Orci and Kurtzman Talk Fan Pressure & 3D for Star Trek Sequel | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Orci and Kurtzman Talk Fan Pressure & 3D for Star Trek Sequel July 29, 2011

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Any cursory glance through the comments here at TrekMovie.com will show that there has been a lot of talk about the Star Trek sequel, with expectations raised now that the film has been delayed. In a new interview co-writer/producers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman talked about how they are feeling that fan pressure. While they are thinking about the fans, they apparently aren’t thinking much about 3-D. More below.

 

Orci and Kurtzman talk fan pressure and 3D for Star Trek sequel

In a new interview at Collider promoting Cowboys & Aliens (opening today), Star Trek sequel co-writer/producers also talked about how their second Trek is progressing. Here are some key excerpts.

Orci and Kurtzman on the fan pressures for the Star Trek sequel:

Orci: Every project is different. However the fan pressure on Trek is something unlike any other project I think.

Kurtzman: That is why we didn’t want to rush it.

Orci: Yeah. We want to take in all of the information culturally because it is a cultural icon that does require a couple of different hats that other movies don’t require.

Kurtzman: When we were first approached about doing the first one we said “No.” and it took us a year to say “Yes.” for all of the same reasons. We just did not want to mess it up. I think we feel the same responsibility on 2. Now even more so actually because expectations were low on 1. No one really knew what it was going to be. Now everybody is waiting for it to match what they felt wabout the first one. So there is that added pressure.

Orci and Kurtzman on Star Trek sequel in 3D:

Kurtzman: I don’t think we are thinking about 3D at this point. At least I am not. I am just thinking about the story.

Orci: Yeah. We are not. I’m sure it will be budgeted both ways probably and we will be able to make an assessment there, but we actually haven’t discussed that with our band mates. I actually don’t know what they think about it.

Kurtzman: If there is a great reason to do it then it’s certainly a conversation. But we are not thinking around 3D right now.

Much more from Orci & Kurtzman on Cowboys & Aliens, Enders Game, the Star Trek game and more at Collider.

Comments

1. Spock's Uncle - July 29, 2011

Good, 3-D is a bad idea… Gimmicky…. Trek is not about gimmicks. FIRST

2. Long Island Trekster - July 29, 2011

3D has its place in cinema. It is ideal for action sequences like those in Transformers.

It is not needed in Star Trek! Why put chrome on a classic car like a Porche? Write a great story with compelling dialogue. The special effects should be an after thought to convey the dialogue and action only when needed.

3. Pierre - July 29, 2011

“But we are not thinking around 3D right now.”

Excellent!

4. Captain Bryan - July 29, 2011

No 3D please! All the Star Trek movies are and will be timeless. Do not “date” them with lame 3D gimmicks.

5. Allen Williams - July 29, 2011

3D sucks don’t do it

6. HunterRex - July 29, 2011

I’d love to see Star Trek in 3D, but I’m fine either way. Anyway, what is most important is an awesome script from Bob and Alex.

7. MDSHiPMN - July 29, 2011

No 3D please.

8. Joshua J. Slone - July 29, 2011

If they’re still working on the script, it’s not like 3D would make any difference. They don’t write scripts around surround sound, either.

9. Balok - July 29, 2011

@ 1 yeah, 3D is gimmicky. Almost as gimmicky as boasting that you’re FIRST.

10. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

3D FX and a movie like Indiana Jones mixed with Hunt for red october in space with some matrix and T2

11. bjdcharlie - July 29, 2011

Please, no 3D. The writers understand this; it’s only a gimmick.

12. captain spock - July 29, 2011

please dont rush trek guys if it take a a year to do so be it , trek 3d thanks but no thanks ok

13. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

Cmon ppl 3D option wont hurt as long as the non 3D version can stand on its own. Thats like people turning down the option to add bacon to a burger!

14. HunterRex - July 29, 2011

@13 – I agree. And bacon sounds good right now.

15. Steve - July 29, 2011

I must be in the minority here, because I think 3D is awesome. The more, the better!

16. dammit_jim - July 29, 2011

I <3 3D!!!

17. Tanner Waterbury - July 29, 2011

No 3d, BUT D-Box would be cool to have with the movie…

18. Tanner Waterbury - July 29, 2011

Actually…. yes, D-box would be AWESOME with the next Star Trek movie, especially with the battle sequences between starships.

19. 1984 - July 29, 2011

They’ll need all the gimmicks available to draw an audience by the time it is finally in theaters.

20. HunterRex - July 29, 2011

And they used to say that movies in color were a gimmick. :)

21. Bernie Lugo - July 29, 2011

PLS KEEP J.J.ABRAHAM’S STAR TREK II 3D FREE. 3D STRAINS YOUR EYESIGHT AND IT IS A PAIN IN THE B…. FOR GLASS WEARING FANS…….. HOWEVER, PLS DO NOT EXTEND RELEASE DATE ANY LONGER THAN IT ALREADY IS. KEEP UP FINEST WORK……..

22. Jeff O'Connor - July 29, 2011

Three cheers to the nuTrek team. Keep on being awesome.

23. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

#21

How bout no capslock?

24. Tom - July 29, 2011

4 years in between movies. Totally enough time to figure out a way to get Shatner in the movie

25. The Middleman - July 29, 2011

After reading all these comments, it seems that Kurtzman is right about Star Trek fans and Fan Pressure.

26. EM - July 29, 2011

I love 3D and I hope that they go with it. It’s as much of a gimmick as color and sound! If they don’t, I’ll still be happy to see the awesome 2D version.

27. BringBackKirkPrime - July 29, 2011

Either way is fine, but there’s nothing wrong with 3D, no need to bash the idea.

28. weyoun_9 - July 29, 2011

If I had a voice, I’d say no 3D. The past two films I saw with it I found the glasses irritating and the pay off not enough to warrant what I imagine must be the extra expense. I’d much rather they use the money to re-do engineering. :)

29. Brett Campbell - July 29, 2011

How many times has Hollywood tried this 3D gimmick? First in the ’50s, then in the ’70s, and now a third time. It will be a dormant fad for a third time, by the time this film is released.

30. Bob Tompkins - July 29, 2011

Movie review:
I saw ‘Cowboys and Aliens’ today. I thought it was a marvelously stupendous, fantastic, jaw-dropping waste of $7.50.

Without giving anything away, it had exactly 3 humorous moments. Not funny, just mildly amusing.

Moments that looked good in the trailers are totally missing from the movie.

I wanted to like it; I really did. There aren’t many movies I go to see on their first day, preferring to wait for some word-of-mouth. I wish I had waited….

31. Mark Anton - July 29, 2011

No 3D, please. A beautiful digital projection system with state of the art sound is all I need.

32. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

#30

Dam was so hoping it would be good, maybe I will wait and see, it looked promising with the teaser trailer but does look less and less good more trailers I see, it cant be worst than captain america or green latern?

33. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

Why is it the movies of the late 70s and 80s are so much better ie aliens, indian jones, starwars, et, n terminator

34. Mikeypikey - July 29, 2011

Isn’t there always the option for 2D when 3D is playing also, I’d love to see the enterprise in 3D and I’d also check the 2D version, oh well, missed opportunity

35. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 29, 2011

How about a Star Trek fan getting dumped on?

The poster here is commenting on my previous post(s). This can be found on the IMDb Star Trek 2009 message board. I am Keachick there as well.

“B. The end result is indeed the same. Roberto Orci has no more idea than you do abut the workings of a military command structure. Again, feel free to ask a serving member of the armed forces if he or she intends to run for Colonel. To say that Kirk and JFK were alike ethically is one thing, but according to you and Bob Orci, JFK was promoted to President (and also gave comparison between he and George W. Bush, btw…)

C. You still don’t get it… elected positions versus promoted positions are NOT THE SAME THING!!!

D. The fact of the matter is Kirk completely defied protocol and tampered with the parameters of a (what’s effectively) government owned equipment. Any way you want to romanticize it, it’s still cheating.

E. “Genius level repeat offender” still has that nasty little phrase “repeat offender” in it. Court systems don’t generally label people repeat offenders unless they have been convicted. For Pike to have called him that, there must have been some basis. Oh, maybe he was just like Bush and swept all the stuff under some Starfleet rug.
Besides, even “geniuses” can be convicted.

F (i)This is silly ass stuff on your behalf, fbi press.
Quite right – I thought I was entering a solid debate on filmmaking – not a Bob Orci love-in.

(ii)Give the writers (and a 23rd century Starfleet) some credit for not having a person who may be mentally unstable and with clear criminal tendencies become a Starfleet cadet.
You know, you’re right! I completely forgot about that episode of 90210 where Luke Perry was recruited into The US Naval Academy despite his bad boy ways! During his time there he sharpwittedly damaged a combat simulator, but instead of paying for the damages or was in any way disciplined, Shannon Doherty snuck him onto a battleship full of cadets and midshipmen as a North Korean sub approached the shoreline of southern California. Luke directly defied orders and swam aboard and along with Jason Priestly overpowered the entire crew, and for his heroic actions was given command of an aircraft carrier – ooops – was elected Captain of an aircraft carrier.” from fbi press.

Note the comment made (to me?) in F. News to me…something you haven’t told me, Bob?…:)

There have also been comments challenging mine and other posters’ intellectual abilities etc. This is nothing new btw. I was really taken aback when I first read these types of comments (some a lot ruder) when I first came to the Internet almost two years ago, but I guess I’ve grown a thick skin, sort of… I have grown tired and bored.

36. njdss4 - July 29, 2011

Please don’t do 3D. It’s a poorly implemented gimmick that gives me a headache from having to wear two sets of glasses.

37. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 29, 2011

“I wanted to like it; I really did”

Ah, the most common lie on the internet.

38. Mikeypikey - July 29, 2011

Please make 3D version available, the people that whine and moan about their delicate little flowers for eyes can go see the 2D version?!?!?

39. Tom - July 29, 2011

3d is pretty lame. Gimmicky, don’t do it! The movies that are made in 3d, the 2d versions suck. We shouldn’t have to watch it in 3d to get the best picture. 2d all the way.

40. Geha - July 29, 2011

Umm … 3D isnt out yet. What is out is fake 3D … Don’t fall for the fake 3d scam

41. Mikeypikey - July 29, 2011

I’m sure it would be converted to 3D and not shot in 3D, panaflex is needed to create them lens flares!!

42. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 29, 2011

Just a note re my post #35 and the comments quoted – None of the present Star Trek writers or producers had/have anything to do with the making of 90210. Just for the record.

43. Mel - July 29, 2011

@ 38

“Please make 3D version available, the people that whine and moan about their delicate little flowers for eyes can go see the 2D version?!?!?”

My local cinema usually shows 3D movies ONLY in 3D. So most of the times there is only the choice between watching a movie in 3D or not at all in the cinema.

44. Mikeypikey - July 29, 2011

Your local cinema doesn’t sound very good at all :-(

45. Magic_Al - July 29, 2011

3D would make it look like a cartoon. Would they show the stars that rush by a warp ship in 3D? Stars are so far away stereo vision should make no difference.

Although if we talk realism, stars are so far away you shouldn’t be able to see them “move” at all, even at the highest warp speed. Any speed high enough to make stars whip by, one per second or so, would get you across the entire galaxy in just several hours. If you use the 24th-century warp scale it would take 100 minutes to get from Sol to Alpha Centauri at warp 9.9.

46. SoonerDave - July 29, 2011

No freaking 3D crappery. Just fix Engineering.

47. Jeyl - July 29, 2011

There is one advantage to shooting Star Trek in 3D. It will mean that JJ can’t bang on the camera from behind anymore since shaky camera footage would make the 3D unbearable.

48. C Mosenko - July 29, 2011

Special FX should be unnoticed. Original star wars was way better then the later 3. Sometimes special FX can replace good storytelling. If 3d can help tell the story why not? If it’s going to be a distraction leave it out. Imagine seeing a klingon bird of prey in 3d attacking the enterprise. That would be fun.

49. Brett Campbell - July 29, 2011

30- Sorry you wasted $7.50, but thanks for the laugh and good for you for keeping a sense of humor about it.

Seriously, from its trailer and its title alone, you weren’t really expecting it to be a good movie, were you?

50. Brett Campbell - July 29, 2011

40 – Good point. See you some day at the Hologramodeon.

51. Brett Campbell - July 29, 2011

Could lens flares in quasi-3D burn out human retinas?

52. Michael Hall - July 29, 2011

@ #35 Keachick–

“There have also been comments challenging mine and other posters’ intellectual abilities etc.”

Much as I dislike Trek 2009 I regret the rudeness expressed towards you in those postings; you seem like a nice person, and in any case it’s totally uncalled for.

(That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the writer’s 90210 analogy, which for my money amply and amusingly demonstrates the utter lack of credibility concerning Kirk’s magical promotion. It made my day, so thanks for sharing. :-) Gene Roddenberry made any number of mistakes as Star Trek‘s creator and producer, but he and the show’s Writer’s Guide always stressed believability, first and foremost. That’s only one reason I’m convinced that Roddenberry would have detested the film every bit as much as I did.)

53. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

#52

I had no issues with Kirk’s promotion as he and his crew saved earth and other planets.

Are you referring to GR and the encounter at farpoint and Q? Or are you referring to FTL travel and meeting other alien civs and time travel gates etc?
This is more believable than Kirk being promoted? Righhhhtttttt…..

54. Richard C. - July 29, 2011

3D would be cool, but it’s not something I would miss if they did without.

55. Vultan - July 29, 2011

Just got back from seeing “Cowboys and Aliens.”
It had cowboys.
It had aliens.
But not much else.

A fun concept such as this should have been more… well, fun! But it wasn’t. The flick just kind of sat there on the screen, occasionally throwing a gunshot or a laser blast at the audience to keep them awake.

Sorry folks, but there’s just nothing much to write ole mammy and pappy back home about with this one. Flat characters. Flat dialogue. Just action figures with Stetsons being chased by angry lobster things from another world. Pass the popcorn. Better yet, pass on this movie.

56. Cervantes - July 29, 2011

Like it or not, 3D is the future.

Sure, it’s a ‘cinematic effect’ (as opposed to a ‘gimmick’) that’s been tried in the past without long-lasting take-up, but the fact is that this time
the technology has improved for this latest revival, and is improving apace this time around. Just a pity that the concurrent 2D-3D ‘conversion’ technology has given the studios the chance to rush/hash some releases, instead of using ‘properly’-filmed 3D for everything. Still, even that kind of ‘psuedo’-3D option is going to be improved as time goes on.

The fact is that more and more TALENTED directors are getting onboard with the latest 3D cameras nowadays, and out of the usual mis-firing dross that gets released (which there always is with 2D too), it will only take one or two sizeable 3D hits every now and then to keep the momentum up that was fully kickstarted by ‘AVATAR’ this time around.

If even formerly 3D-resistant guys like Michael (‘Transformers’) Bay can get fully onboard with the process, then others will too. And we will soon be getting some first forays into the format from other big name directors soon. Such as Spielberg and Jackson. And James Cameron will be back with the first ‘AVATAR’ sequel too, of course. And even the great Ridley Scott has recently proclaimed that he will ONLY direct in 3D from now on, such has been his good experience with what he’s doing with ‘PROMETHEUS’. I wouldn’t bet against a couple of these guys (amongst others) being able to give us a really big 3D hit every now and then in the coming years.

So yes, not all 3D movies are going to be great, and not all 3D is going to be filmed perfectly using dedicated 3D cameras, but this current revival of a ‘dimensionalised’ effect has a very high chance of staying the course this time around. Personally, I loath the fact that it currently costs more to see something in 3D as opposed to 2D, and the fact that most plain, ‘standard-issue’ cinema glasses aren’t like the much better ‘wraparound’ designs available online. Seek them out to get rid of the ‘peripheral edges’ that are distracting with the
basic one-size-fits-all ‘standard-issue’ ones, is my advice to those that love the 3D effect. Kids sizes are available online too from certain manufacturers, nowadays.

Finally, there will still be plenty of 2D-only movies released in the future, such as the potentially huge upcoming
hit ‘THE DARK KNIGHT RISES’…but I personally think that’s a missed opportunity by Christopher Nolan, just as I wish the initial ‘Trek’ reboot had been released in 3D too. I hope J.J. will not miss the opportunity again with the eventual sequel. Seeing the ‘Enterprise’ in 3D would be terrific (even if it’s the fugly ‘alternate’ one!), along with the rest of the nu-crew’s antics. This sequel would be a perfect fit for a 3D release this time around J.J., just please film it using ‘proper’ 3D cameras rather than risk it being ‘converted’ in post-production by the studio anyway.

57. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

#56

100% agree

58. Buzz Cagney - July 29, 2011

By the time they get this movie out they’ll have to allow for Holodeck Technology never mind 3D! ;-P

59. Buzz Cagney - July 29, 2011

#55 Not so good then, Vults!
I shall give it a swerve then, bud. Thanks for the tip.

60. MagicDan - July 29, 2011

Ok, all the 3D talk.

I hate it, don’t want it. Gimmie a real movie.

If you have to have it for Star Trek, you better blow our freakin minds with it, or stay away from it altogether.

Avatar worked better for me in HD on my big screen than in 3D.

61. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

#55

I hope star trek and prometheous turns out better :'(

I may go check it out on the long canadian weekend

62. red dead ryan - July 29, 2011

Yep, 3D is here to stay folks!

I recently saw “Captain America” in 3D. Was really fun. But “Avatar” in 3D was better. But, its not really 3D. More like higher definition. But still good, though.

Hope that the holodeck gets invented in my lifetime. The only chance I’d have to punch out Jar Jar Binks!

63. Hugh Hoyland - July 29, 2011

3-D would not be a bad thing at all Imo. How could it hurt?

64. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 29, 2011

I think it is strange that they are not talking about how they would do the story, if the movie was to be done in 3D. Perhaps JJ Abrams has flatly refused to do the sequel in 3D, just as Christopher Nolan is not doing the much awaited The Dark Knight Rises in 3D either.

Not all new(ish) technology turns out to be good or worthwhile in the longterm. Sometimes being a little conservative is good way to go, especially when there are so many tried and true film making technology and techniques that do produce fine cinema.

Curiously, my nine year old daughter looked up the Internet earlier today to see when the cinema was screening Cars 2. She vehemently said, “No, not the 3D ones. Yuk” and *moused* her way down to the times of the 2D screenings. I must add that we, as parents, are happy to take her to see either versions.

Maybe JJ and co are also aware of the resistance to 3D.

65. Vultan - July 29, 2011

Sorry kids, 3D is a gimmick. The day it’s considered cinematic art a pop-up book will win the Nobel Prize for literature.

Perhaps it’s time Hollywood should reinvest in the most astounding special effects of them all—good writing, acting, and directing. But WARNING: Hard work is involved.

66. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 29, 2011

“Orci: Yeah. We want to take in all of the information culturally because it is a cultural icon that does require a couple of different hats that other movies don’t require.”

I find this comment intriguing. I am a little tired, so further explanation/discussion could be helpful.

Thanks, Bob Orci.

67. Vultan - July 29, 2011

#59

You’re welcome, Buzz. I really wanted to like “Cowboys and Aliens” (no, I really did!), but the whole thing just seemed flat. I admire film makers when they try to blend genres, but this particular milkshake left a sour taste.

68. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

Enterprise in full 3D is worth it, all space shots in 3D with the character drama in 2D. As long as there is the option to buy a 2D ticket and a real shot 3D ticket, I dont see the problem.

69. trekgirl20 - July 29, 2011

I think 3D could look really cool, especially in those space battle scenes. But that’s not really a big issue right now. I’m glad they haven’t really given it much thought yet. The more pressing matter is doing a good job, while not delaying it even more than it already has been.

70. Anonymous Coward - July 29, 2011

3-D and JJ’s signature lens flares. You’re going to have audiences puking in the aisles.

71. braxus - July 29, 2011

Skip 3D and shoot some scenes in IMAX (like important impact scenes and some special effect heavy scenes).

72. Anonymous Trekkie - July 29, 2011

Star Trek does not need to be in 3D. I hate 3D movies because I wear glasses and trying to wear the 3D glasses over your regular glasses suck and they are uncomfy!

Also I think it would be cool if they did a movie with “Q” in it. :D

73. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 29, 2011

65- Hate to break it to you but all film is considered art, no matter what technology or as you put it gimmicks are implimented.
And like all art its subjective, just cause i love it doesnt mean you will or even have to like it all. And just cause you hate it doesnt mean I cant love it either.

3D has been around for almost 8 decades now, Harold Lloyd was a big proponet of 3D back in his day, infact latter in his life he made his own 3D conversions of his films, some of which were screened this past year at the international 3D society awards.

look at the “lanterns” sequence in Tangled, that was one of the most beautifully animated 3D sequences seen last year.
the 2D version while also incredible doesnt come anywhere near establishing the same since of wonder and awe that the 3D version does.

like all art, the final results are based on the artist who put in the time and effort and energy to make it what is. Sometimes they are succesfull sometimes not so much.

74. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 29, 2011

72 I to wear glasses and have no problem with wearing Real D glasses over my regular glasses in terms of comfort.

out of curiosity are you guys that are complaining about 3D seeing your movies in Real D or are you seeing them on one of the lesser brands such as Dolby Digital 3D (which uses a cheaper technology and regular matte theatre screen) or Xpand which has the big bulky 2 ibs glasses that has frequent ghosting issues or even some other brand such as technicolors 3D 2 Film

that might be alot of the problem right there, if your theatre has skimped out and equiped their auditoriums with one of the other brands to save costs instillation.

