JJ Abrams: Star Trek Sequel Will ‘Start Over’ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: Star Trek Sequel Will ‘Start Over’ November 23, 2011

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek (2009 film),Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

We now know when the next Star Trek movie is coming out (May 2013), but we still don’t know how much it will be tied together with Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek movie. A new comment from producer/director JJ Abrams indicates that the sequel will stand on its own. Details below. 


Abrams: Star Trek Sequel starts over

In an interview promoting the release of Super 8 on DVD & Blu-ray with New York Magazine’s Vulture Blog, JJ Abrams ventured a bit into talking about Star Trek. Here is the most interesting quote:

Vulture: Alcatraz comes out soon, joining Person of Interest — two Bad Robot shows on at the same time. With both these projects out, do you feel like you’ve escaped the shadow of Lost?
Abrams: Well, I’m working with Damon Lindelof right now on the new Star Trek. And what’s great is when we start talking about story, Lost will come up because we’ve both been through that together. He ran the show for six years. I left the day-to-day stuff by the end of the first season, but my association with that show is something that is incredibly gratifying. I’m thrilled I was involved in it in any way, and grateful to Damon for running that show, I think brilliantly, for six years. But it’s very difficult to ever do something when you’re thinking about something else you’ve done. So I don’t really dwell on any of the movies. Even working on Star Trek right now, we cannot in any way rely on the first Star Trek. We can’t think, Okay, we’ve got it in the bag, everyone loves these characters. We have to start over in a way.

With the lead up the the 2009 Star Trek movie, Abrams and his team stressed how much they worked to make the film appeal to both fans and to regular filmgoers. And the approach worked as the film became a big hit. Of course "starting over" doesn’t mean another franchise reboot, but Abrams does seem to be indicating that the sequel will stand on its own without relying on the first film. 

Abrams directing 2009’s "Star Trek"



1. somethoughts - November 23, 2011

Interesting, hoping they reboot klingons

2. Old Geezer - November 23, 2011

The ‘start over’ part is taken out of context. Come on… There is no need for that.

3. SirBroiler - November 23, 2011

Sounds like they are getting serious.


4. N - November 23, 2011

Good I like stand alone movies better. That way your not trapped if the other movies stink.

5. aapip1 - November 23, 2011

Very interesting. I still have to believe that they will need to address the question of Vulcan’s destruction in some significant fashion. It is simply too big an event to ignore or have no consequences for the entire Federation. I wonder if Abrams was trying to say that it was important for the filmmakers to re-establish a new sense of credibility for the main characters with the audience members, to work hard to regain a sense of trust and connection with the audience about the Star Trek crew and what makes them such great characters.

Of course, that work would be a lot easier if the movie were completed for a 2012 showing instead of 2013.

6. The Last Vulcan - November 23, 2011

Even more justification for my belief that there is not going to be any TOS or TNG carryover villain.

7. Anthony Thompson - November 23, 2011

You mean, no pickup of the romance between Spock and Uhura? Say it ain’t so! ; )

8. Ahmed Abdo - November 23, 2011

What I liked most in Star Trek (TV series & movies) is the continuity, the interconnections in the various shows that made it more realistic universe.

I hope that we will see something like that in Star Trek 12, a story that will acknowledge the past while moving the story in new directions.

9. bmar - November 23, 2011

#5 aapip1 – unlikely. I’m betting they won’t deal with Vulcan at all, or at most, give it a passing mention. You’re forgetting that, unless you’re a very devoted fan, no one cares about Vulcan.

Now interestingly, I actually consider myself a big fan, but could care less about whether they give any time to Vulcan or not. Give me a great adventure, great story and great characters and skip worrying about whether the Vulcans will survive. There’s only one Vulcan that matters, ultimately, and he’s on the bridge of the Enterprise.

Sometimes, the Star Trek universe is a heavy burden on a story. So much so that it can dull it down, slow it down and drive away the mass audience that it needs to survive.

