth. But I felt a lot of the writing was becoming sub-par. I was really tired of Troi’s one-episode stands. I was tired of technobabble solutions. I felt like the show was, itself, tired.
In any case, what does TNG have to do with the new Star Trek, anyway? Absolutely nothing, since Trek09 takes place before TNG anyway — alternate universe or not. I don’t see any justification in using TNG as a yardstick of any kind in measuring the validity of Trek09. Those who, on the basis of TNG, criticize Trek09 for whatever perceived flaws are, obviously, not taking into account the assorted flaws of TNG. TNG was, overall, a very good show, sometimes great. But it should not even be considered when commenting on Trek09. Apart from the Star Trek moniker, they have absolutely nothing in common.
140–I probably would not use any prior show as a yard stick, the original series included. Each show reflects the time it was made. I would not compare the new film to any of the prior shows. It’s its own unique creation.
The one thing I would say that underlies all Star Trek is a sense of exploration, wonder and the view that in the future, humanity has improved itself, is no longer greedy and tries to do what’s best. Human beings are not perfect, but they try to do what’s right.
For me, each show is different. That is, I suppose, one of the reasons I liked all the shows. They weren’t simple rehashes of the prior show but each showed a different dimension of the Star Trek universe. Not everyone likes each dimension, some only maybe like one. But for me, what some think is a weakness by each being different, I always felt was a strength in the various shows and movies. It made each unique for me.
But that is simply my own personal opinion. There are some like me who like all Star Trek and see certain underlying constants in all the shows. Other’s tastes are different and see things differently.
#141 Damian – I agree with what you have written, especially –
“The one thing I would say that underlies all Star Trek is a sense of exploration, wonder and the view that in the future, humanity has improved itself, is no longer greedy and tries to do what’s best. Human beings are not perfect, but they try to do what’s right. ”
There is some sense of that in all of the spin-off series. Hopefully, that sense will become as evident, if not more so, in the Star Trek movie sequel.
141. Damian
I pretty much agree with your observations, especially that everyone has their own tastes and each sees things differently.
However, I would take issue that TOS is not something to measure or compare Trek09 by. That Trek09 (I hate calling it that, but can we still call it the “new movie” any longer?) is, essentially, a direct descendant of TOS is, I believe, very significant. Yes, each show reflects something about the times in which they were made, but Trek09 and TOS have a direct and deliberate connection with each other. In some ways, I think it is almost impossible (at least for those die-hard fans of TOS) to not look at the latest film and still see something of TOS there. I don’t know if I’m being clear…
My previous point was: we can’t look at TNG and find very much to compare with Trek09, while we can find much to compare between the film and TOS — particularly that they are both about same characters. In addition, the writers gave us a bridge between each “version” by including Spock Prime, which, I believe, lends more credence to the idea that these two programs are closely related.
I don’t think we could really find anything to compare the Berman-era Treks with Trek09.
As for the “sense of exploration,” I think there has been a fair amount of calling for that very quality in the sequel. We’ll just have to wait and see where the writers are gonna take us!
Finally, I have often asked ‘how do human beings, as they are now, manage to evolve into the kind of human beings we see in the Trek-ian world?’ Personally, I look at the condition of the world today and just shake my head… You can’t get there from here.
141. Damian: ‘The one thing I would say that underlies all Star Trek is a sense of exploration, wonder and the view that in the future, humanity has improved itself, is no longer greedy and tries to do what’s best. Human beings are not perfect, but they try to do what’s right.’
You see, I almost agree with the above, but with reservations. The way I see it, in Star Trek humanity has improved itself to an extent, but is still greedy, spiteful, vicious and everything else. The difference is that they try hard not to let that aspect win out and are a bit better at it than us.
At the same time, as stories such as The Enemy Within demonstrate, humanity needs its dark side as well as it’s light side. TNG’s chilly ‘perfected’ humans are a frightening bunch in comparison, the result of one man’s idea of a utopia, rather than the more three-dimensional universe created by the arguments and opinions of numerous talent writers, producers, directors and actors.
Certainly, James Kirk and his team would never have coldly committed negligent genocide the way Picard’s lot did in Homeward using the Prime Directive as an excuse. The original show’s Prime Directive was a positive thing: a guide to protect people. TNG’s Prime Directive is an excuse to stand by and let people die. I mean how can an innocent bunch of primitive people who don’t even have space travel be a threat to other worlds? I mean, it won’t mess with anyone’s economy, since the Federation’s banned money and forces its citizens to work or the state for free!
144: “TNG’s chilly ‘perfected’ humans are a frightening bunch in comparison, the result of one man’s idea of a utopia, rather than the more three-dimensional universe created by the arguments and opinions of numerous talent writers, producers, directors and actors.”
Exactly. So here’s my idea for a TMP reboot.
Instead of V’ger, the BORG are threatening Earth.