75. chrisfawkes.com - July 29, 2011

I saw Captain America again last night and 3d was the only option. Total gimmick of course and having seen it in 2d the night before i felt even more so. I predict 3D will be dead within 18months to 2 years.

Great film btw, better than expected and i expected it to be great.

As for Star trek JJ has basically said he won’t direct if the script sucks so his decision on the matter will say everything we need to know. No pressure.

76. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 29, 2011

Kurtzman: That is why we didn’t want to rush it”

You have had over 2 1/2 years to work on this, if you had spent time working on it from the begining there wouldnt be any talk of rushing.
it doesnt take 21/2 years to write a great script.

if you guys didnt think you could tackle it in the time given then you should have passed on it so paramount could have brought in a team that could tackle it and create an awesome film on schedule.

You know what happens to people in the real world who try to use a lame excuse like ” why we didn’t want to rush it” when they cant finish their assignment on time, they get FIRED!!

77. chrisfawkes.com - July 29, 2011

@74, i saw Avatar in 3D, it sucked too. No one needs 3D to enhance the experience. In fact those glassed diminish the experience, they could not even make up for the stop less light with the superior technology.

78. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 29, 2011

Keachick
JJ doesnt have a fraction of the respect that Nolan has in hollywood.
So when Nolan says “I think we should have more time to prep this final film” wb is happy to respond “Take the time you need, you gave us our highest grossing movie ever, and the 3rd highest grossing movie ever made and consistantly bring us bags and bags of money, you need 4 years go right on ahead, cause we know what were getting”

79. D D - July 29, 2011

No 3D = Good

80. Vultan - July 30, 2011

#73

Well, I hate to break it to you: as long as studios use 3D to loudly advertise juvenile nonsense such as Transformers and Smurfs, it’s not going to gain any sort of artistic merit. Simple as that.

Hey, maybe one day the technology will finally come into its own as a bonafide art form (such as James Cameron seems to be attempting in his own megomaniacal way). Maybe the tech will eventually be affordable enough for some independent film makers to do something interesting with it. But in the here and now, when you lay down the extra coin for that shiny ticket and those neat-o-rama shades, you’re only throwing your support to those “creative” folks in the marketing department.

81. somethoughts - July 30, 2011

Future movie theatres will not only have 3D but the chairs will move relative to the action on screen so if the enterprise is being hit with torpedoes from a klingon birf of prey the audience would feel it, it wont stop there but you can smell the rain forrest or smell the enterprise, but wait it doesnt stop there the fog will also extend from the screen to the audience through special smoke machines, the audience will also be given interative swords and guns to take part in key fighting sequences, for I have seen the future!

82. Star Trekker - July 30, 2011

Enterprise cancelled.
TNG movies cancelled.
Stargate cancelled.
Babylon 5 spin offs cancelled (perhaps a little hope).
Farscape cancelled.
Firefly cancelled.
Star Wars live tv show delayed.

But we can wait for a 3D movie for five years. Any hope for a new Star Trek tv series? These new writers interested in a new tv show???

83. Harry Ballz - July 30, 2011

81.

Well, based on that, bring on the sex scenes!!

84. Bob Tompkins - July 30, 2011

30-
Personally, I liked Green Lantern except for the chessy tack-on at the end… I haven’t seen Cap yet…

85. Brett Campbell - July 30, 2011

If “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is done in 3D, they can make it look like the chimps are flinging feces right at you!

86. Bob Tompkins - July 30, 2011

No 3D.
3D = migraine for me…

87. 12YearOldTrekker - July 30, 2011

I don’t mind 3D, but Star Trek is better suited without.

88. somethoughts - July 30, 2011

#83

Only if you promise to shave Harry lol

89. somethoughts - July 30, 2011

#85

LOL why do I prefer Harry’s vision?

90. Adam - July 30, 2011

I think 3D is a good idea. IF. It is filmed in true 3D, like avatar. If it’s grafted on at the end badly like all the subsequent movies then no.

91. Corinthian7 - July 30, 2011

I recently purchased a 3d tv so I’d love to see The trek universe depicted in this format but at the end of the day it’s not the be all and end all – it’s the characters and the story that will make or break this film. I’d much rather see more McCoy on screen than photon torpedoes flying out the screen! As someone that has a 3d tv most people will assume i’d watch anything in 3d but the reality is completely different. With the exception of Avatar and Tron Legacy, pretty much every movie I’ve watched in 3d looks awful (kind of like watching a pop up book on screen rather than a real world), so much so in fact that I now actively avoid the 3d releases and watch the 2d versions instead. So my point, which I clearly could have been more succinct about is that if your going to release the film in 3d then film it in 3d. If the movie is filmed in 2d then release it in that format, I don’t want to see trek sullied with the crappy 3d conversions we are seeing on every other film these days.

92. webitube - July 30, 2011

3D: No.
Imax: Yes, please!

93. Jan - July 30, 2011

We need a poll about 3D!

94. trekman_dave - July 30, 2011

NO 3D!

95. NTH - July 30, 2011

hopefully no 3D!!

96. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 30, 2011

#78 Except that it appears that the studio is giving Bad Robot/JJ Abrams extra time to get the movie done. I was just commenting on the fact that two directors doing science fiction/fantasy blockbuster type movies seem to not want to make their movies in a 3D format, whereas many other directors are going the 3D way.

Of course, this is just conjecture, based on previous quotes by JJ Abrams on doing a 3D movie. Until Paramount/JJ Abrams make an announcement about who will direct the sequel, its new release date and other pertinent news, then nothing is certain.

97. Schultz - July 30, 2011

Exactly. No 3D!! It’s an artistically worthless gimmick, and a completely unnatural viewing experience, including Avatar and other high-tech 3D films. Sure, people always fall for crap, especially crap they don’t need. As long as the studios make more money by increased 3D admissions, we’ll always be talking about the possibility of a 3D Trek film.

98. Mark Lynch - July 30, 2011

I’d love to see a 3D Trek, as long as it is filmed in 3D and not converted in post.
I also understand that some people don’t like or have problems with 3D, so as long as a 2D version is available for them, and it would be, everybody is a winner.

I just don’t understand the mentality of those around here screaming “No 3D,no 3D!” As you all know darn well that there is always a 2D alternative. Let those of us that enjoy 3D, well, enjoy it.

And if the side benefit of having a 3D Trek is the absence of lens flares, then I insist upon 3D!

@93
I vote for a 3D poll ;-)

99. Mark Lynch - July 30, 2011

Actually, I would like to have the film shot in IMAX 3D….

100. Mark Lynch - July 30, 2011

Or perhaps 48 FPS IMAX 3D……. (wishes there was an edit post button)

101. Devon - July 30, 2011

#76 = “You have had over 2 1/2 years to work on this,”

Yeah, you teach him!

“if you had spent time working on it from the begining there wouldnt be any talk of rushing.”

There’s no talk of rushing it now (and from the beginning of what??)

“it doesnt take 21/2 years to write a great script.”

They haven’t been writing the script for 2 1/2 years, you just admitted that.

“if you guys didnt think you could tackle it in the time given then you should have passed on it”

The better alternative was that it was pushed back.

“so paramount could have brought in a team that could tackle it and create an awesome film on schedule.”

No.

“You know what happens to people in the real world who try to use a lame excuse like ” why we didn’t want to rush it” when they cant finish their assignment on time, they get FIRED!!”

But you don’t work in the “real world” remember? You work on the Paramount Lot and your boss has created dozens of films, so you shouldn’t be complaining since you should be aware that this stuff happens.

102. Devon - July 30, 2011

To 96 – “#78 Except that it appears that the studio is giving Bad Robot/JJ Abrams extra time to get the movie done.”

Exactly. Paramount is going to bow down to a man who has done pretty good business for them and a team that has been pretty loyal in return. After all, Paramount just released a J.J. Abrams film in the form of Super 8! If they were truly going to panic, they would have given J.J. some ultimatums with this film, etc. That doesn’t seem to have happened, so Paramount seem content and know that this team is going to deliver the best product for them.

And of course, again, since the team is doing what people have been wanting them to do, there is absolutely no reason anyone should be complaining, there’s nothing to complain about.

103. Cygnus-X1 - July 30, 2011

102. Devon – July 30, 2011

Well then maybe you should stop complaining about everyone complaining, if you believe that there’s absolutely no reason for anyone to complain. And you’d better not complain about what I’m saying here, because that’ll make it even worse.

104. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

80
ALL film is art, (even the smurfs are smurfhorrible as it is) and as i said all Art is subjective.

101 whatever dude. he asked if anyone complaining had worked on a film before so i responded cause i have and i work now for someone who has produced alot of films. If you dont want someone to answer your question dont ask it. if i didnt know better id say you were purposely trying to get me all riled up to say something that would get me banned on the forums.

105. Cygnus-X1 - July 30, 2011

I don’t even think I complained in this thread, but I reserve the right to!

106. Basement Blogger - July 30, 2011

I liked Cowboys and Aliens, It had heart and was thrilling. Nice themes of redemption and cooperation. I think the critics got it wrong like they did on Tron: Legacy. I believe Cowboys and Aliens would have been enhanced by 3D. And I’m not a big 3D fan. There are scenes right off the bat that would have been neat in 3D. The aliens have secondary appendages. When they come out of their chests and threaten the boy, thaty would look good in 3D. It’s what I call a 3D money shot. The alien mother ship would pop out in 3D.

107. Cygnus-X1 - July 30, 2011

I’ll never write, direct or produce a movie that makes $200 million domestic, but goddammit I’m a good complainer! And no one will take that from me!

108. Anthony Thompson - July 30, 2011

Bob DOES know what one of his band mates thinks of 3D. The band mate who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme court: JJ. He has gone on record saying he doesn’t want 3D!

109. Philip Dunlop - July 30, 2011

I just want to add my weight to the “no 3D” argument. As a glasses-wearer and someone with mostly monocular vision, it doesn’t really work for me.

110. Hav - July 30, 2011

Anyone that says that a format that is used by the likes of Herzog, Scorsese and Spielberg is “artistically worthless” and only akin to a pop-up book doesn’t know what they’re talking about. This 3D hate is ridiculous.

And since Abrams seems skeptical about the process, I say let him shoot it in 2D, unless he changes his mind….though I agree with those saying he should shoot certain scenes in IMAX. He’s said IMAX is his favorite immersive way to watch a movie or something.

111. Pierre - July 30, 2011

@108

That’s a conversation stopper and there is no appeal after the Supreme court decision.
2D wins.
Celebration time.

112. rtrj - July 30, 2011

Please, no 3d!

113. Holger - July 30, 2011

For example, Green Lantern is an excellent film, but the 3D contributes nothing to it, really. I guess it’s just an excuse to double the ticket price. I was quite enthusiastic about 3D in the beginning, but it turned out 3D is just an expensive expendable gimmick.

No pressure from me about the ST09 sequel! I’m out.

114. nano - July 30, 2011

For having to wait so long for the movie give me 3D – 3DAM hours of epic Trek. Please don’t sugar coat it either, if there our Klingon’s, they should be brutal and bloody! I think it’s dishonest to sanitize violence and war, sends the wrong message. Remove the brutality from Saving Private Ryan and the message is lost.

115. Towaway - July 30, 2011

FINALLY!! Writers/producers who give story thought over gimmick! Movie goers are getting smarter as well; attendance to 3D movies is decreasing. Please…NO 3D. Don’t make the same mistake Lucas is about to.

116. Kevin - July 30, 2011

Tron 3D was irritating. Transformers 3D was tolerable, and the only viewing option.

PLEASE NO 3D in Trek. It is such a horrible viewing experience. Let the picture give depth, please please don’t stack a bunch of shiny, glittery, 2D planes up in front of me at simulated distances and expect me to go see it. I’ll way for the disk to come out and watch it properly in 2D anyway.

Kev

117. jamesingeneva - July 30, 2011

3d movies are a waste of consumer money except when meant to be 3d, i.e. stuff flying off the screen at ya and everyone goes “ooooh…. aaaaahhhh…”. Please don’t film trek in 3d. And please cut down on the lense flares, they’re a real eye sore. They’re good in some places but way to heavy in most of ST1 scenes.

Thanks!

118. Mark Lynch - July 30, 2011

@115
How would a view of the Enterprise (granted TMP would be better) flying in 3D not be a magnificent sight?

It seems to me that a lot of people are having some sort of negative knee jerk reaction to the possibility of Star Trek in 3D. Me? I say “Bring it on!” as I have said before, as long as there is a choice of 2D and 3D, we are all winners.

119. Kirk, James T. - July 30, 2011

“You have had over 2 1/2 years to work on this, if you had spent time working on it from the begining there wouldnt be any talk of rushing.
it doesnt take 21/2 years to write a great script.”

You’re right, it doesn’t take 2 ½ years and it hasn’t… Why would they want to be stuck writing Star Trek for over 2 years? Just because YOU can’t wait for the sequel doesn’t mean that they had to be tied up writing Trek every day since they got the job in the first place. I’m disappointed it’s been delayed but I’m pleased that FINALLY it’s the creative people running the show rather than the studio, had this been old Trek, Paramount would have dictated the rules, because of the weight Abrams has in Hollywood, he was able to hold them back until he was ready and besides, having the “Supreme Court” take a breather from doing Star Trek can only be good news, doing Trek and only Trek without a break damaged Star Trek in the first place. The Okuda’s, Braga, Berman – could have all done with a lengthy break between Trek’s.

“if you guys didn’t think you could tackle it in the time given then you should have passed on it so paramount could have brought in a team that could tackle it and create an awesome film on schedule.”

And who would you have had take on Star Trek after the fantastic film Abrams had just made? There’s no one out there good enough to do it at the moment, true story. Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, Abrams and Burke can definitely tackle it. They WANTED to take a breather from it though to go off and do other things so that they weren’t bogged down doing Trek for several years and so that they could go off, and come back READY.

“You know what happens to people in the real world who try to use a lame excuse like ” why we didn’t want to rush it” when they cant finish their assignment on time, they get FIRED!!”

That’s ridiculous. These guys have been working their arse’s off on other projects. Just because it wasn’t Star Trek you somehow think these guys should be fired? No no, Super 8, Mission Impossible 4 and Cowboy’s & Aliens are all Paramount Pictures movies. It was always going to be that the writing staff would start writing Trek in the winter of 2010/2011, they did but they felt (quite rightly so) that if they were going to do it right they’d want to wait for Abrams and the team that put the first one together. If you can’t see that by them waiting shows that they actually care about the end result then fine but I bet you’d bitch about anything and have bitched about Berman before it. Sometimes there’s just no pleasing the “fans”

“JJ doesnt have a fraction of the respect that Nolan has in hollywood.
So when Nolan says “I think we should have more time to prep this final film” wb is happy to respond “Take the time you need, you gave us our highest grossing movie ever, and the 3rd highest grossing movie ever made and consistantly bring us bags and bags of money, you need 4 years go right on ahead, cause we know what were getting”

And so where is your evidence that JJ Abrams doesn’t have the fraction of respect Christopher Nolan has in Hollywood? All I’m seeing is that Abrams has as much respect in Hollywood in much the same way as Nolan since it seems to me that Paramount have turned to Abrams and said “sure we know you’re the guy for us, take 4 years to do Star Trek because we know you can make a fantastic picture we can make a load of money off”

Whereas with Rick Berman, Paramount ran the show with an iron fist, it’s clear as day that Abrams and his team has more weight in when to begin the sequel. Its confusing that in the same conversation you firstly accuse these guys for taking their sweet time getting something together and then go on to say that Abrams has no respect in Hollywood? Don’t you see how they contradict each other? No? OK…

If Abrams had no weight in Hollywood Paramount would have replaced him and we’d have probably gotten a Star Trek film this year… Paramount would have also not given him the freedom to do Super 8 or MI4 in between nor given Orci and Kurtzman Cowboys & Aliens… These guys have a lot of respect in Hollywood and are in high demand from not just Paramount but many of the other large studio’s. How you can suggest that these guys don’t have the “respect” in Hollywood is beyond me. Just goes to show that so called “fans” like you know nothing and will never know anything.

As for 3D… I would say shoot it in 3D, use the James Cameron cameras and shoot it the way Abrams shot the last film – lens flare would look awesome in 3D as would the Enterprise traveling at warp. But I hope its left up to Abrams to decide and not done in post by the studio.

It’s not really that bigger deal – when it comes to release, it’ll be shown in 2D anyway so why not give the audience the choice at the end. 3D seems to be popular if done the way Cameron did it in Avatar…

120. SoonerDave - July 30, 2011

@56 – Guess what – 3D is NOT the future. In fact, some recent conspicuous failures have demonstrated that the market is not willing to just accept any piece of garbage with 3D on the label.

Take a look at this blurb from Deadline: http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/will-harry-potter-and-transformers-stop-wall-streets-anti-3d-stampede/#more-138945

People are recognizing 3D for the ridiculous, 50’s throwback gimmick it is and are voting with their wallets. 3D brings about as much creative authenticity to a production as Michael Bolton.

Trek needs 3D like a fish needs a bicycle – 3D is no substitute for creative bankruptcy.

121. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 30, 2011

If the powers at be want Trek in 3D. Then Shoot it in 3D. Otherwise. DON”T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Trek can stand on it’s own with out 3D whiles others like Transformers and Green lantern and others need it. Trek does not!!!!!.

122. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 30, 2011

17. Tanner Waterbury – July 29, 2011
No 3d, BUT D-Box would be cool to have with the movie…

Agreed. Love Movies that have the D Box. Trek would be so kool.
For those out there that don;t know. D Box Seats will Move up and down or sway or jolt with what ever is going on in the movie. Example. If the Enterprise is hit with a Torpedo then the D Box at the exact same time with jolt and move and make you feel like you are on the Enterprise when the Torpedo Hit. Now to me. That is like being in the movie.

123. Mr. "There are always possibilities" - July 30, 2011

As to 3-D, while I agree with most of the comments here…

Wouldn’t it be COOL to see the Enterprise in 3-D!! I mean, c’mon, it’s the ENTERPRISE!! Seeing it in 3-D would be the closest we’d ever come to seeing it if it was real. I’d love to see it in IMAX 3-D and really get to see the ship. How about 3-D shots of a battle scene. I just can’t control my inner geek at the thought of it!!

However, it would be a gimick, and ST has never been about that.

As to the reverance shown by Orci and Kurtzman: I am still floored by the writing in ST:09. It was apparent to me and every Trek fan I spoke with how they obviously labored very hard to respect Trek canon while dealing with the fact that this is a new cast and a new era. I can’t tell you how much me and my friends enjoyed talking about all of homage to ST:TOS that was included in the movie (I’ll never forget Pine biting into the apple in the Kobiashi Maru scene).

I am sure they will attempt the same for ST:12. I look forward to the new movie.

124. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 30, 2011

I like 3D. But only when it is done right. That means. If going to be 3D then shoot it in 3D. If they shoot in 3D then try to convert it then.
By Grabthar’s hammer, by the suns of Warvan, you shall be avenged!”.

125. thegermanmatthias - July 30, 2011

3D is okay. Why not?

126. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

Leave 3-D until planning the third film. Those extra years will show whether it has become more common place in cinema, or died on its arse.

I don’t think it will be the main thing that either sinks or floats the new movie franchise.

Plus 3-D is about objects zipping by at space, doing barrelrolls and shit flying out at you. The Enterprise is more graceful than that. It would have to opposing fighter-like starships running circles around it, meteor storms and comet debri slaming into the ship and then an electric lightshow frenzy of shields going up.

127. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

Correction: zipping by a speed.

It’s a shame they changed the way Enterprise travels at warp – jettisoning the traditional STREAKING STARS look for that (since TMP).

Now that sort of movement would lend itself well to 3-D.

128. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

Correction again: at speed

The new warp effect, starts off well with the front of the ship seen stretching on the viewscreen BUT the actual shots of the ship are too much like hyperspace from Star Wars. Actually less impressive than that slitscan photographic effect, being just a dirty black and blue looking rush of whatever.

To quote 2001, it should’ve been more “My God It’s Full of Stars”.

129. SoonerDave - July 30, 2011

I don’t know if boborci still lurks here, but I can’t help wondering if the “fan pressure” has really been, well, that “pressuring?”

Here’s what I mean: It isn’t like anyone in the fan community can hold any literal leverage on the creative process associated with Trek. The only one that can leverage any pressure is Paramount, and it was clear they offered only moderate pressure to release – and when JJ resisted, Paramount backed down, and that’s why we’re looking at two more years with no Trek. So I guess I’m at a bit of a loss to understand how “fan pressure” really amounts to anything in practical terms. Heck, I can post here until doomsday pleading for you guys to “fix engineering” and “don’t do 3D,” but it doesn’t mean anything in terms of affecting the writing or production process…

130. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

82. It’s the current state of television. Remake Battlestar Galactica wouldn’t have happened without the old Sci Fi channel. For all the critical acclaim, it pulled the exact same level of audience Enterprise was doing at the time. Actually when Sci-Fi began re-running ENT in 2006, it was pulling in more viewers than first run BSG! The only advantage being the Executives above RDM’s head were a lot more supportive – hence the extra TVMs (pulling revenue from DVD/Blu ray) and spin-offs. No matter how short lived, along comes another one.

The reason why original Star Trek grew legs back in the 60’s, was syndication and Networks giving the show a decent rerun slot in the evening. I’d like CBS or whoever to be doing that with ENTERPRISE. Change the opening title sequence, re-edit it in a different style but get that Star Trek back on the air.