10. Prologic9 - November 23, 2011

It doesn’t sound like he’s saying what you’re saying he’s saying.

11. Daoud - November 23, 2011

Nah, save Vulcan for the sequel. It’ll be about seven years. Imagine the first Pon Farrs seven years after Vulcan’s destruction!

12. John in Canada, eh? - November 23, 2011

#10: I say, I agree with what you’re saying, and like the way you’re saying it.

Well – I think I’m going to have to bow out now. I stopped reading TrekMovie at least a year before the movie came out — I think James McAvoy was in the running for the role of Scotty at that point, and it took me 10 minutes of watching the movie to recognize Simon Pegg — because I wanted a clear, unspoiled movie watching experience.

I’m glad I did that – I had no idea who was playing Kirk and the gang (I knew Quinto had the Spock role, and that was it), who the baddies were, or anything else. (Well, except that Nimoy was in for a role ‘larger than a cameo’.) I’m convinced I enjoyed the film all the more as it was all new for me.

So now I know who’s likely playing the bad guy, and that it’s on a jungle planet. And I don’t want to know any more. So, I’ll bid adieu to Anthony and the fine commentators I’ve met here, wish everyone well, and I’ll be back on opening night to discuss the film after I’ve seen it. Cheers.

13. Andy Patterson - November 23, 2011


Have to say that’s some discipline there. As a person who didn’t like the new movie I visit this site every day. But I visit for other things.

14. Odkin - November 23, 2011

They should NOT spend time extrapolating on the plot threads from the first movie. I want a new movie, not a rehash of what happened to Vulcan or future Spock. Let’s just agree to forget Spock/uhura ever happened.

Kind of like how WoK didn’t waste time mourning about Ilia and Decker, or Spocks’ failed purification ritual. It stood 100% on it’s own.

Get the adventure STARTED. Don’t wallow in the last movie at all.

15. VOODOO - November 23, 2011

I hope we get some answers about what Spock prime is up to.

16. Count - November 23, 2011

What he’s saying when he says, “starting over” is not that he’s rebooting the series again. More like comparion TWOK and Search for Spock with Generations and first contact. Whereas the first pair were directly sequeled, the second pair were simply related only so much in “this happened before, but it’s not relevant to the story now” kind of way.

17. Tropicthndr - November 23, 2011

As long as they dont use cheap back drops like beer factories for engine rooms and corny Australian voices for aliens it will be something to watch maybe, unless they think the audience wont notice again.

18. Red Dead Ryan - November 23, 2011

The brewery will be back. J.J Abrams likes it. Felt it added some realism.

I just hope they try to disguise it by making it a little more futuristic-looking.

19. Quark - November 23, 2011

Wow, there are even lens flares in the behind-the-scenes photo above.

20. Jimbro - November 23, 2011

The title is taken out of context and implies something completely different from what was said. :\

21. Gary S. - November 23, 2011

A lot of people seem to think Abrams just said that he killed the Spock /Uhura romance.
I didnt hear that at all.

22. Red Dead Ryan - November 23, 2011

BTW, I just watched “Super 8″ again last night, this time on Blu Ray. Classic. Those who haven’t seen it really need to.

23. somethoughts - November 23, 2011


They should make the particle accelerator at cern as the main engineering :)

24. somethoughts - November 23, 2011

This screams main engineering and they don’t have to spend a whole lot to build it :) go to cern JJ!


25. MC1 Doug - November 23, 2011

Start over? Good.

Maybe they’ll change the sets and those damned engine nacelles.

26. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 23, 2011

The film never said that what we saw was main engineering. It was a water coolant and recycling area, as well as impulse engines. It seemed a bit large though for what I thought was the overall size of the ship.
Anyone seen a warp core engine plans? It might be a good idea if they sent JJ and co. those plans toute suite, so they can build a *proper* warp core engine…;)

27. Bryan - November 23, 2011

Enough with the misleading headlines, if you please

28. Nick Tierce - November 23, 2011

I think what he really means is that the drama of this picture can not rely on the connection set up in the first. It can use the first as a springboard, but it has to have it’s own character arcs, setups and payoffs; a self-contained piece of work.

29. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 23, 2011


Not bad.

30. Rusty0918 - November 23, 2011

#18 – Yeah and we’ll get railing deaths and brick walls to go with it. *cringe*

31. sgreco - November 23, 2011

if he’s really, really smart he’ll do the origin of Khan. Given that this will be, in a way, be ‘star trek 2′

Khan would fill theaters.

32. MJ - November 23, 2011

Good to hear about the fresh start — to me, that means they will be at least a year or two into their first 5 year mission, which is very good considering that all have aged four years. It would have stretched credibility a bit to have the first movie pick up right where the first one left off.

Some other likely takeaways from this comment from JJ:

— Pike will likely not be in the movie
— Doubt we will see Earth in this one
— Forget about Spock Prime

Incidentally, I would not at all be surprised if Kirk’s brother appeared in this one.

33. MJ - November 23, 2011


— Toned down Spock/Uhura relationship
— Not much on Vulcan’s destruction

34. jkimgant - November 24, 2011

I love, love, LOVE Star Trek…I REALLY wish I didn’t feel so pissy about how long they took to get around to it. I don’t want to be a hater and I admire these guys so much. But I can’t help it…I’m f@#$ing mad.

35. Admmiral_Bumblebee - November 24, 2011

Hmmm, somehow I wouldn’t mind another reboot of Star Trek…

36. Thorny - November 24, 2011

“Two Bad Robot shows…”? I guess no love for ‘Fringe’…

37. Rusty0918 - November 24, 2011

Yeah I could live with it being CERN. No problem.

MJ – 32, you’re right about Pike not likely being in the film, as well as Spock Prime. And on #33, you’re right about there not being much on Vulcan’s destruction.

I hope Kirk isn’t a whiny-ass Mary Sue in this one. He came off like that some of the time in Trek 2009.

And I agree, the whole “start over” thing is SEVERELY taken out of context.

38. La Reyne D'Epee - November 24, 2011

To go back to the original mission statement, ” to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no man has gone before” I personally hope they don’t retread old ground but give us something totally new.

39. Jai1138 - November 24, 2011

Creativity thrives on both the familiar and the unfamiliar. Look at Trek II, Lucas’s approach to Empire and Jedi, Coppola’s reinvention of The Godfather Part II — I beieve Mr. Abrams’ has that kind of crazy energy and I want to see ST 2.

40. Calastir - November 24, 2011

J.J., please. PLEASE stop pandering to the mainstream audience, they’re a lost cause. All these reboots are further splitting up and destroying the fanbase.

Either start minding your target audience (Trekkies) or just don’t bother.

That, and no more breweries, for Kirk’s sake.

41. CmdrR - November 24, 2011

Another update that basically says nothing.
How bout: “cams rolls, Klingons boffo! — sez JJ”

42. George - November 24, 2011

I don’t understand what it means to not rely on the first Star Trek Movie. Will it be reset like the original series ? Will the new movie time line will not be altered in the next movie or nothing will be mentioned from in the first movie? Losing the Vulcans is HUGE – in the story line.

43. The Keeper - November 24, 2011

I understand fully what he means by “starting over” and stand alone film.
Yes, I agree that each film in this series should almost be like a fresh start, not relying on other installments in the series as a jump oint of their next story.
Also, this way if any redesing are needed, they are not tied down to explaining it in needless scenes.
And we all know how much Star Trek fans need to be hand held thru a movie in order to follow a film……YEAH MORE LENS FLARES!!!!!!!
(and I do mean that, I liked them)

44. VulcanFilmCritic - November 24, 2011

I don’t think he means starting over in terms of destroying the established “canon” of the first film. I just think that they need the freedom to tell new stories. TOS occasionally mentioned pre-existing events (e.g. Harry Mudd) but generally when you watch TOS in syndication (randomly) it doesn’t matter where you jump in. Watched sequentially we presume that the seasons roughly correspond to the years of the mission of the Enterprise, but that’s it as far as story arc goes.