Inexplicably, a Borg drone that is a perfect reproduction of Uhura demands that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy beam to the most ancient core of THE Borg Cube. That’s right, THE Cube. The FIRST Borg cube, the most ancient of Borg Cubes, which is now threatening Earth.
Kirk, Spock, and McCoy arrive at a structure very similar to the “amphitheater” like structure in V’ger, and there too is a satellite at the center. As their minds race debating the mystery at the core of the Borg Cube, Kirk notices a plaque with some writing obfuscated by dirt. It appears to be in English. Kirk rubs and rubs. There are three words, but he can only rub clean the last two.
The first word is unclear, but the last two are “…Be Evil.”
Spock then identifies the satellite as belonging to an old Earth corporation called Google.
Kirk, Spock, and McCoy then surmise that the Borg are actually the descendants of humanity. Having assimilated all that they have encountered, they have traveled back in time from the distant future to try to understand how they came to be the way they are so that they can “fix” themselves and their colorless, pointless existence.
@ 38 Harry Ballz
To remind everyone, four years ago you went by another name. Okay, at the end of today’s Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert made some prank phone call humor. Let’s use his jokes, shall we? “Oliver Bush.” or “Dick Hurtz.” Are we getting close or do we have to go another direction?
144–Interesting you mention the Prime Directive. I was recently watching TNG “Ensign Ro” and the Bajoran, Keeve Falor was criticizing the Federation about the point you just brought up. That they were innocent bystanders, and he couldn’t see attacking them, but he could not see helping them either because they were bystanders when the Cardassians attacked Bajor.
At one point Picard rationalizes the Prime Directive saying it was not just to protect other civilizations, but also to protect “us”. Protect up from the desire to offer help when that help may actually cause more damage than helping would. There were many times in all series where the characters struggled with the Prime Directive. They actually offered some of the same arguments about how can it hurt to help that you did.
–Regarding humanity’s darker side, I would say DS9 did the best job of showing that. “In the Pale Moonlight” was an excellent example. Just how far was Sisko ready to go to get the Romulans involved in the Dominion War. Or “The Homefront” where an admiral initiates a coup to take over the Federation due to his fear of a Dominion invasion. Or parts of the Xindi arc on Enterprise, where Archer rationalizes torture to find the Xindi to save Earth. I suppose TNG was an effort to show humanity at its best, while the later shows served to show human beings still had that dark side. They tried their best to overcome it, as you say, but still must deal with the devil within.
147. Damian
You see, I see TNG as humanity at its worst: robotic humans more interested in telling other races how brilliant humans are. I liked the way the DS9 characters treated the crew of the Odyssey. The Odyssey crew were archetypal smug TNG types and they got their arses kicked! I almost jumped for joy at their fate!! I tend to exclude DS9 from discussions of Berman era Trek as he was a step removed from the show. Also, as a space station, it was mostly set in one location. My bigger concern is the starship series that have people purporting to be ambassadors for the human race.
I would love to see a story from the future of the TNG era, say early 25th century, where a movement grows within the human race to throw off the chilly shackles of the increasingly Borg-like Federation and embrace their emotions and vices as an essential part of their identities: kind of a reverse Surak movement. It would be interesting to see the humans of the TNG era learning to be human again.
146.
BB, I went on to explain that I like the name Holden McGroin. Back in those days, I posted with my real name, Michael Appleton.
Using the name Harry Ballz is just a lot more fun! Thanks for asking!
#148 You mean, like embracing some “Greed is good” philosophy again. Although TNG appeared a bit smug at times, it was still about humans trying to develop positive qualities and virtues – courage, generosity, honesty, vigilance, friendship, work for the greater, etc. And no, they didn’t always succeed and appeared unfeeling and arrogant (but then they are also very human conditions).
The prime directive notion has sometimes meant that starship captains, Kirk and Picard and others, have had to deal with moral dilemmas (this is nothing new nor will it be), but that does not mean the entire notion/ideal should be abandoned. The fact that it has caused these captains certain difficulties as to how to deal with a situation, whilst still trying to honour the prime directive ideal, only goes to prove their genuine humanity. Hardly robots.
Actually these virtues were encouraged in TOS and the subsequent TOS movies. In TOS, there wasn’t any money, as we know it now either. TNG just continued from where TOS and the films left off.
I refer you to Star Trek IV where Kirk realises that in the 20th century we still used money and that they needed it. He sold his antique glasses and had no idea what $100 was worth…
I think the Prime Directive went through an evolution from Enterprise to TNG. There was none on Enterprise but Archer came to realize that he couldn’t just interfere based on his own perceived morality. He started the ball rolling by realizing he had a responsibility to be careful about when to interfere. By the original series, it seems the Prime Directive was rather new and the idea was just taking shape. By the time of TNG the rules were set. However as I mentioned, there were times other characters would make the complaints that others have made there. They did examine the Prime Directive and its consequences a number of times in later shows.
I’m so gay for the next star trek movie
Hello there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group? Theres a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Thanks