131. Betty - July 30, 2011

Since I have given up any hope to get a solid Trek film (unless they exchange the whole crew behind the camera – the actors did a fairly good job on 09, despite the horrible screenplay and story filled with plotholes as astronomic as the blackhole, which can destroy ships AND allow timetravel, as long as the script calls for it), I also think that 3D is a waste.
Take a look at INCEPTION for example, that movie worked because it had a decent plot and character development.

Btw. this site seems very one-sided pro-09 and opposing comments seem to be bashed, eventhough they are plausible. I thought discussion was one of the key elements when it comes to Trek fans, boy was I wrong.

132. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 30, 2011

Betty. How Dare you Disagree with me on Trek 09 being Great!!!!!!. Agoniser Booth for you.
Ok. Just teasing.
As Scotty said. Everyone is Entitled to there opnion.

133. Dion1701 - July 30, 2011

No 3D!!
Please put the money into sets – like, I don’t know say ummm maybe -engineering!!!!!!!!! PLEASE make Ryan Church’s concept drawings reality!

134. Betty - July 30, 2011

I envy people who were able to enjoy it, honestly… it just lacked soul IMHO. I did not care about the characters and when I left the cinema it did not make me think.

I watched all of Mr. Abrams films to get an idea how he thinks and how he works and quite surprisingly, none of his films really touched me.

If only Mr. Nolan or let’s say Mr. Aronofsky could take over from here.

I do not want to bash Mr. Abrams, but his films are special effects heavy mass produced film, like Mr. Bay’s films are. Since I fell in love with Trek during the TNG/DS9/VOY run, I always prefered character arcs over action plots.

135. dmduncan - July 30, 2011

3D is fine for certain movies. It’s fun. I think some people are offended by the Hollywood studio MBA bozo notion, which they should be offended by, that suddenly everything is better in 3D when is just BS.

No Country For Old Men in 3D. Yeah.

3D is not going to take over and change the movies except maybe for Hollywood movies, and I’m not even sure about that. But Hollywood doesn’t make all the movies. Not even in America does it make all of them, and there are too many talented filmmakers who know that it doesn’t bring squat to their independent films who are not going to lose sleep over not having that extra D.

Francis Coppola is experimenting with a project that uses 3D sparingly, where you contrast the viewing experience and have to participate in the film by putting on and taking off your glasses at certain times of the movie. That makes a certain senses because while I can see the value of having certain scenes in 3D, the effect requires contrast with 2D to work, and when everything is in 3D for the entire movie then the novelty starts to wear off after not too long because not every shot makes a big impression in 3D so you just sort of forget about the effect anyway after a while when it’s not being used strongly.

Okay, so then you do a film like Avatar that uses it strongly to depict an alien world, right? Seriously? You want every film to be like Avatar? No smaller independent films that have things to say where 3D is of little importance and makes no contribution to the experience of the story?

Not me. Tetro was in black in white, with certain scenes reflecting the characters memories in color. Point being that their LIVES were in black and white because their painful MEMORIES were in color.

The shift to color movies from black and white did not make black and white obsolete. Far less used, but it’s still a powerful tool for the artist to use. The same is true of color, and it will be even less obsolete and more used than black and white film was after the advent of color.

Like it or not, 2D is here to stay. Just like black and white.

136. dmduncan - July 30, 2011

“The same is true of color” = “the same is true of 2D”

137. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 30, 2011

Under pressure…

I’m a fan annoying sometimes… LOL… I know it …+LOL

:-) :-)

138. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

135. Nah. More like “Ice, Ice, Baby”.

139. trekprincess - July 30, 2011

Betty are you new here :/ well if you are respect other people’s views and what they like or dislike I loved the last Star Trek film I thought in my opinion the film worked at least for me

140. Trek Nerd Central - July 30, 2011

Fan pressure? What fan pressure? It’s just kitchen ceiling, and I have mine on low. . .

Sorry.

141. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 30, 2011

137.

That’s a man, baby!

142. Kirk, James T. - July 30, 2011

Hey Betty, I’m just curious, where do you think Abrams and his team went wrong compared to Berman and his team? I’m not gonna say that your wrong because ofcourse everyone is entitled to their opinions but I can’t see exactly where your coming from since through Berman’s time on Star Trek there were some truly dire episodes and movies, Generations, Nemesis, Insurrection and pretty much countless episodes, all having plot holes, dire screen plays, production values… You can’t say that it was all better than Abrams Trek? Surely it’s just a different kind of Star Trek?

I mean personally speaking, Abrams I felt got the balance right between action and the character driven plots – sure the red matter was a bit silly and a super nova that threatened to destroy the galaxy? But no film is gonna be perfect, The Dark Knight had it’s faults too so I guess this is to all those who hate/dislike Abrams Star Trek, I can’t really see why compared to what we’ve been given before (eg Nemesis and Insurrection) you’d have a problem with Abrams Star Trek.

143. braxus - July 30, 2011

Glad to see there is more support for IMAX here. If Nolan can shoot some scenes for Batman in IMAX 2D, then why not Star Trek. Wouldn’t the Enterprise look cool on that big screen? Or space shots, etc? Why not even some action scenes. I remember seeing the movie “Special Effects” in 1997 in IMAX and the Star Destroyer scene in space was really cool on that big screen.

144. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 30, 2011

As a Hard core fan who has read well over 100 Novals and owns all of the Treks on either Bluray or Dvd. I have said that Trek 09 was a great Movie. Different yes. With some in my opnion very silly science. Red mater and of course Budgeneering. But all in all the action and story was well done and very moving at times. Yes. I loved TNG and DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise. Like trek 09 you can’t compare Voyager to Tos Trek or Tng to DS9. As Scotty said in the TNG Relicks. Every Girl has her Charms. You just have to know where to look. Take Trek 09 for what it is and don’t compare it to the others. If you do then you may not like it and that would be Unfair.

145. Valenti - July 30, 2011

As someone who is blind to 3D effects, I am glad that they’re not considering it.

…yet?

146. Kirk, James T. - July 30, 2011

Why not shoot it in 3D for IMAX – that would blow my mind

147. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 30, 2011

Ok. I want Star Trek to be done in 4D!!!!!!

148. Capt. of the U.S.S. Anduril - July 30, 2011

No 3D please.

149. trekker 5 - July 30, 2011

C’mon boys,no 3D,I’m begging!!! And,yeah,with us comes pressure,it’s how we’ve always been;it’s how we will remain! :)

150. Charla - July 30, 2011

RE: Bob and Alex’s exchange about fan pressure: I can imagine the pressure for the next Star Trek movie to be as incredible as the first movie would be immense, and maybe the projects that were done before the next Trek came out took a back seat to this pressure, inadvertantly. I’m not saying that happened in this case, just it could have.

I mean anytime I have anything BIG to complete, that is hanging over my head daily, it tends to bother me to an extent. Sometimes it bothers me so much that I just go ahead and do the task that seems overwhelming to get it over with. Other times I may procrastinate somewhat to buy time to figure out the best way to tackle the project.

I never looked at it from the point of view, that Bob and Alex talked about. I was also one of those viewers they spoke about, not expecting much from the first movie. Then poof I am here, hooked again, and truthfully believing that the second movie will match the first movie in how good it was. I can see how that pressure from such a huge fan base from a series that has lasted so long could be overwhelming.

I would also like to say to those who have seen Super 8 and Cowboys and Aliens, (and other movies that involve the any of the crew) that it is great to support the writers by going to the theaters to see their other endeavors. I would hope that anyone not seeing it based on reviews or comments here would go and form their own opinion about the movie/movies.

Bottom line is I am still going to see Cowboys and Aliens in theater despite the mixed reviews for 2 reasons. 1) I want to give my support to these guys who have and still take time to come here and post, or give interviews to keep us updated. Gotta stick together, ya know?? 2) Is purely my love for special effects on the big screen….lol.

151. chrisfawkes.com - July 30, 2011

Look, i have the communicator app on my iphone and i thought trek 09 was far closer to the spirit of the original show than any of the other shows or movies since generations.

I’m also currently bidding on a phaser on ebay and look likely to win so it is with some authority when i say these guys have a stronger sense of Star trek than anyone who has had control in years. I trust them to make a great film.

I also own a set of Spock ears (just in case the ebay thing goes awry).

152. Michael Hall - July 30, 2011

@53 somethoughts–

“Are you referring to GR and the encounter at farpoint and Q? Or are you referring to FTL travel and meeting other alien civs and time travel gates etc? This is more believable than Kirk being promoted? Righhhhtttttt…..”

Well, yes. In the context of the ST universe, all of those things you cite are much more believable than Kirk’s promotion.

153. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

Actually after Wesley Crusher basically saved the Enterprise crew, and who knows perhaps the whole of Starfleet and the Federation in TNG “The Game”…

…maybe he should’ve gone straight from cadet to Admiral. :))

154. Kirk, James T. - July 30, 2011

@150, well said! And here’s something else… We’d never have caught Rick Berman or Banon Braga talking to fans on trekmovie.com. They never had the same kind of rapour with the fanbase that Roberto Orci has had… We’ve also had each of the members of the “supreme court” here at one time or another during the filming of “Star Trek”.I mean thats just fantastic if you think about it and kinda just emphasises the fact that these guys aren’t just doing Star Trek for the money but their each doing it because they want to be doing it and that their passionate about making the best possible film.

That alone speaks hugely to me a fan who’s won several bids on ebay for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan merchandise ust recently!

155. Mel - July 30, 2011

It costs 3 € more to watch a movie in 3D. I think it isn’t worth the extra money.

156. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

I think the writers essentially looked at Star Trek IV The Voyage Home and applied a “Kirk saves Earth so he must be rewarded” resolution. But it was a DEmotion to an experienced officier in that film.

It’s simply too hard to swallow that a cadet with just 4 years training in Starfleet (let alone service), can handle all the responsibilities a Captain like Pike had. In that kind of service, a leader has to know most of the jobs on the ship. Not all of them clearly, but a little science to get by and basic engineering but certainly expert in command and proven management skills.

In this universe, I can’t see Bones pulling Kirk to one side and telling him “It’s a pity he wasted his life on command. You could’ve been a fair psychologist.”

157. red dead ryan - July 30, 2011

#153.

Brannon Braga has posted a couple of times on this site. And he has shown up at several conventions.

158. Michael Hall - July 30, 2011

@ 150 chrisfawkes–

“Look, i have the communicator app on my iphone and i thought trek 09 was far closer to the spirit of the original show than any of the other shows or movies since generations.

I’m also currently bidding on a phaser on ebay and look likely to win so it is with some authority when i say these guys have a stronger sense of Star trek than anyone who has had control in years. I trust them to make a great film.

I also own a set of Spock ears (just in case the ebay thing goes awry).”

*L* So does my Masters Replicas’ Enterprise model validate my opinion on Trek ’09 over that of the (presumably more sane) forum members who wouldn’t dream of spending that kind of money on a toy? Really?

There really is no objective measure for these things, but bringing in the argument from authority based on dollars spent on fan merchandise certainly doesn’t help.

159. Charla - July 30, 2011

#153 Exactly!

We went on trips to various vacation spots over the last 2 yrs and came back with little souveniers, but also Star Trek cardboard cutouts. Looked really funny in the SUV- 3 kids and these sillohettes- wonder if anyone could make out who they were? We had them looking out the back at an angle. heehee I put them in my teenagers rooms of course. I am a grown woman and can’t have that in my room~ LOL

I do have my other items in my room though haha they fit nicely on a shelf and my enterprise hangs above my desk. Just the perfect touch of geekiness – oops, I mean Trekness to my office space. ;)

Look out #150Chris, I may just go on Ebay and outbid you. J/K of course!! Goodluck on the phaser let us know when you win!

160. Tony Todd's Tears - July 30, 2011

3D gives me a headache. Don’t do it. It’s too distracting from the story anyway.

161. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

153. Not really. I guessing you never read the endless personal attacks made by fans, directed at Rick Berman & Brannon Braga. Those supportive few likely didn’t bother, because they’d be picked on. Trekmovie is like a parallel universe compared to all that. It’s still early days and Bob Orci has an idea from sites like IMDb and Aintitcruel… what fans are like.

162. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

160. Under those conditions, it wasn’t surprising why they never contributed to fan forums. Plus I’m sure Trekmovie is actively moderated to delete posts which are more about the poster, than the subject.

A similar situation with Doctor Who forums, where the current showrunner Steven Moffat was active online during his predecessor’s time. These days he’s removed himself completely (aside from lurking I’d imagine) and rarely answers fans questions.

163. chrisfawkes.com - July 30, 2011

@ 157, You would not be so sure of that if you knew how bad i got ripped off on the Spock ears.

164. chrisfawkes.com - July 30, 2011

@ 158, are you sure that wasn’t you?

165. Charla - July 30, 2011

#157 Good point Michael- but I didn’t take that from Chris’s post- I think he was just joking.

I like a lot of the toys and collectables too but am limited of course on what I can purchase as well. But I have other hobbies that I also spend a little on as well. But I agree with you that the amount of toys or collectables you can afford doesn’t make you an expert, in any area really.

With that said, my knowledge of Star Trek is limited as well to that of TOS, the movies and some TNG. Some of the people on here amaze me as to how much they know about Trek and it’s history. Always something new to learn here for sure. ie. #153 RDR I didn’t know Bragga had posted here… cool!

166. chrisfawkes.com - July 30, 2011

The posting numbers changed, Myself and Charla were refering to post 158 which was 157 half hour ago, weird.

Yes i was just messing around in my earlier post. Though i do have the spock ears and the iphone app.

167. dmduncan - July 30, 2011

Cowboys and Aliens was a fun, action packed summer movie with better than average character development for a fun, action packed summer movie. I especially liked the relationship between Dollarhyde (Ford) and Nat Colorado (Adam Beach)

Everyone was good in it. Harrison Ford, Sam Rockwell, Daniel Craig, Adam Beach, Olivia Wilde. It was much better than Captain America and, along with Thor and Harry Potter, one of the three best Hollywood movies that I’ve seen this summer.

168. Bucky - July 30, 2011

Saw Cowboys and Aliens yesterday, anybody else think that Oliva Wilde’s character was a Deltan?

169. Starcruiser - July 30, 2011

One thing I hope they change in the ST sequel is the exterior design of the Enterprise. It is UGG-LEEEE! I’d be happy to consult on that one! Plus darken the bridge a bit, and design a decent engineering deck! The current one smells like a brewery!

I won’t be surprised to see the sequel in 3D and 2D. That way you can take your pick.

170. MC1701B - July 30, 2011

56. I saw Captain America in 3-D on Sunday. The conversion was well-enough done that I actually ducked for one shield throw. That said, Citizen Kane is in 2-D, The Godfather is in 2-D, The Hidden Fortress is in 2-D, and until 3-D produces an artistic masterpiece in their ranks (which might be Hugo Cabret, but isn’t Avatar, and won’t be Tintin), and until some kind of industry standard for projection is established and followed, 3-D will remain an overpriced gimmick. The gross shares this summer are proving it.

Oh, and by the way–my writing partner and I have completed four screenplays since December, one of which took eight drafts. Boborci, what is your excuse? If you’re concerned with fan reaction, you may want to start with our reaction about being expected to wait four years between films. The Godfather Part II only took two years, with Coppola starting The Directors’ Company and making The Conversation in between.

171. Bob Tompkins - July 30, 2011

#119
Bravo.
Way to spout the Company Line.
Berman did Trek for 15 years nonstop- only toward the end did he run out of gas; Enterprise recovered nicely artistically when he brought new blood in with Manny Coto. His vision was never far off the mark- Nemesis was bad because of director Stuart Baird’s unfamiliarity with Trek- another gamble that unfortunately did not bear fruit. Berman realized too late that he had to find new blood and fresh input for the Franchise. That was his lone and fatal mistake.
Credit Berman for the good he did; I have mellowed in my thinking about him over the years; considering that we have had one Star Trek in the last 9 years and that looks to go at least 1 more year of drought, I’d welcome Rick Berman back. At least he could keep a schedule and produce mostly good Trek – on a miniscule budget. That was Paramount’s mistake.
If Abrams is too busy, find someone else to do it and let him do his other obviously more important work. He is not the be-all and end -all of Star Trek.

172. Devon - July 30, 2011

“If Abrams is too busy, find someone else to do it and let him do his other obviously more important work.”

He’s not. Have you not read any of the recent articles here?

173. Bob Tompkins - July 30, 2011

135.
Coppola’s idea is solid; a similar concept was used on the Wizard of Oz way back when. My mother would tell me how the audience in the theater gasped in unison when the movie went from black and white to color. It was a surprise to almost everyone and shocked the senses, word-of-mouth not being what it is today….The audience literally buzzed for minutes afterward!

Unless and until 3D becomes as natural a process as simply looking and seeing, no glasses involved, it will never establish itself artistically.

174. Mary Czerwinski - July 30, 2011

Trek is about good writing, not action gimmicks, so 3D is unnecessary. However, having said that, there’s usually a 2D option anyway. Glad they aren’t rushing the writing.

175. sean - July 30, 2011

#171

Berman went sour long before Nemesis. Voyager went off the rails early on, Insurrection was basically an okay (but often embarrassing) TV episode, and Enterprise was TNG2, only with even blander characters.

And let’s be honest here, he wasn’t given a ‘minuscule’ budget. First Contact had a budget of $50 million. Insurrection had nearly $60 million (as did Nemesis). At the time, those were perfectly reasonable budgets for movies that weren’t likely to make even 3x that. TNG’s budget was around $1.5 million per episode, which was incredibly high for the time.

Frankly, I think Berman is given too much credit for the good stuff produced under his leadership. According to most people behind-the-scenes, if he’d had his way TOS would never have been referenced, we’d have had no DS9, and character development would have been forbidden. Fortunately, we had people like Michael Piller, Ron D Moore, Ira Steven Behr, and Jeri Taylor pushing back against his blandness mandates.

176. TheCaptain - July 30, 2011

I don’t prefer 3-D over 2-D persé. In fact the movies I saw in 3-D gave me a headache during the first 10-15 minutes, after this its gone.

So for me no 3-D !

177. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

171. Safe to say that Rick Berman won’t be involved in any future productions. Even he himself admitted as much in a Star Trek.com interview. I don’t celebrate that fact… as clearly there would’ve been more chance of seeing a reunion of either of the later series casts (in something small screen, even animation) and I’d have loved that to happen. Particularly an Enterprise one, with Scott Bakula etc given a better send off.

TBH I don’t understand why it has to be under an all ABRAMSVERSE or NOTHING situation.

178. Rico - July 30, 2011

A good movie is a good movie. And 3D won’t make a bad movie good. We don’t need 3D for a “Star Trek” movie.

179. Christopher Roberts - July 30, 2011

It’s silly in a way. Like saying an animated Transformers TV series, could dent Michael Bay’s big screen efforts. Both succeed or fail on their own merits.

You get big flashy, action-packed escapism for two hours at the cinema. On TV, there’s a limit to how epic level of that “blow something up, blow something else up” is and it depends more on character drama that’s been building over several weeks.

180. Ricky - July 30, 2011

there’s people that love 3D.
deal with it.
go see your movies in 2D.
we’ll go see it in 3D.
I can SEE star trek in 3D. makes sense especially if there’s holodecks

181. MC1 Doug - July 30, 2011

Think of it, light flares in 3D.

Um, I’d rather not!

182. Kevin Hou - July 30, 2011

Are the villains still gonna be AICN talkbackers?

183. John - July 30, 2011

You all have to see this!
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=133&t=996675

184. Basement Blogger - July 30, 2011

Why Star Trek (2013) Should Be Released In 3D.

1. What’s wrong with 3D. The picture is too dark. That’s from the projection of two separate images. Add to that you’re wearing dark glasses. Link.

3D conversions from 2D usually stink. It’s even darker than being filmed in 3D. The picture doesn’t “pop” and since it was filmed in 2D, it doesn’t look in like it’s in 3D. Bad conversions hurt movies. I resented the good movie “Thor” because its conversion was too dark. The dimly lit battle with the Frost Giants was just mud.

2. What are the advantages of 3D. First, you lose the hand-held camera and all those camera gymnastics. In 2d, they give me motion sickness and in 3D people will throw up. So don’t ecpect to see The Bourne Supremacy in 3D. These camera gymnastics are annoying anyway.

Some films are enhanced by 3D. After Avatar, I would recommend these three movies be seen in 3D. 1) “Despicable Me.” (2010) The filmmakers lovingly embraced 3D to great comic effect and it shows. 2) “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.” (2011) A dumb movie made entertaining with Director Michael, Bay shooting many scenes in 3D. The 3D effects were spectacular. Check out the battle in space between the robots. 3) “How To Train You Dragon” (2010) The effects pop. There’s texture and depth. But the common link among the three? They were filmed in 3D, not converted.

And the biggest advantage of 3D? MONEY. Should I say it again. MONEY. And more MONEY. It’s been reported that this year’s Transformers movie had a whopping sixty per cent of its grosses from 3D when it opened.. Link.

3. Star Trek (2013) should be filmed in 3D, not converted.

The Supreme Court should think about 3D. Let’s face it. A lot of us Trekkers are going to pay the extra bucks to see Star Trek in 3D. And the suits at Paramount know this. The more money Star Trek makes, the more Star Trek for everybody. Dare I dream of Star Trek returning to TV one day?

Star Trek (2013) could be the greatest 3D space opera movie ever made. That’s if it’s SHOT IN 3D, NO CONVERSIONS. And if you want an example of how it might look, check out the opening scene in Transformers. Look at the end credits of Thor with the 3D nebulas. Now imagine a fleet of Klingon ships facing off with Romulans in space and in 3D. Think about the Enterprise in 3D. Lens flares in 3D. That might get J.J. Abrams excited. And remember the Court wants to go deeper. So Star Trek could be the most sophisticated science fiction movie filmed in 3D.