One thing that vexed me about the Harry Potter movies was the enormous amount of information that I was missing because I was unfamiliar with some of the previous movies and the books. An audience should be able to jump into Star Trek…whenever.

Hopefully, we will be able to bounce forward in time a little bit. The whole Starfleet Academy thing is getting a little tired, and I don’t think it will be very believable as the actors are aging somewhat. Wouldn’t it be great to see them a few years into their “real” mission? The crew are more mature and Captain Pike is now an older man, with a lot of gray hair, as most starship captains are. Or maybe he’s even an admiral.

45. trekker 5 - November 24, 2011

That’s great!! I’m jazzeed! :) :D

46. Scooter - November 24, 2011

I am all for an original story, new characters and lots of action. There is no reason why the next Trek has to be tied to be limited by the last movie. Also, no Shatner, no Kahn, no Harry Mudd.

47. Cervantes - November 24, 2011

As long as any ‘start over’ means not including ‘Scotty’s’ ridiculous ‘sidekick’, I’m all for it!

48. Greenberg - November 24, 2011

“And the approach worked as the film became a big hit”

Yep, all about the $$$.

49. Janice - November 24, 2011

Happy Thanksgiving to all the Americans!

I’m going to stay positive and assume Pike WILL be in the sequel and I’ll do that until I read different from someone from on high.
Of all the cast, Pike is the one I definitely want to see. He’s the reason I loved the 2009 movie.

50. Vulcan Soul - November 24, 2011

It seems they are indeed “starting over” with introducing yet another “cartoon villain”, if respective rumors and these “talks” with Benito whatever mean anything. That is so 1930s (Flash Gordon serials, anyone)? Even the new Planet of the Apes remake got it right – simplistic good vs. evil is something for kids and not what a modern audience is satisfied with in a science fiction movie.

51. Sebastian S. - November 24, 2011

Hope they don’t forget those elements that made the last movie so good.
I for one hope they bring back Pike in some capacity.

Bruce Greenwood’s Captain Pike was one of the things I really liked about the last one; especially the sort of ‘cool’ Obi-wan mentor role he played to Kirk.

While I agree that the story should stand on it’s own, it should also (in a small way) reward those who enjoyed the last one as well…

52. Dee - lvs moon' surface - November 24, 2011

He said only that they not settled with the success of the previous film… they want more from the next… I understood it that way… OK then… Great!

:-) :-)

53. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 24, 2011

31. sgreco

Great idea. Somehow Enterprise “the Series” missed that big opportunity.

But unfortunate that the 1st movie is apparently now going to be considered as a bottle episode. Even though they wrecked the timeline and did not put it back together again. And now we are starting over??!!

I was hoping for more.

54. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 24, 2011

44. VulcanFilmCritic – November 24, 2011

“…Or maybe he’s even an admiral.”

You have GOT to be kidding me.

55. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 24, 2011

40. Calastir

Right on!

56. somethoughts - November 24, 2011

I think jj meant the sequel will be accessible by new viewers without the need for watching the previous movies, like mission impossible, indiana jones, or batman.

57. VulcanFilmCritic - November 24, 2011

@54 TrekMadeMeWonder: “You have GOT to be kidding me.”


58. chrisfawkes.com - November 24, 2011

Scotty’s side kick was a bit ja ja binks. The only bad thing about the last film so i too hope the new film is side kick free.

59. Jeyl - November 24, 2011

Well, this is the group that chastises the old Star Trek for having a history, so it makes sense that they’re going to make Star Trek from scratch. I guess this can be a good thing… or worse, not a thing at all. Sure the movie will lure you in with a sense that something important will happen, but in order to avoid that godless concept known as continuity, nothing will be learned, nothing will be gained, and the crew will just ride off into the sunset like nothing had happened at all. With that, you got a show with no lore, no continuity and more importantly, no point.

But realistically, I don’t think that will happen. It’d be silly to think that for a movie like Trek09 to work with so many fans and non-fans a like that there wouldn’t be at least some form of progress on this crews’ part. After all, the characters are now just getting started in the whole Star Trek business of seeking out new life and new civilizations (unless Bob, Alex and Damon write another EARTH IS IN DANGER storyline), so I seriously doubt the characters are going to breeze through their duties like the first movie never happened. Even Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, still the best Trek film in my opinion relied on past events that were both known to Trek fans (Khan) and not known (Carol and David). That’s asking both parties to enter something they’re not familiar with and it doesn’t change things because they think the audience is stupid. Like making the universally used date system to which all aliens in the galaxy have been using even before we got into space into Earth years. I can only imagine the logic behind why all the aliens in the universe worked their way to zero and started from there all at the same time.

60. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 24, 2011

That whole Admiral thing always seemed to keep Kirk out of the Captain’s Chair (“Where he always belonged” – Spock ST II).

Look. It’s just the second movie, and after a massive reboot of the franchise. In my opinion we should keep all the ingredients that made that little show from the ’60s such an ICON!

Please let’s keep this Star Trek on track for where it should have gone. A full 5 year mission would be a nice start.

Anyhow, I give thanks today that we still have a Trek to mull over at all.

61. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 24, 2011

Wait. was the ST III. My bad.

62. Doom - November 24, 2011

If we all had a cup of ego like Abrams, we’d all be president. The problem is Abrams is surrounded by people afraid to say the obvious. Star Trek belongs to the masses, Roddenberry, and all of the writers, directors that preceded him. There is no starting over. He should have said, moving forward the story forward, but for the meglomaniacs in hollywood, it becomes more about their egos and pockets than anything of substance.

The lst Star Trek movie was certainly a well thought of pool of ego. Look at my flares, look at my special effects, look at me.

I will pass on 3D version, wait for it to come to netflix or HBO and will continue to scutinize the Spielberg wanna be. The man simply has no room in his talent for orginiality and thought.

63. Red Dead Ryan - November 24, 2011


If you were paying attention, at the end of the movie, Pike became admiral. He was in a wheelchair, wearing a TMP-like admiral’s uniform.

64. =A= - November 24, 2011

why postponed to may 17, 2013 how come????

65. John D. - November 24, 2011

I learned absolutely nothing from this article.

66. DeShonn Steinblatt - November 24, 2011

31. Khan would fill theaters.

Which is precisely why the haters don’t want Khan.

67. wowseruk - November 24, 2011

My hopes are, and in some small way my tiny campaign may well have resulted in, the first of a trilogy. Just as they did first time around
(Obviously, without it being the same trilogy as first time around!).

68. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 24, 2011

#66 – “Khan would fill theaters.” Possibly, maybe.

I don’t know where some people get the idea that we won’t see Pike, prime Spock or Spock and Uhura still in a relationship etc, because they are “starting over”. Maybe we will, maybe we won’t. I take it to mean that this movie will be a stand alone film, in that you don’t have to have seen any previous films to understand what is going on. It may help if you had, but it is not essential. It is just like reading the Countdown comic relating to the first movie – it gives a bit more background and explanation. However, I have never seen the comic but I still like and understand the film.

Perhaps, JJ Abrams should chose his words more carefully, although sadly I doubt it would make much difference. Sight and (reading) comprehension seem to be at an all time low right now.

69. Polly - November 24, 2011

Well this is good news in my opinion. A stand-alone sequel usually works better than the alternative (*cough* Ironman 2 *cough*).