Star Trek (2013) should boldly go where no Trek film has gone before, i.e. become the biggest grossing movie of the franchise.

1) 3D cinema is too dark
http://www.film.com/movies/why-is-3-d-cinema-so-dark#fbid=c0pcbSegN5s

2) Sixty per cent of Transformers opening was 3D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon#Box_office

185. Hugh Hoyland - July 30, 2011

Got a chance to see C&A, hey its what I expected, a good FUN movie. And the excellent cast didnt hurt either! Big time recommend it.

186. Star Trek Sequel Fan Already - July 30, 2011

No 3-D. Not fantastic or worth it yet. Gives me and a lot of other people headaches. The last thing I want to be thinking about when I watch the sequel for the first time is how much my head hurts.

Keep focus on the characters and the story and it’ll be a great sequel.

One note: my expectations are high for the sequel but I don’t want the sequel or even a third movie in this series to be a “how can we top the previous one” because sometimes that translates into a death sentence for a great series. It’s not about “how can we make the explosions bigger and the special effects more special” (cough*TRANSORMERS*cough) but about the characters and how they emotionally develop throughout a great plot.

But I trust these guys and how they work. I’m sure they won’t disappoint.

187. Thorny - July 30, 2011

185… Same here. I liked Cowboys & Aliens a lot.

188. dmduncan - July 30, 2011

170: “Oh, and by the way–my writing partner and I have completed four screenplays since December, one of which took eight drafts.”

Yeah but how good are they?

189. Damian - July 30, 2011

I have to agree that 2-D conversions to 3-D are a bad idea. I can take 3-D or leave it. The only thing I ask is if it is done in 3-D, do it from the get-go. Do not do a conversion, that will ruin it.

190. Khan was Framed! - July 30, 2011

3D can make some movies look great, but I don’t think it’s advanced enough yet to see Star Trek translated into.

Maybe in a few years, Star Trek 3D project would be cool.

191. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 30, 2011

I think the coin jar is looking just a bit more full now, given that two out of three people here who have seen C&A have liked the movie. 11 more days to go before it gets released here. I hope the number of coins reaches the minimum target of $16.50 (one adult ticket). Fingers crossed.

I liked Super 8 – not fantastic but still good, enjoyable with a sweet understated ending.

To say that the writing/producing Bad Robot are immune to fan pressure and comment, some of which has been very unpleasant as well as stupid, is ridiculous. They can read and there is only so much armour anyone can keep wearing…

192. Bob Tompkins - July 30, 2011

37 There are much bigger lies on the Internet..

1. Make money fast….
2. I don’t go to sites with undressed people [ this site blocks words with more direct referents]
3. Double the speed of your computer
4. Our blue pills work just as well and are cheaper.
Etc, etc, etc..

I don’t go to movies I don’t think I will like on the first day of release…

193. Bob Tompkins - July 30, 2011

191- Cowboys and Aliens will appeal to some- the reviews are split, not that I give much credence to reviews. I prefer to know what real people are saying. The crowd that left the theater afterward with me was pretty quiet, which I thought was unusual. Not much chatter and I heard no one talking about what they had just seen.

194. Hugh Hoyland - July 30, 2011

191.

I think you’ll enjoy it for sure.

Its very weird but on a few other sites (wont mention names) many if not all of the posters are pro screenwriters and producers and even academy award winning directors who tend to pounce on an easy target (Bob).

I appreciate that Bob comes on this site and interacts with other fans. Its cool and Im glad he does. Shows hes a fan just like us. And obviously the guys a very good writer. He should be very proud of his work including C&A IMO.

195. red dead ryan - July 30, 2011

Let me guess, the same people who are angry about J.J Abrams shaking up the Trek franchise and doing a number of things differently are the same ones, who ten years ago, were clamoring for new ideas?

E.g, the same folks who say “Gee, ya know, I hate those blasters that J.J Abrams brought to the new “Star Trek” movie! They remind me too much of “Star Wars”!”

Ten years ago that same guy: “Man, these phaser beams are so slow and boring! I’d pay top dollar to see Trek do something more akin to the blasters from “Star Wars”!”

Ten years ago, same fans thought: “These new episodes and movies are tedious and slow! I want a new director and producer brought in so we can have some of that fast-paced, visceral, visual action that “Star Wars” did so well!”

Now those same fans: “I can’t stand J.J Abrams! Why did he feel the need to turn “Star Trek” into “Star Wars”? I WANT HIM FIRED NOW!”

Ten years ago, these same folks were wanting a fresh start, free of canon, or at least have a new timeline created. Now that we have that, some of those people want to go back to the old timeline!

This is why the writers shouldn’t pander to the fans. All they need to do is write a story that works, with great characters, and good action. Fans tend to flip-flop on what they want to see, and others want something totally different that works only in their own minds. Overall, the majority of fans don’t know squat about how to write a good, proper script and so make poor consultants. If writers are asking fans for input, then they aren’t very good writers. Good writers can trust their own imagination, instinct, and experiences. That is why, as much as I enjoy Bob Orci coming to this site to chat with us, I hope he just goes away for awhile and hammers out the script without us badgering him all the time.

196. Bob Tompkins - July 30, 2011

195-
I don’t object to the pacing of Abrams’ Trek movie. I object to the sloooooooooooooow pace at which he makes them. Should not have been a surprise considering the first did not come in on schedule…

197. Punkspocker - July 30, 2011

Just saw cowboys and aliens. I think they missed an opportunity for a great summer movie. But it wasn’t a waste, go see it. I am so biased because I’ve loved harrison ford since I was 11. Overall, 7. Just get to work on ST! Feel the pressure?!!!

198. Anyhoodle - July 30, 2011

No 3D please and thank you just focus on the spirit of TOS not the fancy looks

199. Mark - July 30, 2011

3D movie ever win an Oscar?

200. Adolescent Nightmare - July 30, 2011

Loved C&A!

201. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - July 30, 2011

I guess it’s just normal procedure to make action movies 3D now. As long as they have a 2D version as well, I have no complaints.

202. rogerachong - July 30, 2011

#199 Avatar of course! Only one Oscar for Star Trek series so far. You guessed it; for Makeup Star Trek 2009.

203. Bob Tompkins - July 30, 2011

171
The real thing Voyager missed on was what Battlestar Galactica did so well and I think the producers of BSG saw the problem. Running across sometimes hostile space takes a toll on the craft and the people. [Voyager touched on the idea in 'Year of Hell']. Voyager should have limped into the Alpha Quadrant at the end with spit, bubble gum, duct tape and band-aids holding her together, not in better-than-new pristine condition. Otherwise, I enjoyed Voyager and looked forward to it every week.
DS9 was the best Trek ever because Behr was pretty much left to do what he wanted within reason. After Roddenberry passed, Berman felt a freer rein and it showed in TNG’s development.
It was incredible to me the way they stayed within Roddenberry’s vision and even did a better job than TOS did in respecting canon- and that’s a lot of canon I am speaking of.
With the passage of time I have mellowed on Berman, no doubt. Braga too, he helped rejuvenate another favorite of mine, 24. Berman did well as the heart of Trek. He just occasionally needed a transfusion of new blood.

204. gingerly - July 30, 2011

No to 3D , yes to super-sharp digital IMAX, gorgeousness, if warranted.

205. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

142 i love how you contridict yourself, I am not entitled to my opinons, based on the fact you try to spin every statement i made out of context but then you turn around and tell someone else everyone is entitled their opinon.
whatever dude that comment says everything i need to know about you

206. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

Anyone else laughing their butts off that cowboys and aliens is getting its rear end handed to them by the smurfs.

207. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

Again i ask what type of 3D equipment did the theatres you went to see the movies in have installed.
most of you with issues with 3D being to dark and whatnot are most likely seeing it in theatres equiped with Dolby digital 3D, Xpand or one of the other inferior cheap 3D formats out their.
next time hunt down a theatre equiped with Real D and a christie Cp 2230 DLP projector equiped with a 10K Lumens bulb that has been properly calibrated for each individual movie screened on it and youll see a big difference.

208. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

199 actually yeah several 3D movies have one Oscars, now if your meaning best picture(you should have mentioned it if you were)
then no but Avatar would have won if not for Hurt Locker.

209. Devon - July 30, 2011

“Anyone else laughing their butts off that cowboys and aliens is getting its rear end handed to them by the smurfs.”

No.

210. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

There was talk of a 3D star trek going back to the IMAX 3D only days back in the late 90s early 00s
what would have been cool had it ever came to pass was that it would have actually been shot in 70 mm, true it would have only been around 45 mins but it would have been a star trek movie in freaking IMAX 3D that would have actually filled the entire imax screen unlike the imax experience movies we see now which are nothing more than showing the movie on a portion of the imax screen(save for the few scenes of Dark Knight and Transformers II shot in Imax)

also dont forget Star Trek Borg invasion was also trek in 3D true it was a ride but it was 3D none the less and it was freaking impressive.

211. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

209 sure there are, guess you dont want to take me up on my offer of getting a tour of the office i work at on the backlot.

212. Rob - July 30, 2011

I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT ERA IT WILL BE IN , THATS IT! CAN SOMEONE TELL ME PLEASE? DOES ANYONE KNOW YET?

213. thegermanmatthias - July 30, 2011

do not change the script for “3D”, but do it in 3D. In my opinion 3D is nice. Use the 3D-Concept, but never serve it. No scene has to be changed for a better effect. Nevertheless… just imagine how the “monster” on delta vega would have been in 3D! And this was NO special 3D-movie! You know, what I mean?

214. Cervantes - July 30, 2011

@120 – I reckon that the relevant quote in the article you linked to was the one at the very bottom of it, where someone predicts 3D is most likely to work on picture to picture basis, where sometimes it will work and other times it won’t (where box-office results are concerned).

This is true of any movie of course, whether 2D or 3D. There will always be winners and losers, irrelevant of what format it’s released in, and certainly, not every release with a 3D tag on it will be a success. Of course not. A dud movie won’t be a dud due to the fact it happened to have a 3D option. It will be a dud because it’s a dud.

I agreed in my previous post that certain carelessly rushed/hashed 2D – 3D ‘conversions’ were definately a problem with this current 3D push…as was the higher premium pricing. Both these issues were bound to cause a ‘backlash’ against the format at some point, especially if certain movies concerned turned out to be mediocre disappointments as well.

However, it’s still relatively early days for this latest 3D revival, and as I also said, today’s technology is continuing to rapidly evolve for the better. Bottom-line is, as long as there’s a few big hits every now and then on the 3D box-office front, then the format will NOT be killed off any time soon, and the technology side will continue to have time to improve evermore as time goes on.

Just as an example, 3 of this summers biggest blockbusters have still ended up performing very well on the 3D option front recently – HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2 has averaged 60% of it’s take from it’s 3D option – PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES has averaged 66% of it’s take from it’s 3D option – and TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON has averaged 70% of it’s take from it’s 3D option…

With plenty of future potential big-hitters like THE HOBBIT (3D) being readied for release eventually, the 3D industry is not about to collapse anytime soon.

There will always be duds and disappointments, but it will be bad ‘conversions’ and higher price level that will be this revival’s own worst enemy, as opposed to something being ‘properly’-filmed in a 3D option to begin with.

So while there are those unlucky enough to have sight problems (and trouble with 2 sets of glasses) and headaches who will be unlikely to want to go see the TREK 2009 sequel in it’s 3D option, there will be plenty of us who are unaffected by these issues that would welcome it.

215. Jerry Payne - July 31, 2011

3D sucks. I can’t watch it no more.

216. MJ - July 31, 2011

More misdirection from the Supreme Court to take our minds away from the delays. First it was teh Khan thing last week, now 3D this week. I am not fooled.

217. somethoughts - July 31, 2011

3D Khan, star trek in summer 2014 lol with additional coca cola factories and ford plants for starfleet hq, lots of keesner and shatner rofl if that doesnt get you mad, nothing will

218. Aurore - July 31, 2011

“Overall, the majority of fans don’t know squat about how to write a good, proper script and so make poor consultants.”

You talkin’ to me?
(Then , who the h*ll else are you talking to?)

Well, you may be right. In fact , I know you are .
But, I’ll have you know that my “writing partner” ( an old high school friend of mine ) and I , always got excellent grades for our writing assignments !

And , (from my perspective,at least) it wasn’t even THAT long ago !
Therefore, this has to count for something !

:)

219. Canon Schmanon - July 31, 2011

I’m not expecting it to match the first one. I’m expecting it to surpass the first one. Like Dark Knight did to Batman Returns. The next film HAS to be better or the series will lose momentum. This is make or break.

220. Tanner Waterbury - July 31, 2011

Come on guys…. 3D is DEAD!!! Make way for the D-BOX!!! I WANT ST IN IMAX AND DBOX!!!! I’d rather have a motion seat over “3-D” any day…. except when the 3d is TRULY 3-D by hologram.

221. Mark Lynch - July 31, 2011

This next instalment has to knock the ball out of the park. It’s been such a long time between films, the momentum and interest created by the first one has now waned.

222. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 31, 2011

218 you are correct but let me say this, if they said hey you know what we wrote a drafgt or two but it doesnt live up tp trek XI so we are going back to the drawing board i would be A ok with that.
these ________ havent even gotten that far.

223. Mark Lynch - July 31, 2011

A thought has just occurred, I need to get myself frozen for around the next 18 months or so. Then upon waking, I can just enjoy all the hype and marketing before the film comes out a few month later…

224. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 31, 2011

220 you made me vvery happy glad to know there are ppl out there that love our work on DBOX motion code seating makes the 300 plus hours it takes to program well worth it when we know customers love it.

225. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 31, 2011

220 did you get to see harry potter in Dbox? very proud especially of the the motion effects we have for the final dual. just wait till you get finall destintation in 2 weeks.

226. Mark Lynch - July 31, 2011

Paramount should 3D convert “The Undiscovered Country” All that Klingon blood right out in front of us…. Yummy… ;)

On a slightly serious note, I would love to see a proper BluRay of ST:TMP TDE
(and for icing on the cake, get the best 2D to 3D conversion ever done on a motion picture.)
Who would not jump for joy at seeing the TMP Enterprise literally come out of Drydock towards us or the Enterprise recede away from us as it goes into Warp?

I dunno, maybe it’s just me…

227. Sailor 83 - July 31, 2011

No 3D thanks. I hate the glasses, the screen looks dark and it really adds very little to the story telling. 3D has it’s place in specialist cinemas like IMAX but not at the movies IMHO

228. Aurore - July 31, 2011

218. Aurore – July 31, 2011
“Overall, the majority of fans don’t know squat about how to write a good, proper script and so make poor consultants.”

Etc, etc, etc….

“222. The 76th Distillation of Blue – July 31, 2011
218 you are correct but let me say this, if they said hey you know what we wrote a drafgt or two but it doesnt live up tp trek XI so we are going back to the drawing board i would be A ok with that.
these ________ havent even gotten that far.”

The 76th Distillation of Blue,

Were you really answering my post, or , am I mistaken ?
For, I personally don’t think we are owed anything (by the writers) but an excellent sequel .

Preferably before 2020 .

229. P Technobabble - July 31, 2011

I seriously doubt any of the criticism or complaining is gonna make the film happen any sooner. Like mom used to say about dinner, “It’ll be ready when it’s ready, and not a minute sooner!”

As for 3D, as long as we have a choice of 2D or 3D, it’s all good. But if we start hearing, “Only showing in 3D,” or the dvd is “Only available in 3D…” I’m sure that wil pi$$ off a few people.

230. SoonerDave - July 31, 2011

@214 – The point, however, is that your assertion that 3D is the way of the future is factually incorrect. The studios are already aware of this, and are so bent on forcing 3D’s success they are encouraging theaters to schedule their airings of 3D versions “strategically” so as to compel viewers to pay for 3D screenings.

Case in point – several local theaters were running CARS 2 both in 3D and 2D. Yet the *only* early evening screening – approximately 6:30-7:00 timeframes – were 3D with the attendant 40% higher ticket price. The other earlier 2D showings – around 5:30, the other around 8:00, were sold out, while the 3D shows remained available. They’re testing these screenings, and its proving out – people will opt for the 2D option, and are rejecting pointless 3D gimmickry for the creative bankruptcy it really represents. It has nothing to do with sight issues or headaches.

I wonder if I were able to create a 3D font on this forum if it would make the points more credible? Didn’t think so.

231. trekker 5 - July 31, 2011

#228,Aurore,hi!! I hope your well! I agree your post there,and the one above that,#218 I think,some us do know how to write,me being on the + side of that so I’ve been told. And by 2020,you know,maybe I’ll be in the White House and the day Trek comes out I’ll make a holiday! :)

232. Capt Crash - July 31, 2011

I wish all the studios would get over this 3-D jazz… the technology is there, yes. Is it totally mastered? No. It actually sucks. Like a polished turd…it is still a turd in the long run…this is what 3-D is all about in today’s market.

It is just another fad, and I hope fades away fast…because I think it is ruining a lot of good movies and it just doesn’t do anyone or anything true justice. It is one thing to have fun with it at Disney World or something like that – but to start making movies and beginning to convert movies over to 3-D is a big mistake.

In three-four years, all these people who jumped on the 3-D television bandwagon are going to be sorry because they have technology that will be outdated, non-updated and no longer compatible with stuff.

I see 3-D technology (currently) as the same as the once lived laserdisc technology…here today – gone tomorrow. Being replaced with something else, something better.

To TPTB…..for the love of Khan, stay away from the 3-D thing with the sequel…no use in delaying the release date of the movie.

233. Aurore - July 31, 2011

231. Olivia, I’m fine, thanks ! I hope you’re well !

“#228… I agree your post there,and the one above that,#218 I think,some us do know how to write,…”

Yes, some commenters do write.

However, like I was trying to say in 218, the poster I was jokingly addressing (@195), has a point, in my opinion .

I agree with his assessment .

234. Aurore - July 31, 2011

…I agree with his assessment…to a point :

“I hope he just goes away for awhile and hammers out the script without us badgering him all the time.”

Come on, don’t be like that….
I think some posters can badger him while he hammers out the script.
It can be done. We have to believe.

:)

235. CAPT KRUNCH - July 31, 2011

I agree…no 3-D…I expect that as soon as i bought a 3-D tv or blu ray player 3-D would go away like HD disks…still stuck with that Blue Planet “HD” set I cant play on anything!

236. Chadwick - July 31, 2011

Its too true, I had no idea what to expect from the new movie. Then I saw the trailers, it looked incredible with new things to expect so I had an idea that this is not geriatric Star Trek anymore; it left me with more questions than answers. When I saw the movie in IMAX I was blown away. I left the theater thinking that was amazing, if they make a second movie it would surely blow this out of the water. So before I was even vocally demanding (online or to friends) that the next movie be better I was already (in my mind) expecting it to be.

I am also glad Paramount is not forcing them to get it done fast. Yes as a fan I am demanding the movie for the June release but when the wait is for it, I have no problem with Rob/Alex and crew taking that extra bit of time to make it superb.

WIth regards to 3D there are two sides. 3D has made going to the movie theaters fresh and more fun again. I have always loved movies, but its not like my father was a child, a movie ticket to see the Lone Ranger, popcorn, a Lone Ranger mask, and a fake silver bullet…..all for 50 cents! The age of the silver screen has been dull for a while. 3D has made it fresh again.

The con is that some of these movies did not look that great in 3D not did they really have to be in 3D like Green Lantern, Thor, Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, Green Hornet. Neither Resident Evil Resurrection, Captain America, or Transformers Dark of the Moon had to be in 3D but they looked cool. These are all 3D movies I have seen which is why I am commenting on them. The only two 3D movies I saw which were what I call industry standards were Avatar 3D and Tron Legacy (IMAX 3D)…oh man I LOVE Tron Legacy.

With Star Trek would be fun in 3D but not a nessesity.

The question is when is 3D fun and when it washed up simply because of the all mighty dollar. Lucas re released Ep. IV, V, and VI in 1996. Now they are being done in 3D and re re released.

237. Chadwick - July 31, 2011

235. CAPT KRUNCH

I agree, I adopted blu-ray in 2007 and luckily that won the format wars. Its the same year I got my first HD TV, a 50 Samsung Plasma. I will not even consider getting a new TV (let alone a 3D TV) for at least 8 years. By then it will be an OLED TV (Apple is planning to release one soon) and by then it will be 3D or not.

238. trekker 5 - July 31, 2011

#233&234,Aurore,I’m great thanks,getting all ready to go see Cowboys&Aliens! :) I’m with you,I think we can badger him while he hammers,heck,he might even like it!! :)

239. dmduncan - July 31, 2011

Bob Orci may care how his film stacks up to the Smurfs with regard to box office, but I don’t. I really liked Cowboys and Aliens. It was a good movie. I go into most every movie with the attitude “show me what you got boys and girls.” And then I see how it makes me feel. But for Mark Strong making his part the most interesting thing about that movie, Green Lantern was completely unimpressive. And they may have turned a 90 pound weakling into a superhero in Captain America, but the movie itself never grew any meat on the bones.

Cowboys and Aliens was a good movie. I liked the characters. I was invested in them. The action was great, the music was good. I had an all around good time in the movie and was never in danger of nodding off. So congratulations are in order for Favreau, Orci, and Kurtzman for being the team that actually finished the project where others had failed, because it could have been as screwed up as a cheap SyFy channel movie that SyFy would have to pay ME to watch, and it wasn’t.

240. Aurore - July 31, 2011

….Olivia?

I don’t want to take ANY part in the badgering.

…………..But………………… I’ll be watching………………..