70. Vultan - November 24, 2011

I’m not sure Khan alone would necessarily attract the mainstream, younger crowd that Paramount is after… since, if they’re new to Trek, they probably won’t know Khan Singh from a tire swing.

71. Joker - November 24, 2011

2013?? I mean really, that is a LONG LONG wait, @ least Gene kept them coming @ a faster rate than that! Pitiful and sad, @ this rate of production this new franchise will die on the vine. How I wish somebody would have had the vision to keep the original cast in a few more movies. Or have the vision to produce a good weekly TV series, so fans like my self who have watched Gene’s vision for over 40 years would have something to look forward to. Look’s like JJ might not really be the guy for the job. I know a lot will disagree with me, but when you have watched Trek, since the first episode aired on TV in the 60’s you would understand where I am coming from!

72. jas_montreal - November 24, 2011

Anthony Pascale,

Your article title is taking what JJ said out of context ! “JJ Abrams: Star Trek Sequel Will ‘Start Over’ ” The Star Trek Sequel will not ”START OVER”.

73. Thomas - November 24, 2011

71. Joker

There’s an important difference between J.J. Abrams and Gene Roddenberry:

J.J. has many projects going on in movies and TV, all of which demand some measure of his attention, for good or for bad. For Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek eventually became his meal ticket, to which he could devote all of his attention, for good or for bad.

74. captain_neill - November 24, 2011

Khan is one of my favourite villains in Trek but I want a fresh idea for the next film. So I want a new villain.

Well there won’t be true Star Trek anymore so all I can hope for now is a fun movie which can have some nods to the Trek that use to be.

75. Daoud - November 24, 2011

@71. Yep, I’ve noted before ALL of TOS was produced in less than 3 years. Pathetic, isn’t it?

76. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 24, 2011

#71 – “but when you have watched Trek, since the first episode aired on TV in the 60’s you would understand where I am coming from!”

Well, the first time I saw Star Trek was in the late 60s and so far I am reasonably happy with what the Bad Robot team have done so far. I am disappointed at having to wait another year, but it was not totally unexpected if you had been following what has been going on here over the last few months. However, I am hopeful that they will do a good job and it will be a movie I will want to see again and again.

77. Rusty0918 - November 24, 2011

#66 – Well it works both ways. I’m not particuarly against them using Khan, unless it’s done in a new angle. And cut it out on the brick wall thinking.

#40 – He can pander to the mainstream audience unless he goes over the top. Vultan, Neill, and many of us believe that they’ll go Michael Bay on the sequel. And I’ve mentioned before how I dread the sequel ending up like, and Keachick would probably beat me over the head again with it, “Transformers 2.” And the critics will praise it as if it was the next “Dark Knight” regardless.

78. What is it with you, anyway? - November 24, 2011

I don’t understand all the Khan haters out there. To me, he is as integral to TOS story telling as the enterprise crew. Why wouldn’t he be “rebooted” as well? In fact, I would say we should expect it. It’s like Nolan rebooting Batman without including the Joker – the story universe doesn’t work without him. Space Sees and TWOK are integral to the story of the TOS crew – he’s part of their lives. Khan can not be denied in this universe, nor would he allow it. Kirk and he are destined to clash – no matter what Bob O would say about it…. ;)

79. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 24, 2011

#77 – No, I hope the sequel does not end up being more like Transformers 2 and there is little reason why it should. It is not me beating everyone over the head with repetition of how vile you found the Transformers movie, it is you, Rusty0918 and others and that is just because it was written by the same two people who are writing Star Trek.

The thing is – Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman know which franchise they are writing for now. The question is – are you sure you know? Perhaps Bob may like to enlighten such people on which franchise the K/O writing team are working on now.

80. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 24, 2011

#78 At this point in the alternate universe, Khan is no more important a character than any of the other characters the Enterprise crew meet. He is one of many. It is only later that Khan’s importance and relevance becomes known. There is no reason why Khan should appear in this sequel any more than Trelane, or Miri, or Charlie X or Harry Mudd or any number of other personalities they met along the way. The fact that Kirk no longer has a father may also mean that Khan and his followers on the Bounty Hunter may have a different fate from the one seen in Space Seed.

This Khan fixation is over the top.

81. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 24, 2011

@ MJ #33

Toned down? It never got toned up. I’d love to see them focus a bit more on the Spock and Uhura relationship. :-)

@ Re: Transformers

I doubt it will be like that. I really do. JJ Abrams is not Michael Bay, and that’s who the writers were reportedly taking their direction from with that movie.

82. Aurore - November 24, 2011

I’m not a Khan hater.

I’m a Khan-is-a fine-character-but-surely-there-must-be-room-for-some-great-NEW-characters-in-this-rebooted-reality lover.

In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with the following statement :

” At this point in the alternate universe, Khan is no more important a character than any of the other characters the Enterprise crew meet. He is one of many. It is only later that Khan’s importance and relevance becomes known. There is no reason why Khan should appear in this sequel any more than Trelane, or Miri, or Charlie X or Harry Mudd or any number of other personalities they met along the way. The fact that Kirk no longer has a father may also mean that Khan and his followers on the Bounty Hunter may have a different fate from the one seen in Space Seed.”

83. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 24, 2011

Besides we’ve seen Khan on the big screen. Next!

84. Nigel Brimstone - November 25, 2011

@ 71. Thank you. I agree, The Bad Robot gang isn’t the right team for the franchise. Hopefully, I’ll live long enough to see someone else in charge who rules this gotta-please-the-movie-studio-shareholders, JarJar Trek nonsense as non-canon wankery.

And what do the Bad Robot guys have against humanoids with pointed ears? They destroy the Romulan home world in one universe and the Vulcan one in the other. I mean c’mon. Really?

Khan appearing is totally predictable and lame. Hopefully not but prepare for it.

The Spock-Uhura relationship is so bad it’s funny. The onscreen chemistry between the actors was non-existent. It still makes me cringe.

Karl Urban as McCoy is a keeper. Simon Pegg as Scotty is fine and hopefully someone will see fit to write him a good part.

The rest of the cast is expendable.

85. captain_neill - November 25, 2011


As I said I love Khan, he is one of my favourite villains, I just don’t want him redone because no matter what they do it will be inferior to Space Seed and Wrath of Khan, which is still a far better movie than the Abrams one.

86. Rusty0918 - November 25, 2011

#85 – I agree there. Trek ’09 ripped a lot from TWOK. I mean, seriously. The whole Kobyashi Maru worked better in that movie than Trek ’09. As a matter of fact, a lot of things did.

I’m not a Khan hater either. You can use him if you approach him from a new angle. A hybrid-bastard child of “Space Seed” and TWOK is a poor way of going at it.

But maybe it’s possible that they COULD do better. Saying its inferior is arrogance. I wouldn’t make that assumption. Dang well wouldn’t.

As with Scotty’s sidekick, yes he did seem a bit like Jar Jar Binks.

I would like to see the crew “grow up” some, in a good way (not a bad way). Kirk really didn’t learn much in the last movie. I’d hate to see him as a doucebag in the sequel. Although I fear that’s what we’re going to get.

For those who are on my case about it being like “Transformers 2,” well that’s the worst case scenario. Yeah, I hope I’m definitley wrong on this. I know some of my comments about a few things on previous posts like Klingon ship balls, etc. were extremely over the top. But it is a possiblity nonetheless.

87. n1701ncc - November 25, 2011

Harry Mudd is the way to go. Joker like character. Hawaii could be the spot on Talos IV for Pike , Tango and Rena. finally tie it all together with Gary Mitchell and you would have a blockbuster that all fans would enjoy. Mudd could be the re occurring character the film series could use. Mitchell is easy to write even though we did not see him in the first film and finally Talos IV gives the film a chance to really have some fun with alternate realities.