:))

241. samrock83 - July 31, 2011

Expectations were low on the first one? Really? Whose expectations?

242. Odkin - July 31, 2011

Some times I am so embarassed to be a Trek fan….

1/2 this thread wasted on bitching about 3D. JUST GO SEE THE 2D VERSION if it gives you a “headache”. (why are Trekkers hypochondriacs?)

Cowboys & Aliens is another black mark against Bad Robot. It lost it’s opening weekend to the freakin’ SMURF, and the reviews are tepid. How you mess up a winning concept like “cowboys and aliens” is beyond me (although the graphic novel was created by a lousy thief who actually stole some VERY valuable comics from a friend of mine in the early ’80’s).

Anyway, still giving odds that the studio tires of the losing streak and the delay shennanigans and that change may be afoot….

243. Christopher Roberts - July 31, 2011

241. Paramount’s. Based on Nemesis tanking. Mind you, Star Trek’s budget was what three times as much as in the past? So somebody clearly believed in it. Or were willing to invest in one last ditch attempt.

244. red dead ryan - July 31, 2011

Paramount was cautiously optimistic about the success of “Star Trek”, after the disappointment of “Nemesis”. They were excited about the prospect of an up-and-coming director/producer J.J Abrams who had created the smash hit series “Lost” and produced and directed Paramount’s own “Mission Impossible III”, which while not doing particularly great in North America, made a ton of money worldwide. So they knew about J.J Abram’s ability to make a hit. What they didn’t know was how a reboot featuring TOS characters being played by new actors was going to be recieved by Trekkies and the mainstream alike. And it wasn’t very long since the cancellation of “Enterprise” either. There was a lot of talk about leaving the Trek franchise dormant for a long time, but J.J Abrams suggested to someone at Paramount that a reboot of Trek is what is needed. And the people running the studio at the time, fortunately for us, agreed, and took a big financial risk by giving J.J Abrams the biggest budget for a Trek movie ever, even knowing that it was not a given that the movie would be recieved well. But they knew it was a one last gasp for air for the “Star Trek” franchise, and decided they had to take the gamble. And the gamble paid off.

245. Obsidian - July 31, 2011

I sure hope they put a new ST series on TV soon. This waiting between movies is tedious and painful. At least in the 80s we had TNG between TOS movies. DS9 & Voyager during the 90s between movies…

Save money and redress the ST09 sets while they languish under sheets for years at a time… whatever it takes!

246. Vultan - July 31, 2011

“Cowboys and Aliens” versus the “Smurfs” has been a showdown on a dusty street between two bad movies, and it sounds like the little blue guy has won.

Then again, C&A is not a complete disaster. The performances of Craig and Ford were pretty decent and for the most part engaging enough to carry the plot forward, but for me that just wasn’t enough to save what seemed an overall flat composition. Everything felt too manufactured, with all the little bits of action and dialogue patched together from a thousand other movies we’ve seen before.

Favreau was apparently trying to use a variation of the Sergio Leone style with this “western,” filled with pauses of steely-eyed tension and a measured pace to let the story unfold on its own good time, but anyone familiar with Leone’s work should know that the weird and wonderful music of Ennio Morricone was the dominant driving force of his films, and C&A simply doesn’t have it.

“Captain America,” while not a perfect film, at least had the audacity to have a sense of fun about it and wear its pulp comic book roots on its star spangled sleeve. “Cowboys and Aliens” has none of that, simply an expensive, overlong, overly serious version of a “SyFy Channel Original Movie.”

Horseman pass by.

247. jas_montreal - July 31, 2011

just make sure khan meets chekov this time in the sequel. right bob?

248. red dead ryan - July 31, 2011

#245.

I hope CBS doesn’t do a new series anytime soon. Maybe an animated show, to try and bring in the kids, but a live action series is going to have to wait until at least 2020. While I have no doubt that a new series would be done well, its the competition that CBS is worried about. Chances are, the show will end up going up against “Dancing With The Stars”, “American Idol”, “America’s Got Talent”, and reality shows, all of which draw tens of millions of viewers.

Unless they sell the series to a premium channel like HBO, which I can’t see happening because of the problems associated with revenue sharing, its going to be years before we see a new live action “Star Trek” series.

249. Christopher Roberts - July 31, 2011

I hope there will be something new from Star Trek on TV sooner than everybody predicts. I admit I don’t bother rationalising why I want that. Or give too much thought about the state of the industry. That’s not my job. I’m simply required to tune in, buy the DVDs and ocassionally discuss episodes on forum.

These days they factor in downloads and weekend repeats, which they didn’t while Enterprise Season 4 was on the air. Otherwise I might’ve enjoyed my favourite Trek for those extra two or three years I wanted above everything that’s happened in the franchise since.

250. SciFiGuy - July 31, 2011

I don’t care if it’s released in 3D or not so long as there is a 2D option available. I personally do not care for 3D. I liked it in Avatar and Tron 2.0 but with most of the other films, the 3D has been an afterthought and an effect added before release rather than PLANNED FOR during the actual shooting of some films. I hate that. It diminishes the value of 3D and is making people think the whole process is worthless!

251. Christopher Roberts - July 31, 2011

On British television, there was one show that was onscreen non-stop for 26 years before being cancelled. Doctor Who got away with a brand new TV Movie, during the 15 years absence that followed… because that show’s fanbase kept asking for something to happen. In the end, that didn’t entirely succeed but it aimed for better and seemed great back in 1996 and in a sense did lead to a boost in interest, enough to inspire those who went to work on a more successful revival since 2005. I’ll happily take a false dawn on TV anyday and gamble on it going either way.

252. trekker 5 - July 31, 2011

#240,Aurore,ha ha ha!! :) So will I,my friend,so will I. (And I don’t LOL to offend,I do so because I was joking about the badgering.)

253. Aurore - July 31, 2011

252. Olivia.

“(And I don’t LOL to offend,I do so because I was joking about the badgering.)”

…Yeah…Yeah….Absolutely…I was…. joking, as well….Definitely joking…Yes.

:)

254. the Quickening - July 31, 2011

#175
I did a quick search and I don’t know if I agree Paramount spent the kind of money necessary and expected of sci-fi/fantasy movies during that period. Just about all the top franchises spent double on production cost. When I compared NEMSIS to movies that were produced and released around the same time, this is what I found:

Star Trek: Nemesis
Released–December 13, 2002
Production Budget–$60,000,000

Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones
Released–May 16, 2002
Production Budget–$115,000,000

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Released–November 15, 2002
Production Budget–$100,000,000

The Matrix Reloaded
Released–May 15, 2003
Production Budget–$127,000,000

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Released–July 1, 2003
Production Budget–$170,000,000

People expect wonder, imagination, state-of-the-art effects work from sci-fi–fantasy movies today. That cost money, and they were not getting it from TREK movies before STAR TREK ’09. More than anything else, Abrams’ TREK–adding the dumbed-downed, adolescent sensibilities of today’s films, and spending more money– were contributing factors of why TREK ’09 did so much better.

One thing that continues to puzzle me: how can people rag on Berman, then turn around and compliment the very people he gave the go ahead to hire and gave approval to the directions they took the TV shows–and not give him credit for that also? Hmm. If he must share the blame for what went wrong with TREK–and he does–he but also be given the credit for what went right.

It’s easy to label his dictates as “blandness”, when what he was trying to do is create a more real and believable feel to the sci-fi universe TREK occupied–avoiding silly, juvenile, over-the-top pandering, and cartoon infested action, AND keeping with Roddenberry’s dictates and wishes. In many ways Berman went overboard with the stuffy drama, near-perfect and squeaky-clean characters, but the constant blaming and badgering he gets is undeserved. He was clearly trying to stay within Roddenberry’s dictates. It’s not like he was saying, “hey, let’s go and do some bland drama.” I think anyone fair and honest could see clearly what he was attempting to do.

255. Vultan - July 31, 2011

#254

Well put.

256. jas_montreal - July 31, 2011

@ 254

Yea.

Damn Paramount. I sometimes wish Universal or Warner Bros bought Star Trek.

257. Cygnus-X1 - July 31, 2011

254. the Quickening – July 31, 2011

—Star Trek: Nemesis
Released–December 13, 2002
Production Budget–$60,000,000—-

Regardless of one’s opinion about Berman—and mine is that when I look into those vacant eyes of his, my intuition is to attribute the lack of vision in Trek to him (and who else? he was the top dog, after all)—Nemesis didn’t fail because of a low budget. If anything, I have to assume that Nemesis got a low budget because the screenplay was bad. I mean, if you were Joe Moneybags at Paramount, would you sign off on a $120,000 budget for a screenplay that you would be reluctant to hand in for a grade to your undergraduate NYU film professor?

I have to assume that good scripts get good money, and bad scripts get the minimum budget needed to make a profitable movie aimed at audience members with low standards, like Trekkies who wet their pants over anything with the Trek logo on it, God bless them.

258. Cygnus-X1 - July 31, 2011

I meant $120 million, of course.

259. Tanner Waterbury - July 31, 2011

@ 224

I havent had a chance to see HP with D-Box yet 76th…. actually I only recently discovered the D-Box. Sitting at the demonstration seating area in the lobby made me pretty excited. (though to me the 8.00 Premium is a bit excessive…. though I WOULD pay for it for the next ST movie.)

260. bradpitti - July 31, 2011

Just for the Record, Productins after Star Trek

TV Series “Undercover” cancelt
Super 8 underwhelming
Cowboys & Aliens underwhelming

Guys was it worth, delaying Star Trek for that ?
Just asking !

261. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 31, 2011

#216 – “More misdirection from the Supreme Court to take our minds away from the delays. First it was the Khan thing last week, now 3D this week. I am not fooled.”

Maybe, but I like to think (rightly or wrongly) that the answers given to the 3D question had been prompted by what I had querying in some of my posts on some threads.

However, it has become all too apparent that mentioning the word “3D” is like a red rag to a bull for many people who post here. It seems to be quite an emotive issue for many. I think it could be fairer to say, that if there has been any misdirection, it has been done by people posting on this thread. Orci and Kurtzman were simply answering a question. We did the rest. People get sidetracked all the time or allow themselves to be sidetracked.

As for 76th Distillation of Blue claiming that people (what people?) are laughing that Cowboys & Aliens is not doing as well as expected (without him necessarily knowing what those expectations may be), if this is the case, then those people are just sooo dumb! I can’t see Paramount being happy or finding it laughably amusing because a Universal film production may not be as successful as hoped, especially when some of the writers/producers are also under contract to them for other projects.

If such a primitive, stupid “competitive” mindset is still in operation, then it is perhaps no wonder that the US is having the financial crisis it is having right now. Yikes, where I am, 2nd of August is tomorrow…but that’s a whole different issue. OK – am hiding now…;)

262. dmduncan - July 31, 2011

Berman totally deserves the blame. I don’t know what silly meaningless technobabble is if it isn’t pfandering. The silly dialogue of Berman Trek is a language that only Trek fans can understand which helps to explain why Trek eventually went circling the drain under his command. Berman was the master of pfandering to every fan demand to make Star Trek comfortably familiar (translation: cheap and phony) there was. The man coached his human actors to act wooden so that the aliens would seem more real! lol! Absurd.

263. dmduncan - July 31, 2011

So Berman had good intentions? Well…okay…so did Wan Hu:

“Early in the sixteenth century, Wan decided to take advantage of China’s advanced rocket and fireworks technology to launch himself into outer space. He supposedly had a chair built with forty-seven rockets attached. On the day of lift-off, Wan, splendidly attired, climbed into his rocket chair and forty seven servants lit the fuses and then hastily ran for cover. There was a huge explosion. When the smoke cleared, Wan and the chair were gone, and was said never to have been seen again.”

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

In the context of recalling the legend of Wan Hu, Rocket Man indeed would have been a more appropriate theme song for Enterprise as Bob O suggested (for different reasons).

264. Azrael - July 31, 2011

Top Ten thing Berman did wrong with Trek.

10. The Dominion War.
9. Section 31
8. Allowing Ben Sisko to spend every other episode complaining about how Black people were treated 400 years before he was born.
7. Forcing Kathryn Janeway to be the one who did everything every episode because he believed she needed to in order to be taken seriously as a captain.
6. The Voyager handled the Borg far too easily.
5. No sense of continuity, it was established in DS9 that there were no cloaking devices in the mirror universe, but in the Enterprise Mirror episodes they had one.
4. Too many of the women in the mirror universe are apparently lesbian or bisexual, makes one wonder how there are any births there.
3. Hiring Scott Bakula.
2. The Breen.
1. Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis.

265. Jack - July 31, 2011

Aren’t fewer people choosing to see films in 3D than last year?

3D is still just too darned dark and muddied, even Captain America, which reportedly did it well. I find it’s always slightly blurred too.

Films with 3D do some amazing effects work, and I wonder if the 3D kind of raises the bar for fx right now, that they’re trying to show what 3d can do.. and those effects, when not crazily distracting are great in 2D too.

I don’t really notice the actual 3D effect after the first few minutes — for me, it doesn’t add a lot of thrill to what’s on screen. I notice it at the beginning and then, usually, in the end credits.

260. Super 8 did well, no? Fringe is great (not amazing in the ratings, but great).

I get a little grumpy with this idea, generally, that there would have been a sequel 12-18 months after the release of Trek in May, 2009… if it hadn’t been for Abrams and co.

264. 4. Too many of the women in the mirror universe are apparently lesbian or bisexual, makes one wonder how there are any births there.
Seriously?

266. trekker 5 - July 31, 2011

#253,Aurore :)

267. the Quickening - July 31, 2011

#257
… vacant eyes of his? Man, you guys really don’t like Berman. LOL!

All TREK films got lower budgets, including First Contact, which script everybody thought was wonderful… including the Moneybags at Paramount.

268. the Quickening - July 31, 2011

#262

I don’t think many would argue with Berman being responsible–myself included. After-all, he was the headmaster; responsibility comes with the position. Blame and responsibility are one thing, contempt, disrespect, wild, unfair and unsubstantiated accusation are another.

269. Azrael - July 31, 2011

@265

Yes seriously, almost every single woman seen in every one of the DS9 mirror universe episodes was more interested in the other women around than any of the men. The only one I ever saw that wasn’t was the mirror version of Ben Sisko’s wife. If all of the women are into each other how is anyone going to have any children? It might be hot but it doesn’t make for a believable (or sustainable) population. Even the counterpart of Leta (Rom’s wife) was all over Dax, who was responding in kind, and the mirror Kira was so obviously a wanton bisexual dominatrix slut that it was almost painful to watch. It just goes on from there, almost as bad a how Frank Miller turns every woman in one of his stories into a whore (Catwoman, all the women in The Spirit, 300, Sin City, etc).

270. MC1701B - July 31, 2011

188. Better, by definition, than a nonexistent screenplay. And I just opened a dialogue today with an independent producer, so you may find out in a year or so…

271. Christopher Roberts - July 31, 2011

264. Azrael – “Top Ten things Berman did wrong with Trek.

Blah-blah-blah.

Study study study.

or bump-bump on the head, bad kid.”

I read your list of crimes against Trek and just had to laugh. I’ve substituted classic dialogue from “Miri”, I’m literally that bored with your argument.

Actually much of what you put were reasons I continued to tuned in!

272. dmduncan - July 31, 2011

270. MC1701B – July 31, 2011

Well good luck to you.

273. Jonboc - July 31, 2011

3D, done properly, is fun, and Trek is, ultimately, supposed to be fun. Talking TOS here, not the pretentious talk-a-thon spinoffs. So that is really a non- issue with me. As the consumer, I will have the choice of one or the other and, truthfully, I’ll probably see it both ways if it’s available. Any situation that gives the consumer more choices is a winning situation, as far as I’m concerned.

and Cowboys and Aliens? Great summer flick, saw it with a packed house today and was thoroughly entertained. I’m a huge western fan, and I love sci-fi, and this movie managed to hit the high points of both genres in an action packed and original way. My Stetson is off to Bob and the parties responsible, for a job well done. Thanks!

274. boborci - July 31, 2011

260. Maybe. Not;)

275. Michael Hall - July 31, 2011

“I don’t think many would argue with Berman being responsible–myself included.”

Yes, indeed. If you’re going to pillory Berman for things like his directives on bland musical scoring, technobabble, his oversight of what turned out to be some less-than-memorable feature films, and his all-too-human lack of awareness of when it was time to move on and leave the franchise in the hands of fresher minds–well, in the interest of fairness it might do to point out that Star Trek (in its TNG incarnation) was never at the center of the cultural zeitgeist more than it was during his tenure; that the Berman-produced episode “The Inner Light” won the franchise its first (and only) Hugo since “City on the Edge of Forever.” A number of fine episodes, in fact, came out of TNG and DS9, at least, howver burdened they were with technobabble and indifferent music.

“Voyager” and “Enterprise” were, for the most part, a waste of time. As the man on deck, Rick Berman certainly bears his share of the responsibility. But none of those wasted hours of television detracts from Berman’s accomplishments when he was on his game, any more than the terrible shows produced during TOS’ third year take away from what Roddenberry and his staff were able to do with the first two.

By contrast, J.J. Abrams has managed to produce exactly one summer popcorn movie that admirably succeeded in reviving the original series’ classic sense of romance and adventure, while giving short shrift to its thoughtfulness, idealism and (worst of all) sense of wonder. Audiences appear to have mostly enjoyed themselves, and it made money for Viacom’s shareholders, but I see little evidence so far that it did much of anything to restore Trek’s status as the cultural icon it was at the height of TNG’s glory days.

276. Jack - July 31, 2011

By the way, how ’bout some Cowboys and Aliens actors in the next Trek, say, Sam Rockwell and Adam Beach. Especially Adam Beach.

There still hasn’t been a Native American actor in Trek (Beltran’s Chakotay doesn’t count, although, come to think of it, there’ve been no hispanic characters, either [Dawson’s Torres doesn’t count either).

Nor would I mind borrowing from Nolan’s ensemble (Joseph Gorden Levitt, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson, Tom Hardy).

277. Vultan - July 31, 2011

#277

I second that emotion! Sam Rockwell is always great (even when he’s in a lackluster movie), and Adam Beach is one the most underrated actors out there.

278. Vultan - July 31, 2011

Edit: one OF the most underrated…

279. Jack - July 31, 2011

And another thing (just catching up). I liked Trek 09, and, yes, Kirk’s magical promotion was bullshit.

I’d wished even a single line, other than the aptitude test thing, had emphasized his drive, intelligence, and academy accomplishments (Bones: “You’ve broken every record in this place, what will you prove by beating the unbeatable test? You know the damned point of it as well as I do.”) — instead, all we got was, “Hey, ladies!” Hell, even a mention of an impressive record during the hearing would have worked.

Chris Pine gave us a bit of a glimpse of what was behind the douchebag act, but it wasn’t really there in the writing, even with Pike’s speech in the bar.

And, even had all that been there (Gary Mitchell called the guy. as a student, a humourless stack of books with legs, or something — that always helped define the guy, to me) the instant promotion robs the Kirk character of, well, character.

So what if he saved billions of lives? This destiny to succeed, chosen one without hard work stuff is what’s ruining our kids today (and I wish they’d get off my damned lawn).

280. Jack - July 31, 2011

277. I know, right?

281. dmduncan - July 31, 2011

276. Jack – July 31, 2011

By the way, how ’bout some Cowboys and Aliens actors in the next Trek, say, Sam Rockwell and Adam Beach. Especially Adam Beach.

***

I also suggested Sam Rockwell in a reprisal of his Galaxy Quest role as an homage to an homage of Star Trek. What would he be? He’d be a red shirt, of course, neurotically aware of the life expectancy of red shirts.

282. dmduncan - July 31, 2011

257: “I have to assume that good scripts get good money, and bad scripts get the minimum budget needed to make a profitable movie”

More often than not, good scripts get no money at all.

283. Canon Schmanon - July 31, 2011

It’s too bad that box office is the only measure of a film’s success. Cowboys and Aliens was great fun, and it HAS to be a billion times better than the effing Smurfs.

Fun movie, Bob, great cast. You guys did well. Don’t let effing Smurfs depress you.

284. Jack - July 31, 2011

smurf mothersmurfers.

285. Brett L. - July 31, 2011

As others have said, here’s another vote against 3D and for a NEW ENGINEERING set! Thanks.

286. dmduncan - July 31, 2011

279. Jack – July 31, 2011

Or it would have been cool to cut from the shuttle taking off to his SECOND Kobyashi Maru test as he fails it, and then gets made fun of in passing by Finegan (played by Colin Farrell with his thickest Irish accent) who goads him:

“What’s the matter, Kirk boy? Finally find a test you CAN’T ace? Third time’s a charm, eh?”

And then he does a goofy Finegan’s laugh that gets Kirk simmering. McCoy has to hold him back.

287. T'Cal - July 31, 2011

Wow! What a bunch of wasted energy here! They certainly didn’t rule 3D out but who cares? My money says they will at a minimum film it in 2d and release it in both 2D & 3D. Or they may actually film it in 3D but still release it in both 2D & 3D. If it will make the studio more money, and right now 3D is a money maker, Star Trek XII will be in 3D. Has any studio released any recent movie only in 3D?? I can’t recall one. For those who despise it, skip it, save a few bucks, and buy a ticket for the 2D version in the cinema next door. What’s the BFD??

288. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 31, 2011

#286 I like that take on Kirk doing the KM test. That scene covers a lot as in it briefly introduces Finnegan who was clearly a “thorn” in cadet Kirk’s side (TOS Shore Leave), shows how really bright (“genius-level”) Kirk is and then later seeing Kirk going for a third attempt after telling McCoy, “I’ve gotta study” to which McCoy replies, “My ass!” (Like that line…)

289. MJ - July 31, 2011

Saw the Smurf runner-up, Cowboys and Aliens tonight. Wasn’t as bad as the reviews — I thought it was OK and had some good parts, but it wasn’t great. I think the problem with the movie is that somewhere along in writing the screenplay and directing the movie, Favreau and Orci forget to put enough “fun” into the movie. A little bit more fun, and a little bit less of the dark stuff, and I think they might have struck gold with this. I mean we are mixing aliens with cowboys folks — that should provide more joy to watch than what Favreau and Orci and Oric gave us here. For example, what was up with Harrison Ford’s character almost drawing and quartering a guy — I was like, WTF was that?

A missed opportunity!

290. chrisfawkes.com - August 1, 2011

Ok boys here’s where it sits. I’m willing to put up with one delay but mark my words, if shooting has not started by January my Spock ears are going on ebay.

291. Basement Blogger - August 1, 2011

Here’s another argument that Star Trek (2013) should be filmed in 3D. The Smurfs tied Cowboys and Aliens for boxoffice champ this weekend. The Smurfs was released in 3D. And while we shouldn’t use the race for boxoffice gross to make artistic decisions, it’s safe to assume that the addtional revenue from 3D helped the blue guys fight the cowboys and aliens to a Mexican stand-off. The more money Star Trek makes, the more Star Trek.

And according to the Hollywood Reporter, it says Cowboys and Aliens was tepid with younger moviegoers. Seventy five percent of the audience was over 25. (Link) Oh, the humanity, they made a movie that us old folks over 25 would like. Well, to ensure Star Trek (2013) gets that teenage audience, I suggest the movie feature a hot girlfriend for Chekov. Her character turns out to be a vampire. Get a Megan Fox look a like because Megan will be too old by 2013. . Then hire Michael Bay to specifically shoot her scenes wearing daisy dukes. I keeed. I keeed.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/box-office-shocker-cowboys-aliens-gets-smurfed-144941080.html

292. MJ - August 1, 2011

You know it is a crappy summer of movies when the most fun you have at the theater is watching the latest Transformers movie.

Here’s hoping that Rise of the Apes finally brings us a good summer popcorn sf film

293. MJ - August 1, 2011

@279. Wow Jack, where is all that anger coming from — you sound like me last week. :-)

294. a younger trekkie...vulcans are interesting - August 1, 2011

No 3D please :) …This is just a thought: I know Spock is awesome (indeed he is and i love him), but they should somehow find find a way to include or make other movies focusing on other Vulcans like T’pol or the high council, and the two Vulcans from Star Trek: Voyager. I would deeply appreciate them incorperatng my ideas in the movie (although it’s not a very fat chance of them seeing this comment) and producers probably wont listen to a 13 year old girl anyways… :/

295. Mel - August 1, 2011

Why is anyone surprised, that the Smurfs did better than Cowboys and Aliens? Animation movies make all the time a huge a mount of money. It is the kind of movie whole families watch. On the other hand we have a movie with a combination of two genres, which at least doesn’t sound like they belong together. I have seen none of them, but I can imagine easier, what I would get when I go into the Smurfs movie than into the other movie. I think people are more reluctant to pay for a movie, if they can’t gauge its quality/content before.

296. chrisfawkes.com - August 1, 2011

@291 “And while we shouldn’t use the race for boxoffice gross to make artistic decisions,”

Where do you get that idea from?

297. P Technobabble - August 1, 2011

Comparing “Smurfs” to “C&A”? Surely, you jest!
I still maintain that a movie specifically made for the whole (not ‘hole’) family — meaning mom, dad, and their 2-and a half kids — is, generally speaking, always gonna do big numbers at the box office. “C&A” is not what one would call a “family” film, and is still expected to have some legs. And I’d be willing to bet that “Smurfs” will disappear pretty rapidly due to awful reviews. “C&A’s” true competition is “Capt. America,” and the up-coming “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” neither of which could be considered “family fare.”
Movies are made with a targeted audience in mind, no?, and then expected to attract that audience. There (not ‘their’) have been, and always will be, movies that cross-over, like “ET.” But, typically speaking, action/adventure films are not intended to bring in whole families. Sci-fi/action/adventure draws a specific crowd, and young children are not among them. Therefore, I suggest that any comparison between “Smurfs” and “C&A” based on box-office numbers is irrelevant . IMO.

298. TrekMaMa - August 1, 2011

PLEASE NO 3-D!!!!

299. VZX - August 1, 2011

Fan pressure? On Star Trek? Yeah, right.

It’s not like we ever complained about the engineering sets, Kirk’s rapid promotion, too much lens flares, faulty science facts, coincidental meetings, and Uhuru & Spock’s hook-ups.

300. SoonerDave - August 1, 2011

@299 – Again, however, I ask: just how much “pressure” does that really mean? We can badger and whine about various things here and on other Trek-related boards, but in reality it doesn’t affect the creative/production process at all. It might guide direction some, but these guys aren’t living in fear of “oh, geez, what will the guys at TrekMovie think if we told them we were going to blow up Vulcan.” There would probably have been a great deal of discussion about it, but do you think it would have changed anything? Not by a longshot.

The point is that we can plead for or against our favorite thing here, but this notion that “fan pressure” really has a material impact on the production process is more than a little bit disingenuous. It might be a source for ideas or story departures, but the implicit notion that there is this coercive element to it is a little bit silly.

301. ML31 - August 1, 2011

Another vote for no 3-D. Until 3-D looks good without glasses, I’m not interested.

We can all blame the undeserved success of Avitar for this 3-D craze.

302. Pissed off Trek Fan - August 1, 2011

Any one else still wondering how Spock just ignored the Temporal Prime Directive in the last film? Where the hell us the USS Relativity to fix this screwed up timeline? Anyone else remember the pains that were taken in earlier shows to not corrupt the timeline? And here it is not even thought of.

These guys have ignored everything about Trek canon.

I WANT TREK BACK!!!
(BTW that spinning sound you hear is Roddenberry spinning in his urn!)

303. Alex - August 1, 2011

With all these delays and no script coming out, I keep hoping it’ll fall apart and never see the light of day SO A REAL STAR TREK MOVIE CAN BE MADE.

304. sean - August 1, 2011

#254

Wow, are you seriously comparing Trek movie budgets with Terminator, Harry Potter and Star Wars? Again, $60 million was perfectly reasonable for a STAR TREK movie at the time. As I said, those movies (based on all past performance) were not likely to make more than 3x their budget. Star Trek never had the commercial appeal of any of the films you mentioned. JJ made Super 8 on a $50 million budget in 2011, which just goes to show that a small budget can be used effectively. JJ’s massive budget for Trek 09 was unprecedented, and was based on the fact that he was (and is) and in-demand producer/writer/director. Much like TMP had a big budget because Robert Wise had so much clout. Nick Meyer, on the other hand, was never going to get the same budget Bob Wise did.

“One thing that continues to puzzle me: how can people rag on Berman, then turn around and compliment the very people he gave the go ahead to hire and gave approval to the directions they took the TV shows–and not give him credit for that also? Hmm. If he must share the blame for what went wrong with TREK–and he does–he but also be given the credit for what went right.”

I never said Berman didn’t do anything right. I merely pointed out that his tenure had already soured long before Nemesis. Honestly, things went badly toward the end of TNG and during Voyager when he started trying to write stories and be more involved in that process. Berman might have been a good producer at the start, but part of being a good producer is knowing how to delegate to the talent around you. At some point, Berman decided he *was* the talent, and that’s when things went south. To be fair, the blandness came from Gene R too, who was a decent enough guy but had totally lost his connection with what people liked about his show in the first place. Berman just happened to bury the bland meter deeper than anyone thought possible.

“It’s easy to label his dictates as “blandness”, when what he was trying to do is create a more real and believable feel to the sci-fi universe TREK occupied–avoiding silly, juvenile, over-the-top pandering, and cartoon infested action, AND keeping with Roddenberry’s dictates and wishes. In many ways Berman went overboard with the stuffy drama, near-perfect and squeaky-clean characters, but the constant blaming and badgering he gets is undeserved. He was clearly trying to stay within Roddenberry’s dictates. It’s not like he was saying, “hey, let’s go and do some bland drama.” I think anyone fair and honest could see clearly what he was attempting to do.”

I don’t buy into the idea of keeping with ‘Rodenberry’s wishes’. Rodenberry had a lot of weird ideas about Trek, and they got much weirder by the time TNG came around. Berman should have taken Gene’s death as an opportunity to expand on his universe (and ditch the silly restrictions about conflict) but instead he joined the Cult of Rodenberry and made it even worse. Thankfully, people like Behr and Moore over on DS9 said to hell with it and we got the best Trek since TOS (keep in mind, Berman basically disowned DS9 once Voyager was in the works).

Berman went on to Voyager, a show with so much promise, and blanded it up as much as possible. Janeway and Chakotay (as well as the Federation crew and the Maquis crew) should have been at it every week. Instead, they’re basically BFFs after episode 1. There were the rare episodes that broke with that, like Equinox, but they had no lasting effect and were basically forgotten by the time the next episode came out.

And frankly, there are just way too many people that worked at those shows that have explained Berman’s weird restrictions to not place a great deal of blame at his doorstep. Hell, Robert Beltran’s rants about Berman and the Voyager writers are the stuff of internet legend. And who could blame him? His character was as exciting as a box of rocks.

So yeah, I can see what Berman was trying to do. What I’m saying is he shouldn’t have been trying to do it. And honestly, if you want examples of “silly, juvenile, over-the-top pandering, and cartoon infested action” I can cite dozens of Voyager episodes as well as episodes of Enterprise that would fit the bill quite nicely. Anyone remember the Voyager where Seven wrestles with The Rock? Or how about the one where Tom enters the Delta Flyer in some kind of outer space NASCAR? It’s okay if you’ve forgotten them, I’ve tried to forget them myself.

Look, I’m not saying Berman is the devil. He’s not. He’s just this guy that I don’t think gave a great job performance, especially toward the end. Brannon Braga had a similar problem (though he still wrote some great episodes). So yes, there were some great Trek pieces produced while Berman was at the helm, and he should get some credit for that. But ultimately, the real credit goes to the writers that managed to create something engaging despite having their hands tied behind their backs.

305. Alex - August 1, 2011

With all these delays and lack of a working script, I keep hoping that the movie falls apart and never sees the light of day SO A REAL STAR TREK MOVIE CAN BE MADE, NOT STAR WARS MEETS STAR TREK. JJ ABRAMS YOU SUCK!

306. sean - August 1, 2011

#302

Sorry, but one of the worst ideas they came up with in later Treks was that whole ‘future starships just wander around waiting to fix the timeline’ crap. All tension is removed because we all know the USS Magic Reset Button will swoop in and fix it. Even the Time Lords weren’t that reliable.

307. red dead ryan - August 1, 2011

I see everybody is hating on “The Smurfs”, but that movie is made for younger kids, between the ages of three and nine. It plays to the same crowd that the “Alvin And The Chipmunks” movies have. Meaning “The Smurfs” could usurp “Super 8″ as the sleeper hit of the summer and end up with several sequels. You and I may not care about “The Smurfs”, but it was a good business decision by the studio to make movies for kids too young for “Transformers 3″, “Super 8″, “Cowboys & Aliens”, etc. I suspect that “The Smurfs” will be in theatres longer than “Cowboys & Aliens”.

As for Rick Berman, my major problem with him was that he stayed on too long and as such, made several bad decisions. Had he left once “Deep Space Nine” hit the air, we wouldn’t be talking about the guy in such a negative light. He helped make Trek popular during the nineties, no question about that.

With this, I’m reminded of the quote from “The Dark Knight”:

“You can either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

Now obviously, I don’t mean this literally, but as a metaphor. Sometimes you just have take yourself out of the picture for the greater good. Rick Berman could have been remembered as a hero had he left BEFORE “Generations” but stayed too long and is now remembered as the villain.

308. Tanner Waterbury - August 1, 2011

@ 306

LOL “USS Magic Reset Button” Now you KNOW someone will make such a ship called that…

309. VZX - August 1, 2011

@300: True, I guess I was just trying to make a little joke. Extremely little, Ensign.

BTW: with the discussions on budget, wasn’t the Wrath of Khan the cheapest Trek movie made? And most people consider it the best Trek film? Just saying…

310. SoonerDave - August 1, 2011

@309

Yep. Think it’s budget was something like $17M (compared to TMP $45-50M depending on where you read).

Nick Meyer talks about that aspect of TWoK quite a bit in the Director’s Commentary on the Special Edition DVD. Pretty interesting stuff.

311. Desstruxion - August 1, 2011

3D makes my head hurt.

312. red dead ryan - August 1, 2011

Make no mistake, the next “Star Trek” movie will be in 3D. If it’s not filmed in 3D, it will be converted. There is NO WAY Paramount will leave money on the table. People complain about the post-production 3D conversion method, but there are still people who would gladly pay to see it anyway. Even if its crappy. And what works in the studio’s favor is that some theatre chains that are showing the 3D version don’t offer the 2D alternative, leaving fans with no choice but to see the 3D version or stay home. But if they here how great the film is, they’re more likely to pay and put up with any lousy converted 3D. There are a lot of suckers out there willing to waste their money and the studios know this!

313. Christopher Roberts - August 1, 2011

Oh, how times have changed. Back in 1991, I wonder if Nicholas Meyer or anybody responsible for Star Trek VI sweated over their film arriving in theatres just days before Hook, a Steven Spielberg movie.

“Second star to the right and straight on til morning.”

314. VZX - August 1, 2011

@310: Yeah, I heard that commentary. It just goes to show that a bigger budget does not necessarily mean a better movie.

I would love to see a graph comparing budgets, box office returns, and percent ratings on Rotten Tomatoes for all eleven Trek movies. Converted to today’s dollars, of course.

I guess with a little digging I could do that. Heh, I just gave myself some homework.

315. Dee - lvs moon' surface - August 1, 2011

#274 – boborci ….LOL

316. the Quickening - August 1, 2011

#264
How do you know Berman was directly responsible for any of these decisions?

Comments:

10. The Dominion War–

–Disagree. Loved how this was handled. The war was ongoing–as a serious war like this one should have been and not just over in a flash like in STAR WARS and BABYLON 5. The makers were also smart enough to realize that even during war, life, even normality goes on.


9. Section 31

–Disagree. Like The Dominion War, Section 31 brought grit and realism to TREK.


8. Allowing Ben Sisko to spend every other episode complaining about how Black people were treated 400 years before he was born.

–Totally disagree, and this is just wrong… and perhaps insulting.

I’m a huge fan of DS9, and there were only 2 or 3 episodes where Sisko’s race was even brought up, and in those cases it was germane to the story. This is what I was referring too earlier when I mentioned wild, unfair and unsubstantiated accusations toward Berman.

7. Forcing Kathryn Janeway to be the one who did everything every episode because he believed she needed to in order to be taken seriously as a captain.

—-Totally disagree and this is just wrong. Janeway did not do everything in every episode.


6. The Voyager handled the Borg far too easily.

— Slightly agree with this one, though it could be argued that Starfleet learned from previous encounters with the Borg how to combat them.


5. No sense of continuity, it was established in DS9 that there were no cloaking devices in the mirror universe, but in the Enterprise Mirror episodes they had one.

–Continuity has always been a problem in Star Trek, even TOS, which Berman had nothing to do with.


4. Too many of the women in the mirror universe are apparently lesbian or bisexual, makes one wonder how there are any births there.

–Many of those stories contained scenes that were comedic in nature, and besides, what’s wrong with bringing adult sensibilities to TREK? Besides, TOS had plenty of sexual innuendo, oh, but that was straight sex so that was okay… right?

3. Hiring Scott Bakula.

–Thought Bakula was a good choice.

2. The Breen
–Agree. The Breen were never fully developed enough to focus on in any story.


1. Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis.

–Agree. One of Berman’s weaknesses was as a film producer. He should have handed the film series to a creative producer-director-writer in the Hollywood film community and only executive produced.

317. Dee - lvs moon' surface - August 1, 2011

#274 – boborci …I’m not angelinajolie …+LOL

real news soon please!!!….

:-) :-)

318. Mr. Zoom - August 1, 2011

@309, 310

TWOK’s cost was no doubt brought down by the fact that they didn’t have to build the Enterprise sets from scratch. Also, I’m sure almost everyone has noticed this, but many exterior shots of the Big E (particularly when it’s in or leaving Spacedock) are recycled from TMP.

319. trekker 5 - August 1, 2011

Yep,just hoped back down here to say that I just saw Cowboys & Aliens,and I think it’s great!! Mr.Orci,you did not thow away your time making this flim!! Out of 5 I give it a 4;and would readily go see it again! Keep ‘em comin’!! (But say,could you get Trek out frist?) :)

320. Azrael - August 1, 2011

@ the quickening

You have the right to your own opinion but I do not have to agree with it.

As far as my comment about Sisko being insulting. How is it insulting? What is insulting to me is a man born and raised in a society completely free of ethnic prejudice (Sisko, not Brooks) who can’t stop bringing it up. Certainly Uhura didn’t do so, and Martin Luther King thought the show she was on was good enough to be the only thing he allowed his children to watch on tv, which he told Nichelle when she wanted to quit Trek. And Sisko did it in a lot more than just 2 or 3 episodes. How about that BS stuff with the writer back in the 20s that was somehow actually Sisko? Or his reaction to his crew asking him to help beat the Easter Egg in the Holosuite program where Vic Fontaine performs? He brought it up a lot, and just by itself that is an insult to Gene’s memory.

My comment about the sexual orientation of the women of the mirror universe was, if you noticed, specifically pointing out the possible effect on the birthrate, nothing else.

321. MJ - August 1, 2011

@297 ““C&A” is not what one would call a “family” film, and is still expected to have some legs.”

An therein lies the problem. Mixing cowboys and aliens should have been a fun romp like an Indiana Jones movie…it should have been a film the family could have enjoyed like Indy or Spiderman. It was way too serious and dark…where was “the fun” of mixing cowboys and aliens???

PS: It won’t have any legs…the theater I saw it in for the 4 PM show yesterday had like only 40 people in it.

322. MJ - August 1, 2011

Anthony, when are you going to put up your review of Cowboys and Aliens?

323. MJ - August 1, 2011

@320. No offense, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder regarding the handful of times Sicko brought up past history/race in DS9. We are all products of our past history and or race, and we all bring it up naturally in conversation, so excuse me if I am not as shocked as you that it came up a handful of times within 176 episodes.

You are way too sensitive, dude.

324. MJ - August 1, 2011

@323. “Sisko” (no, that was not intended)

325. Canon Schmanon - August 1, 2011

295. Mel – August 1, 2011

“Why is anyone surprised, that the Smurfs did better than Cowboys and Aliens? Animation movies make all the time a huge a mount of money. It is the kind of movie whole families watch.”

May I remind you of the terrible failure of Mars Needs Moms? Or The Owls of Ga’Hoole? There are more, but I don’t have the interest in naming them right now.

326. Canon Schmanon - August 1, 2011

320. Azrael – I watched every DS9 episode, and I have to agree with MJ. I sure don’t recall Sisko mentioning race all that much. And when they did, it was the writers, no Sisko. Your argument seems irrational and quite illogical at best.

327. Aurore - August 1, 2011

Apparently, Cowboys and Aliens ended up beating Les Schtroumpfs.
(That was on the Twitter feed) .

328. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 1, 2011

#320 – I suspect that bisexuality is more common among women than men. Something I remember reading sometime ago – to paraphrase – men have head and heart; women have head, heart and womb.

About the box office tie between Cowboys & Aliens and Smurfs – Here’s how it has worked in our household when similar types of movies have screened at the same time during a school holiday period. One adult takes little girl to see something like Smurfs (or Cars 2 in our case), while the other adult takes older boy to see a movie like C&A. It is possible that a lot of families with children of varying ages do similar. Hence the tie at the box office. If the adult who went to see the more adult C&A type movie liked it, then it is more than possible that the adult who did not see such movie will try to get to see it, which means another ticket sold for the more adult C&A type movie.

If Star Trek and the Hobbit are released at similar times, it is possible that the same will occur then as well… depending on how full the coin jar is. Since both movies will be PG-13 (or M in NZ), there may be some juggling required, since our little girl suffers from a form of hyperacusis, making her painfully sensitive to loud noises/music and because of possibly there being over-the-top violence in the movies. Getting the DVD later is generally a better option for her for obvious reasons. We are hoping that both movies will be worth seeing at least twice and that I and my better half will be able to afford to see both films twice!

Great birthday and Christmas presents! Make it so. Thank you.

329. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 1, 2011

#321 – Perhaps it is because I am in NZ (much smaller population) but going to the cinema during the day tends to be quieter. However, at nights or on a weekend, it can be a whole different story…

BTW, Cowboys & Aliens is being advertised on NZ television (TV3) and if you watch Sons of Anarchy and are able to answer some simple question about it, viewers can go into a draw to win a trip to the USA to visit some of the sites where some say UFOs have been seen…

Trouble is – I don’t watch Sons of Anarchy (can’t stand that type of programme). Oh dear.

330. Jack - August 1, 2011

320. the birthrate argument? Really?

How is pointing out what’s happening now, really, an insult to Roddenberry?

331. Hugh Hoyland - August 1, 2011

To be very very honest, I was never quite as certain as others that C&A was going to be a smash box office hit.

It APPEARED to have all the right ingredients to be one, Fantastic cast, Big name Director and writers, Produced by SS just to name a few. But from what I seen over the years those things dont always guarantee a blockbuster. Genre mixing movies are a tricky thing it seems.

And anything dealing with Westerns, at least in recent years, have been hit or miss to say the least (Bad: Jonah Hex, Good:True Grit.)

While I think Jon Favreau is a very good director and in his own way did an very admiral job on this movie, this type of story seems like something right up Josh Whedons ally. But who knows, maybe he would have been a terrible choice and it would have turned equally terrible lol. Thats just a fan boys opinion :]

I like the movie either way, and I hope it continues to do well at the box office!

332. Vultan - August 1, 2011

#321

Agreed, MJ.

“Cowboys and Aliens” should have been more fun—much more fun! I went in expecting “Iron Man” and got a “True Grit” level of seriousness instead. And while I loved “True Grit,” that sort of blood-and-guts, slit-their-throats tone just doesn’t work in a period piece with… space aliens.

Really though, a western doesn’t need gritty, film noir sensibilities (a mistake many modern westerns seem to make) to be successful.

Or in other words—Less “Wyatt Earp.” More “Tombstone.”

333. Jack - August 1, 2011

330. And, yeah, the bisexual/lesbian stuff in the mirror universe did bug me a little, but probably for different reasons. For me, it was because a) it seemed to be there entirely to titillate… and b) that this stuff is only a feature of the ‘bad’ universe, where everything is wrong and topsy-turvey.

And back to the history of racism stuff, even if it wasn’t an issue by this time… surely xenophobia and bigotry is, alas, still around, especially in an era of colonization and empire-building.

334. Jack - August 1, 2011

Oh yeah, and since I carry my soap box everywhere, this reminds me. It would be great to see a lot more non-white people and aliens (not to the point of MIB distraction, but…) on the Enterprise.

During and after TNG, Trek was pretty whitewashed, even with Geordi, Worf, Sisko, Bashir, Tuvok, Kim, Beltran, Mayweather and Sato. Lots of male, white-haired, white admirals. I thought the same thing with BSG, compared to the original.

335. the Quickening - August 1, 2011

#320

You used the words, “every other episode complaining about how Black people were treated 400 years before he was born.”, which just isn’t true and that is not an opinion. It’s simply untrue.

The two incidences you mentioned where from two episodes:

1) FAR BEYOND THE STARS (an excellent episode by the way), and
2) BADDA-BING BADDA-BANG

Now, name all the other episodes Sisko used race to complain about how Blacks were treated. According to you, there should be at least 88 of them, since you claim Sisko mentions this every other episode and there were 176 total DS9 productions.

336. Jack - August 1, 2011

335. Point well made.

And, yeah, that was a darned good episode.

Oh, and kind of on the topic of #320’s posts — we’ve still had no gay men in Trek. I’d love to say Chekov, just to mess with fan expectations (and Anton Yelchin could pull it off), but, alas, he had female love interests in the original timeline.

337. gingerly - August 1, 2011

#336

…Yet another reason why Johnathon Frakes gets my love (besides being tall right along with that beard).

There would have been one, if it where in his hands. He wanted a man to play the androgynous alien he fell in love with in that one episode of TNG.

Yeah, people who complain about those issues being in Trek really miss the entire point. Roddenberry was culture nerd.

He friggin’ loved the diversity of humanity, hence his issues with his earlier series, The Lieutenant ,his affair with Nichelle, and the Japanese themed wedding to Majel.

He imagined a future where everyone from the planet over, Japanese, Russians, Scots, Africans, American Southerners, and Vulcans could benevolently explore the full depths of the diversity of the universe, together.

To say there’s too much of that in Trek, means that you really don’t get it.

338. MJ - August 1, 2011

@336 “Star Trek 2: Tales from the Federation” :-)

Seriously, I really don’t want these new movies to focus either on hetrosexual or homosexual relationships of the characters…I want science fiction and more meaningful stories. Maybe just have JJ say that one of the characters is gay, but not focus on it during the movie series…this “Dumbledorf option” would make everyone happy and provide inclusion, but would not bog the movies down with awkward “outing moments” and the like that aren’t really part of a Trek movie story that I want to see.

339. the Quickening - August 1, 2011

#304.
I guess I was attempting to show what audiences expect from sci-fi movies–past and present–and what kinds of budgets are necessary to give them the kinds of thrills they desire.

I think TREK did and does have commercial appeal. The potential is there–always has been. In the past Paramount just squandered it. Stigmatizing TREK as a niche commercial franchise was an awesome mistake by TPTB after TMP. The problem is, Paramount threw in the towel way too soon, and spent way too many years making made-for-TV movies to seal TREK’s fate.

It’s hard to break a perception… a stigma, and I wonder with TREK if it can ever be broken. I wish Abram’s and company all the luck in the world. Curious to see what kind of budget they’ll be given on the new film. Even one hundred forty million might not cut it this time.

Super8 was an attempt to do ET, not STAR WARS, so it’s not a good example. I remember years ago when Spielberg made ET, he distinctly said he wanted to make a low budget film, and he did. STAR TREK is action, sci-fi, and adventure, all requiring, choreographed sequences, built sets, costuming, make-up, CGI… the list goes on. These things in themselves are going to require time and dollars. They finally got closer to spending that kind of money with TREK’09 with Abrams at the helm. The problem is they waited way too long in the film series to find someone to produce it with the kind of money required. There is no way I believe there didn’t exist, before Abrams, a competent producer-writer-director who could have. Paramount’s and Berman’s mistake was not handing the TREK movies over to said person years ago.

Regarding Berman. Initially in your first post, I didn’t hear too much positive energy for what Berman had done right, which was my point of criticism. It did indeed sound like you were making Berman the devil. Your second post was more balanced in my opinion. Few producers hit a home run with every production. Berman certainly didn’t, but being at the helm, he does get credit for doing things right. Real credit.

Perhaps you’re right. Maybe he should have totally ditched Roddenberry’s concept of the ethical and moral super-human, but I can see Berman’s position of dedication to Gene, and wanting to be consistent with the concept of STAR TREK–as evolved and expanded by Gene himself. I think Berman was just trying to be consistent with the TREK theme that man will evolve, so, to have characters constantly creating major drama would have been inconsistent with the concept itself. Not going to rag him for that, ’cause I can see why he was doing it. Don’t agree with him–he went overboard with it, but see what he was aiming at and why.

Did this approach make for limited drama? Absolutely. Boring and bland drama? Well, that I don’t see since I thought TNG was a very good show–though I like DS9 better. DS9 moved away from the gospel of Roddenberry, and Berman gave approval to Behr and Moore so, I’m saying give him his due. He approved it. He signed off on it. To say he “disowned” DS9 to work on Voyager is an exaggeration. To imply he wasn’t there on key decisions made on DS9 is not completely true. I think recently he said as much in a series of interviews at startrek.com and Behr verified it later on the same site. Did they fight Berman on it? Yes, but that’s not a bad thing. The great film critic, Pauline Kael makes the point that artist and producers should fight each other… it makes for a better product and I agree.

340. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 1, 2011

#337 I like your post. I agree.

341. MJ - August 1, 2011

@337. Well said!

342. Jack - August 1, 2011

337. Exactly. And we need more of it.

338. Yep, I don’t want a love story, or a soap opera. And, realistically, I don’t expect a gay character in a movie, for that reason. And, also, it might be tough to shoehorn in. But even just a line – “I worked with her wife on the Intrepid.’ “His husband died on the Kelvin.” Hell, even a Chekov: “I knew the xenobiologist on that project very well. McCoy: Dr. Savar? Smartest guy in his field. Handsome, too.” (I’m kidding).

That said, Trek had plenty of romances-of-the-week over the years.

The movies didn’t, really, apart from the groan-worthy Decker and Ilia romance, oh, and Riker/Troi (I wasn’t a fan) and Picard/Donna Murphy (forced). Otherwise it was mostly over (Carol Marcus), or hinted at, and I think those (no romances) worked better for a movie, because you know it’s not going to last and that our hero is never really going to leave Starfleet.

343. The 76th Distillation of Blue - August 1, 2011

wow i have to say the delay till 2013(most likely) for star trek XII was well worth it after sitting through Super 8 and cowboys and aliens.
hahahaa
seriously we have to wait more than likely 12 more months for trek XII cause of these vanity projects that ended up sucking.
bring on a new creative team allready.
dont get me wrong i loved trek XI it was awesome, and showed great respect to the 40 plus years of trek that came before it, but its time for a new set of torch bearers to take command.

344. gingerly - August 1, 2011

I picture the Gene as this super-curious traveler, who probably asked a lot of questions on his journeys and smiled at the answers. :)

I hope we get that same feeling in the upcoming sequel.

That same joy of discovery, in just how alike and different the inhabitants of the universe really are.

…And I really want some super-epic gorgeous (or gorgeously ugly) rendered alien landscape, with a fantastic score accompanying and our trio’s awed eyes beholding it for the first time.

…And I still want a cool pre-credit opener, that showcasing just how cohesive and amazing this crew now is! (channel James Bond)

I want to let out my breath while those title letters spin around!

345. MJ - August 1, 2011

@343 “seriously we have to wait more than likely 12 more months for trek XII cause of these vanity projects that ended up sucking.”

Yep!

346. The 76th Distillation of Blue - August 1, 2011

342 decker illia was not groan worthy
star trek II had the carol marcus love intrest
star Trek III kind of hinted at the david marcus/savikk romance
star Trek IV had the Gillian love interest
Star Trek v had the indication of a scotty uhura romance
star Trek VI didnt really have one though there are some hints between spock and valaris
the movies definately had the romance of the week, just not always with kirk

347. Jack - August 1, 2011

343. Going to see Cowboys and Aliens now. Super 8 didn’t suck, in my opinion (and I thought it would have been as good without even seeing the darned [spoiler] alien). And, heck, Roger Ebert liked both of ‘em better than he liked Trek 09 (or Nemesis).

348. The 76th Distillation of Blue - August 1, 2011

mj you are the perfect example of the fan base who really enjoyed star trek XI and was the classic star trek fan who after trek XI was really excited where trek was heading only to become disillusioned by the so called supreme courts choices following trek XI
its almost like they used trek to further their careers then tossed it aside after it served its purpose.

so sad, cause trek XI was sooo good.

349. The 76th Distillation of Blue - August 1, 2011

254 the entire production budget for epside two of star wars came from george lucas wallet.
he financed all the prequel movies himself

350. MJ - August 1, 2011

@348. Exactly!

351. MJ - August 1, 2011

But there is good news. Now the Cowboys and Aliens is floundering, and given that Super 8 did not achieve the blockbuster status that some predicted (even though it did turn a profit) and bombed overseas, I predict that the Supreme Court will come back to Trek now with a renewed focus.

There is no better motivator in Hollywood than career adversity! These guys are suppose to the fanboy genius’s, the heir apparents to Spieldberg, etc, and believe me, they don’t want to become the scifi equivalent of Michael Cimeno.

352. The 76th Distillation of Blue - August 1, 2011

265 the quality unfortunately can be very dependent on the theatre chain you choose ( or have no choice) to view it on.
you see it in a theatre that knows that its the projectionist duty to check and change the brightness intensity of the bulb each time they show a new movie and keep on it for the movies entire run, and the picture will never look to dark.
the problem is most chains like AMC are to freaking cheap, or the projectionist/managers are to lazy to give a darn.

353. red dead ryan - August 1, 2011

#351.

First, “Super 8″ has done quite well at the box office. Its the sleeper hit of the summer. It wasn’t meant to be a blockbuster.

Second, one of these days you’re going to get Anthony Pascale so riled up he’ll end up banishing you to the internet purgatory.

Third, just who in the hell is Michael Cimeno??

354. Canon Schmanon - August 1, 2011

Some of you guys sound like a bunch of scared little girls. Just because these guys have turned out work since Trek09 that you see as inferior doesn’t mean they can’t do the next Trek well. Maybe that’s what they do best. But it’s all so subjective.

I can’t believe how some of you believe that if it doesn’t please you, it’s crap. I see a lot of things that I don’t like, but I won’t dismiss it as crap. You’re all fiercely partisan, and we can see how successful that has been by looking at our floundering governmental body of clowns.

I’ll judge the next film AFTER I see it, and decide if it was a failure, a win, or just meh. I might not like some of the things I hear about it, but I’ll not run around screaming in panic because of it.

Yeah, I hated the Transformers, but I thought they were actually pretty good, seeing as how it’s a movie BASED ON A BUNCH OF TOYS! I didn’t like Alias, I hated Lost after season 1, I thought MI:III was wretched, Super 8 was engaging but ultimately disappointing. I DO like Fringe. Cowboys and Aliens was fun and pretty much delivered what I wanted. So I’ve not liked the majority of what these guys have done. But together they did a very good job on Star Trek, IN MY OPINION. And I won’t trash it or praise it until I’ve seen it.

Some of you guys WANT this movie to be bad, to be a failure, just so you can day “See? I told you so!” There’s something kind of sad about that.

355. MJ - August 1, 2011

@353. Good points! For my part, Canon, as I said in my post 351 above, I am expecting a great Trek 2 out of these guys. I am still fuming about the potential one-year delay though, and I do realize that at some point I need to get over that. :-)

PS: Cowboys and Aliens should have been a lot more fun and less dark/serious. See my posts 289 and 321 above, as well as Vultan’s post 332.

356. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 1, 2011

How is Cowboys & Aliens being no. 1 at the Box Office floundering? Super 8 hovered in the top 5 most watched movies for a month or so as well in the USA (according to IMDb). Super 8 has not been released yet in some of the larger markets like the UK and Europe. The figures are not all in yet. C&A has not been released here in either Australia or NZ yet, although here downunder it is a smaller market, comparisons can still be made once the movie has had a bit of a run at cinemas…

357. MJ - August 1, 2011

@355. It barely edged out the Smurfs, and only made $36M in a summer tent-pole opening weekend. From Boxofficemojo.com:

“Cowboys & Aliens lassoed approximately 5,500 screens at 3,750 locations for its run, and claiming a first-place opening only slightly mitigated an otherwise disappointing gross for a movie that tried desperately to be a blockbuster. The sci-fi Western’s launch was on par with Super 8 ($35.5 million) and Battle: Los Angeles ($35.6 million) but behind District 9 ($37.4 million), and none of those movies reached blockbuster territory….Cowboys’ premise came off as contrived in its marketing, like a creatively bankrupt movie executive randomly combining genres in a bid for the next big thing, and left both the Western and alien invasion components wanting. The marketing’s serious tone belied the movie’s fun title, which itself had a Snakes on a Plane effect: title tells all in a goofily blunt way, so no need to see the movie. It also didn’t help to have two sourpuss lead actors (Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford) instead of a contrast. Like Warner Bros. and Green Lantern, Universal seemed to get a decent sampling out of the sheer will of its relentless year-long ad campaign.”

Enough said!

358. Jack - August 1, 2011

352. You’re right, dim bulbs are definitely an issue, even in 2D. But I still haven’t seen a 3D movie that I didn’t think was dark and muddy.

Super 8, and, heck, even Lost, suffered from the Stephen King effect — the reveal never quite matched the build-up.

353. I am still fuming about the potential one-year delay though, and I do realize that at some point I need to get over that. :-)

Fair enough.

359. MJ - August 1, 2011

@357. Well you didn’t see Avatar, Tron-E and Transformers-DSM as my local theater then. Those are the only movies I have shelled out the 3D dollars for, and they looked great in 3D.

I have a personal policy of not to pay to see post-converted 3D movies…I only pay for 3D for movies that are filmed in 3D. You won’t be disappointed if you adopt my policy.

360. red dead ryan - August 1, 2011

Looks like the numbers are screwed up again! People are responding to #353 which right now is my number but clearly isn’t directed at my post but towards Canon Schmanon, who shows up on my computer as #354.

Maybe my post got deleted.

361. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 1, 2011

Any mark against Cowboys & Aliens could be the fact that it has Harrison Ford as one of the main characters. Harrison Ford stopped playing being fun a while ago. He comes across, to me, as being a crotchety old man, on and off screen. How the main actors play their characters can have an impact on the overall feel of a movie and unfortunately, Ford keeps coming across as being something of a drag.

I remember feeling absolutely mortified when I read that Chris Pine had said he used Hans Solo (Harrison Ford) as sort of inspiration for playing Kirk, something like that, just before I saw the first movie. Thank God, he did not do a Hans Solo style James Kirk. Hans Solo was fun though, but not nearly as sophisticated, charming or good looking as James Kirk (both prime and alternate universes).

Awaiting 11 August…

362. gingerly - August 1, 2011

I do think some of y’all can come across like the kids jumping around trying to get their mom’s attention, while she’s on the phone…or you see Star Trek that way.

…But that’s not how things work. Not even if it was indeed their most important thing in the world (which it shouldn’t be, even now).

We all have various crap we need to do in life, and there’s nothing worse than having someone(s) hovering over your should telling you when and how to prioritize it.

363. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 1, 2011

#357 MJ – “It barely edged out the Smurfs, and only made $36M in a summer tent-pole opening weekend. From Boxofficemojo.com:…”

Yeah, I read that review on IMDb. So what? Just one guy’s opinion…
Was Cowboys & Aliens supposed to be a “summer tent-pole” movie, whatever, in the hell, “summer tent-pole” means? I am sick of reading this Hollywood/media jargon which means next to nothing except to pigeon-hole.

Cowboys & Aliens is at number 1 right now. A movie makes what it makes. Maybe it will remain there because lots of people like it and talk about it and maybe it won’t. People can be fickle and unpredictable. It is always something of a gamble…

(On the TV news, it stated that the US unemployment rate is at 9%. That is almost 30 million people without jobs or any real income. Perhaps that may be one of the reasons why box office sales are down. Surely finding money to put food on the table becomes a greater priority compared with going to see the latest movie…)

364. Neal - August 1, 2011

3-D is a worthless, unnecessary gimmick. That’s all I am going to say.

365. MJ - August 1, 2011

@362. Huh? Was this post meant for PopPsychology.com or something? :-))

366. MJ - August 1, 2011

@363. Look, I am just reporting the numbers and the credible sources are saying it it a big disappointment. You can wish the situation is different, but that is not going to change things. If you makes you happy to say it is number one over the Smurfs, then by all means, celebrate that!

I will tell you that when I say it yesterday that there were only 40 people in the theater. By contrast, on recent opening weekends for Captain America, Transformers and Super 8, the theater was nearly full.

Also, I don’t think it is credible to blame the poor box office performance of Cowboys and Aliens on the U.S. unemployment rate. It’s not doing well because both the reviews and the word of mouth on the film are negative.

367. MJ - August 1, 2011

Hey mom, get off the phone please and read my post above.

368. Jack - August 1, 2011

I went to Sunday school once when I was a kid. They had us go through Sears catalogs and magazines and cut out pictures of things our moms did – and all mine were pictures of my mom on the phone. “Now they’ll think I’m on the phone all the time,” she said, after, while uncharacteristically not on the phone.

That may have been around the time I started watching Trek in reruns.

We’ll have to talk more about this next session.

369. Jack - August 1, 2011

And, jokes aside. There’s certainly a sense of entitlement here some days. Heck, even the teens here are noticing how whiny we can be.

370. MJ - August 1, 2011

@369

“Hell, I know I’m a prima donna. I admit it. What I can’t stand about Monty is,
he won’t admit it.”
— General George S. Patton (talking to Ike about Field Marshall Montgomery)

371. itsmeohlord - August 2, 2011

#290 i agree. they have to start at least in january. okay, they could talk about it until i am am 99 years old… i imagine a trekmovie.com-site in the year 2060 or so and how a very old orci and a quite old abrams are still debating if they will and how they will … the next movie. lol.

372. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 2, 2011

MJ – You do not make sense. It is the most popular movie on at the moment. Does every movie HAVE to be a blockbuster? Hopefully it will get return on investment and then some. (I’m not sure what the budget was – not on its IMDb homepage for some reason).

Then again, the fact that C&A appears to be struggling must make you happy since you want it to fail, so that Orci and co. will properly focus on Star Trek. Peculiar thinking, but whatever makes you happy…

373. somethoughts - August 2, 2011

Berman allowed terrible ending to generations, allowed insurrection to be made and was a glorified bean counter. Wanted to impress suits that x budget could produce y profits. Berman is no visionary, a visionary would demand the highest quality screenplay, script and big budget to spend on fx shots for a space movie, therefore Berman failed and nearly killed star trek.

People need to stfu about 3D, star trek will be availalbe in 2D, and 3D will be availalbe for the people that enjoy 3D. Nobody is forcing you to watch it in 3D and it better be shot in 3D, not some lazy ass 3D conversion.

Complaining about 3D is like complaining about a film being available in colour for the rich, get over it and watch it in black and white, stop complaining about a option that you will not watch and let others enjoy that option. I feel bad for boborci n crew having to hear all this bs constantly, no wonder the film is delayed lol

374. P Technobabble - August 2, 2011

Okay, I’ll go another round.
I think it’s really too soon to pull the trigger on C&A when it’s only been out for one weekend. Yeh, that’s my opinion. The local newspaper’s movie critic here gave it 5 out of 5 stars. That’s his opinion. The guy at the LA Times didn’t care for it. That’s his opinion. What we do is give opinions.

Some of our opinions can be supported by assorted facts and figures, but those facts and figures are typically used to support one’s own preferences. One can look at the numbers for C&A and say it’s not doing well. Another can say the film is #1 at the box office, so it is doing well. Deeper than this, it appears that one’s attitude toward who made the film determines which side of the fence you’re on — at least on these boards.

Those of us who really like what the Court gives us are inclined to be supportive and positive about their work — whatever it is. Those who don’t like their work are always gonna find fault, flaws, and other negatives.
And, yes, there are times even when we love the artist, they can cook up something we don’t care for. I consider myself a true blue, hardcore Trekkie (since ’66), but there are episodes (of all the series) that I will simply skip over. But that never diminished my love of Star Trek. Nor did the episodes I didn’t like compel me to dislike the people who made them, or get all negative and nit-picky toward them. I think Gene Coon was one of the best things that ever happened to Star Trek. But “Spock’s Brain?” C’mon… Yet, that does not diminish what I think of his other work.
I have not seen every single thing the Court has put out, but I’ve seen enough to know that I like what they do. I liked Fringe, and Trek09, and C&A, and I could go on. I think they are the hottest, most significant players right now, and they wouldn’t be there if they weren’t doing SOMETHING right, hm?
And I am not saying everyone should share the same opinions. However, it is better for all when opinions are presented and considered in a positive way, rather than throwing rocks at each other. I rest my case…

375. Marc McKenzie - August 2, 2011

@195:

Excellent. Very good points, and it’s the truth. I’ve found that many of the “fans” who bitch and moan about Bob and Alex’s writing have never even written a script (and cannot even write comments themselves!). These “fans” are often rude and are, well, @$$holes of the highest order who think that they know more about moviemaking….even though they’ve never gone to film school.

And yes, they’re the reason why I no longer read the comments at AICN. Too many of these f*#@ing jerks.

I’ll give Bob Orci a lot of credit–he steps into the lion’s den and does a damned good job. He doesn’t have to, and if it were me, I wouldn’t even bother, but Bob’s a better man than all of us, and I wish him and Alex continued success. They’ve earned it.

376. Aurore - August 2, 2011

“I’ll give Bob Orci a lot of credit–he steps into the lion’s den and does a damned good job. He doesn’t have to,…”

Ooooh , but he does….
Of course, he likes this very site (he said as much).
But , I always believed that , there was a certain method to his stepping into the lion’s den madness , as it were !

That said , I also believed that William Shatner had moved on with regards to
the Star Trek sequel.

So, I could be wrong…

377. MJ - August 2, 2011

@375 “And yes, they’re the reason why I no longer read the comments at AICN. Too many of these f*#@ing jerks.”

Who is worse, passionate fans disappointed by the new movie being an entire year late and understandably upset about it, or name callers making it personal and telling those fans that they are “f*#@ing jerks.”

“And yes, they’re the reason why I no longer read the comments at AICN.”

Here’s my toast to the lucky posters at AICN who don’t have to put up with your personal attacks and foul language anymore!

378. MJ - August 2, 2011

@372. “MJ – You do not make sense. It is the most popular movie on at the moment. Does every movie HAVE to be a blockbuster? Hopefully it will get return on investment and then some.”

Again, I’m just reporting what all the film-related media is saying. This is not some opinion (that C&A is bombing) I just came up with. If you want to think that it’s successful, and that it has met the expectations of the studio, I’m not stopping you — but that is a dream.

BTW, the movie cost $150M to produce, and $50M to market. So please get back to me when it tops $200M.

379. FarStrider - August 2, 2011

@378 Even ST09 didn’t make back it’s production cost in one weekend. . . I don’t think you are being quite fair here. . .

~FS

380. Starfleet's Finest - August 2, 2011

Boy, am I late coming in to this conversation. Anywho, my opinion on the the article:
Please, no 3D. 3D is a more of a fad whereas Star Trek is a legacy so mixing the two? Eh, not so much…
To Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman I loved your work on ST:09, you brought Star Trek back into the limelight were it belongs, so you have my support. I know, that makes all the difference now doesn’t it? :P

381. MJ - August 2, 2011

@381. And based upon the above article, the films total production plus marketing budget is actually about $310 Million.

So Keachick, Farstrider, now that you have this information, please tell me that you can see why this movie needs to to make blockbuster-level money to just break even, and why the $36M opening domestic weekend points to a dire financial scenario for this film? Please tell me that you now get this???

382. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 2, 2011

I guess the one person who could tell the cost of C&A production is busy, busy, busy at another wee project that is behind schedule. Some have handguns, whips and spurs and agonisers at the ready if you, Roberto Orci and those other team members are not at the Trek grindstone… Nobody said it was easy, but somebody’s gotta do it…:)

If MJ is right about C&A being a tad too dark and serious, remember that Star Trek is more about a more evolved, sophisticated and less dour society and group of people. Perhaps there may be a need to ease up on the dark and dour. After all, this is our future we are talking about?!…;)

383. Marc McKenzie - August 2, 2011

@377:

Uh, MJ….have you checked there lately? They are not “passionate fans” but mealy-mouthed armchair filmmakers who love to boast about how they know more about films than any living being in Hollywood while admitting that they cannot write or direct or even lift a finger to make a film.

I’m not talking about the ones who actually write or run AICN. What I am talking about are those who fill the talkbacks with so much swill and bull pucky that the comments could be considered Superfund cleanup sites.

And if you’re upset at my language….please. Most of the comments fit what Ellison slammed about the Net:

” You can find vicious, idle, demonstrably demented rumor, lie,
gossip…endless adolescent behavior on the level of a baby
showing his pee-pee…rampant arrogant ignorance…all of the
worst grade school misbehavior…treated as if it is worthy
distraction, enriching minutiae and not just babble…worthless
lay opinions, racism, bigotry, bullying…”

I have no problem with someone not liking Bob or Alex’s work. Film is subjective. But when someone goes into personal attacks, that’s when the boot has to be put in.

“Here’s my toast to the lucky posters at AICN who don’t have to put up with your personal attacks and foul language anymore!”

Well, until they stop their nonsense, I will continue to call them what they are: stuck up, self-righteous, and incapable of doing anything in the creative fields. If they would actually spend time trying to do something better–you know, write a better screenplay or novel or make a better film that they feel they could poop out–I would tip my hat in their direction. No such effort is being made.

384. MJ - August 2, 2011

@384. OK Marc, I understand your position and anger better now. Thanks!

385. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 2, 2011

#383 I agree. I have read the kind of stuff on other sites, like IMDb message boards. One of the reasons why Chris Pine won’t do Facebook, Twitter etc, I believe, is because of what he described as “vitriolic” postings that many people (including *fans*) will often do under pseudonyms. His continued resistance to being involved was confirmed a few months ago. Of course, when what he said was first published 3 or 4 years back, the comments on various boards only served to prove his point. Sad but true.

386. MJ - August 2, 2011

@386. It would be very interesting to see how behavior would change on these boards if everyone had to register their real names, email addresses and location, for all to see.

387. The 76th Distillation of Blue - August 2, 2011

386 thats actually not a bad idea,
for the most part i think the civility of people on most message boards would increase if real names and email addresses were required
no so sure about the location thing cause that could enable stalking to a degree though.

388. ensign joe - August 2, 2011

#375 ” I’ve found that many of the “fans” who bitch and moan about Bob and Alex’s writing have never even written a script ”

So, using your logic, wouldn’t it be fair to say:

“I’ve found that many of the “fans” who make absolutely adoring comments about Bob and Alex’s writing have never even written a script”

Which is to say, so what.

Think about it.

389. red dead ryan - August 2, 2011

“Cowboys & Aliens” no doubt had a disappointing opening. I don’t think Paramount is too happy about a very expensive film making only $36 million at the box office with “The Smurfs” nipping at it’s heels. “Star Trek”, on the other hand made at least double the amount that C&A did on its opening weekend and managed to keep going for another couple of months. It had legs, something which I doubt C&A has. If a movie starring the legend Harrison Ford and the new action hero Daniel Craig manages to just barely beat a critically panned movie (“The Smurfs”) then what does that say about its prospects of earning back its production costs?

390. MJ - August 2, 2011

@390. It is also telling to me that Anthony is not putting up a Cowboys and Aliens review. He probably doesn’t want to upset Orci and company with a bad review, nor does he want to be seen as pandering by putting up a good review of a flawed movie. I think he is smart to sit this one out…that is certainly what I would do here if I was in his position.

391. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 2, 2011

Using pseudonyms for many is probably about privacy. I know I have written some things here and on other sites that some may describe as “sexually expressive”, innuendo etc. I have not hidden my affection and delight in the seen physical characteristics of an actor called Chris Pine. I have no idea what some of you may think of some things I have written here on this site, but I do suspect that some of you may have *misunderstandings* as to who I am. Fortunately, because the vast majority here appear to be polite, good people, nobody has put me down and I thank you for that. You have allowed me to be me, Keachick (rose pinenut).

I think it is about being as polite and positive as you can be, even if you may (vehemently) disagree with another poster’s viewpoint. I am grateful that most of the time, that has been what has happened here.

My real first name is Rosemary – a rose for remembrance. My paternal grandmother’s surname was Rose.

392. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 2, 2011

correction: grandmother’s maiden name was Rose.

393. Sarah - August 2, 2011

264: I’m sure they resorted to test tube babies

394. Sarah - August 2, 2011

Nobody wants to be extinct.

395. MJ - August 2, 2011

@392. Cool!

396. Jack - August 2, 2011

394. Enough with the lesbian/bisexual = extinction nonsense, please.

Oh, and my name’s actually Jason. The ‘Jack’ is a long story.

397. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 2, 2011

Hi, Jason. My second son’s name is also Jason! Jason – an adventurer, explorer, healer – according to the legend. It’s all good.

398. Vultan - August 2, 2011

My real name is Vultan.
Parents can be so cruel…

;)

399. MJ - August 2, 2011

@399. My real name is William Shatner. I’ve been fooling you all for two years by slamming myself continuously.

;-))

400. Vultan - August 2, 2011

#399

So you’re into self-abuse?

401. Christopher Roberts - August 2, 2011

Sounds like a fun game.

I am actually Christ. I just tack on “opher” plus the most common surname on the planet.

Mainly because I’m so sick of folks tugging on my beard and asking me what time the Rapture’s due.

I mean, how the HELL should I know?

Not using a pen name, this post will be lost for several years now… THEN come back to haunt me when I’m announced as the next Pope.

402. red dead ryan - August 2, 2011

#399.

Well, at least you know how to “slam the ham”!

403. Michael Hall - August 2, 2011

” It would be very interesting to see how behavior would change on these boards if everyone had to register their real names, email addresses and location, for all to see.”

LOL!–well, I do use my real name, and see what happens? Someone bestows upon me the nickname of a (fortunately fictional) TV serial killer!

404. MJ - August 2, 2011

@404. Well, there is that! :-)

405. MJ - August 2, 2011

@402

Hi Christopher, I’m Nero.

:-))

406. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 2, 2011

How interesting. You realise that I have more chance of being recognised than I would assume any of you guys would have of being recognised by someone you knew and either liked or disliked or knew did not like you. I live in a city of 1.2 million people (greater Auckland area) whereas, as MJ, sorry William Shatner (I believe ya, honey…:), noted the greater Los Angeles area has about 20 million people, 20 times the population of Auckland. Yet you guys seems more *scared*(?) to reveal even your first names than I am.

Like the rest of you, I have no idea who may be reading these boards and where they come from. Perhaps somebody from Auckland does read these boards, but what are the chances that they would actually recognise me from what I have said about myself? I believe I have revealed more about myself (as in family etc) than any of you have.

So, what’s the story here? Seriously, I am curious. Anyone?

407. MJ - August 2, 2011

Basically, I worry that anything said by me officially on the Internet will never go away. Perhaps that is a bit paranoid,but there you have it. :-)

408. Herb Finn - August 3, 2011

Lens flairs and 3D? :)

409. Hugh Hoyland - August 3, 2011

Hi Im Larry, and this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl. :]

410. Aurore - August 3, 2011

376 . Aurore.

“Of course, he likes this very site (he said as much).”

Please, provide a link from a credible source .

:)

411. Ryan Spooner - August 3, 2011

Over 400 comments, wow.

Anyhow, regarding 3D… guys don’t forget that when a film is made in 3D, you have a choice. Plenty of cinemas (movie theatres) show a 2D version of the movie too… you don’t HAVE to watch it in 3D.

While I agree that 3D has been used as a gimmick on many films, on other films where it has been done well, it really adds to the movie. I personally would love to see a big trek ship battle in 3D.

Besides, Bob and Alex’s comments about them not thinking about 3D kind of go without saying… why would the writers of the story be thinking about it? That’s like saying J.K.Rowling was thinking about 3D when she wrote the Harry Potter stories.

412. the Quickening - August 3, 2011

#373

You wrote–
Berman allowed terrible ending to generations…

It’s not fair to totally blame Berman for the problems with the ending of GENERATIONS, and not blame the writers first. Why should a man’s attempt to fix something–which is broken–make him more responsible than the men responsible for it in the first place: Braga and Moore?

You wrote–
… Wanted to impress suits that x budget could produce y profits…

I can’t blame Berman for Paramount’s decision–starting with TWOK–to churn out made-for-TV movies. Berman wasn’t even connected with TREK when that started. Paramount told Berman what x budget would be, and what y profits to expect.

When TOS finished their movies, Paramount had to find a film producer because of their decision to bring TNG to the movies (a decision in itself that one has to at least question). They had the choice to choose a film producer. They instead chose a TV producer. Their bad.

You wrote–
… Berman is no visionary, a visionary would demand the highest quality screenplay, script and big budget to spend on fx shots for a space movie, therefore Berman failed and nearly killed star trek.

You can blame Berman for several things, but not for inadequate budgets (as expected by today’s audiences) and limited fx shots that cost money he wasn’t given (probably a good thing). And, what about the writing? He made a bad choice picking Braga and Moore to write GENERATIONS (Their first film. Really questionable decision.); a good choices picking Braga and Moore to write FIRST CONTACT; a bad choice picking Michael Piller to write INSURRECTION; and, I still think, a good choice picking John Logan to write NEMESIS. The thing is, overt and demonstrative criticisms in this area are questionable. No one sets out to make a bad movie. Yes, Berman takes the responsibility, but I’m not gonna beat him up for it. Some times making movies is just a crap-shoot. Which is why Paramount should have made a better choice picking someone to produce movies in the first place. More talent… less crap.

413. Starfleet's Finest - August 3, 2011

@408 Oh, wow. Haha. I didn’t think of that…that’s kinda a scary thought… :)

414. Vultan - August 3, 2011

#407

That’s not paranoid at all, MJ.
It’s smart.

More and more people are getting into trouble by putting too much personal info and opinions on the web. If only George Orwell could see us now! No need for Big Brother style police states. People seem all too willing to reveal themselves to the world [and all those watching].

415. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 3, 2011

#414 – “More and more people are getting into trouble by putting too much personal info and opinions on the web. If only George Orwell could see us now! No need for Big Brother style police states. People seem all too willing to reveal themselves to the world [and all those watching].”

Perhaps I am being a bit naive, but can you give some examples of an ordinary joe blogg getting into trouble over expressing an opinion (political or otherwise) and revealing some small personal detail about themselves. I’m not talking about the crude, rude, trolls (or could they be called roaches because they seem to get into everything/be everywhere, if not rigourously controlled?)
(I know that celebrities, politicians etc can get crap if things are revealed about them that goes against the “grain” for some…)

Should I be scared for revealing even my real first name? I don’t know, which is why I am asking…

416. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 3, 2011

This thread is the newest article dealing with the progress(?) of the Star Trek sequel movie. We have not heard anything since from the Bad Robot team or Paramount. Now I know what it must feel like to be an elephant “in waiting”. Female elephants have 22 month pregnancies…or could this be more like watching paint dry? Probably much the same, although after about 20 months of carrying around a growing baby elephant, she could start to feel rather achy and tired with it all.

Star Trek sequel writers/producers – need an accurate ETD please!

417. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 3, 2011

Even though I am not too posh to push, there is the caesarian section option, if all else fails. Not the best, but if needs must…

Bob Orci? What say you?…:)

418. Vultan - August 3, 2011

#415

Not sure if you have had much of this is New Zealand, but here in the US there have been quite a few cases of people getting fired from a job for writing something critical of their company or boss on Facebook (a friend of mine was once fired for simply being a Facebook friend of someone her boss didn’t like), or revealing some little personal things about themselves to someone they really don’t know—sometimes leading to identity theft. Most of these cases have been younger people, and then there has been a rise in “cyber bullying” in schools.

Then of course, it’s been widely reported of Facebook selling personal information to advertisers and such. Anyway, I wouldn’t think that revealing a first name on a Trek site would lead to anything bad, but you do have to be on guard these days.

Just treat your identity as you do your wallet—hidden and with you at all times.

419. Jack - August 3, 2011

398. It’s becoming a popular name — three friends have kids named Vultan, girls mind you.

Alas, yep. I’m not given much away with the Jason.

420. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 3, 2011

Thank you, Vultan. I have heard of people being fired in the US because of what they have said on Facebook or similar. Not good. I’m not sure if it has happened here, but it’s possible.

I don’t have Facebook or Twitter.

421. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 3, 2011

When I read the name Vultan, I immediately think “male”. Not sure why.

422. Vultan - August 3, 2011

#420

You’re welcome. I’m not on Facebook or Twitter either. Of course, these sites do have their positive points, but with so many negative, counterproductive things coming from them, I don’t see myself signing up anytime soon. I can keep up with old friends just as easily by good old-fashioned email, and I really don’t have much interest in sparking revolutionary movements in Middle Eastern countries. ;)

423. Vultan - August 3, 2011

#421

Yes, Vultan is male—as am I.

The name comes from Flash Gordon. Vultan is leader of the Hawkmen of Mongo. Not sure why I chose that particular alias. Maybe it’s because the character is a noisy brute. Maybe because it sounds like “Vulcan.” Maybe both. :D

424. MJ - August 3, 2011

@421 @423 ditto, I am not doing Facebook or Twitter either — don’t really want that connection/social deal. I am considering LinkedIn for business contacts.

425. somethoughts - August 3, 2011

Same here, I never got into the whole facebook, twitter hoopla. I keep in contact with friends and family through email and phone text msgs.

426. PM1701 - August 3, 2011

As 3D makes the screen dark(seriously, isn’t this just a massive insult to the DOP? It just trashes what they intended for the film to look), it will definitely soften up all the damned lens flares. Go for it. Or get another director. :)

427. Anthony Pascale - August 3, 2011

MJ

you really must stop with your conspiracy theories…and that is not a suggestion.

I just havent seen Cowboys & Aliens. The premiere was at SDCC and I chose not to go at the last minute and missed reviewer screenings in LA. I probably wont see it until after Vegas Con.

RE: performance of Super 8 & Cowboys
Again as noted in the past Super 8 has been a big success from the point of view of Paramount. It performed beyond expectations and very well for its budget, plus it also has very good reviews. As for Super 8 I dont know ppl at Universal well enough to know but I expect that even though it is performing gross numbers almost exactly like Super 8, they were expecting more due to the significantly higher budget. The film is also getting mixed reviews.

However, I dont really see how this impacts Star Trek either way. O&K are one of the many many producers on Cowboys and so responsibility is shared by many. Plus they already have lots of stuff lined up and I dont really see this having a big impact on their future or certainly on Trek. They were already motivated to make it good.

428. Vultan - August 3, 2011

#424

I have used LinkedIn, MJ, and it does seem to be a valuable way of keeping business and/or friend contact info—as a social network should be! Not scribbling random thoughts on a “wall” every five minutes. Really, who cares?!

429. Mortos Der Soul Stealer - August 4, 2011

Kurtzman: When we were first approached about doing the first one we said “No.” and it took us a year to say “Yes.” for all of the same reasons. We just did not want to mess it up.

Whut??? Didn’t want to “mess it up”???? That’s exactly what they did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can he actually say that with a straight face?????

430. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 4, 2011

#429 It is only your opinion that Kurtzman and co. messed things up. There are many others, including myself, who do not believe that he messed anything up. It is quite appropriate that he would say what he said with a straight face.

431. Mortos Der Soul Stealer - August 5, 2011

@430 Yeppers. It is my opinion that they messed things up. Kirk is now a complete jerk with less common sense than God gave a fence post. The Enterprise caracaturized into a kitbashed travesty. Engineering has been turned into the Titanic’s boiler room. The bridge is now an Apple store. Vulcan is gone. Romulus is gone. Amanda is dead. Kirk’s dad is dead. Delta Vega has been relocated and turned into Hoth. Scotty is now the comic relief. Chekov is four years older than he should be. I could go on and on. Yeah. They seriously fcuked things up. Sorry if you can’t see it. It’s plain as day to me.

432. Guy from Berlin - August 6, 2011

I can not understand the 3d haters. Every 3d movie can also screened in 2D. Exotic planets and the beautifull space will be amazing in 3d – like avatar! Certainly needed a 3d star trek movie a cleaner visualisation and not the Abrams-Shaky-Wacky-Cam !

433. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 7, 2011

Actually Romulus still exists in the alternate universe. Did you not hear Pike say so? Your criticisms are unoriginal, overly emotive and shows to me that you did not properly watch the movie, preferring your own negative projections. Most of the time Scotty was not a comic relief. At the end of the movie, he was panicked and seemed a little out of his depth, but he still managed to save the ship. Kirk is not a jerk, however he did get picked on by jerks at the beginning of the movie.

This is an alternate, or did you miss that bit? People do not have to be the exact same age that they were in the prime universe. People can also die at a different time to when they died in the prime universe and it is possible to have more than one planet/moon with the same name. The universe is a big place. Time is not a static thing, nor is life.

434. Conor kirk picard sisko janeway - September 10, 2011

please do the new star trek film in 3D It will let all star trek fans feel like there on Enterprise bridge and in the middle of a star ship battle e.g when phazers are fireing and torpedoes are shot make it so jj abrams

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