Please keep Khan in the prime world. In the next movie the birth Q would be great Trelene comes back as the young Q.

Also no hippies please. I dont need Spock with a musical instrutment nor do I need Herbert, Herbert , Herbert

Finally leave the Gorn, the Horta the Metrons and Balak in the Prime time line

88. Dennis Bailey - November 25, 2011

#62: “If we all had a cup of ego like Abrams, we’d all be president. The problem is Abrams is surrounded by people afraid to say the obvious. Star Trek belongs to the masses”

Aside from the fact that it’s insulting for no good reason, your post states nothing that’s “obvious” – in fact, nothing that’s true.

You have an opinion.

Others have very different opinions.

So what?

89. aapip1 - November 25, 2011

#44 – “I don’t think he means starting over in terms of destroying the established ‘canon’ of the first film. I just think that they need the freedom to tell new stories … Hopefully, we will be able to bounce forward in time a little bit … Wouldn’t it be great to see them a few years into their ‘real’ mission?”

I completely agree. I think that this is exactly what Abrams meant in his quote. I am really looking forward to the producers dropping us into the middle of an epic story. They would be hard pressed to top the emotional beginning of the last movie, but I do hope that they try.

Hopefully, they will do a bit more exploration and development of the characters and their interactions/relationships with each other, and not just pure action/adrenaline.

I also hope that they continue in the new timeline rather than go back and recycling an already used storyline. If you decide to make a clean break from the past, you might as well go all the way.

90. DeShonn Steinblatt - November 25, 2011

62. Star Trek belongs to the masses.

Yes it does. Trekkies need to accept that and get over themselves.

91. aapip1 - November 25, 2011

Although I wouldn’t mind an occasional character or two from the old timeline making an appearence, as long as it is not a retelling of an old script.

I do think that Khan would be too much of a character to integrate into a new movie. We have too many strong opinions about that character, his character would probably overwhelm everything else in the story, and we already have a sequel to an original TV script. Where else could we really go with Khan at this point?

92. chrisfawkes.com - November 25, 2011

I don’t think #78 was being too serious.

93. chrisfawkes.com - November 25, 2011

Maybe they can bring back the old man from the nursing home who escaped and kicked Kirk over a bridge in generations.

Now there was a foe if ever there was one.

94. Hat Rick - November 25, 2011

Without having read this threat, I can already sense that there are those who will beseech Mr. Abrams to reboot the design of the nuEnterprise as well.

I have zero problems with this alternate Enterprise, but I would indeed like to see a different part of the Engine Room, and one that looks very unlike a beer brewery.

It’s interesting to me (and I just rewatched Star Trek (2009) yesterday at Blu-ray) that even in the climactic warp core-eject scene, the Engine Room was still depicted as brewery-like, indicating that possibly the entirety of the Engine Room looked like that. Still, this doesn’t rule out the possibility that we were just looking at the place from the wrong angle and all the advanced equipment was just off-camera and/or on a higher level of the ship that we didn’t get to see.

Here’s hoping.

95. Hat Rick - November 25, 2011

^^ “Without having read this thread”

As corrected.

96. Doom - November 25, 2011


Here’s what obvious. The egos have dumbed down the scripts and the storyline in order to state the obvious. They do this becasue they consider the audience to be dumb and they have no real life experience to draw on. They have a talent for packaging a script and they will produce a 3D world because they have no real life experiences to draw on except for watching TV as kids. I enjoyed and still enjoy a movie that doesn’t spoon feed my intelligence. Thats what made ST2 and even 4 so cool. I liked the imagination of movies. Those days are now over with light flares, simple statements and sitting in the theater knowing what will happen before the scene ends, BECAUSE ITS OBVIOUS.

Now, if you like to be treated like a dummy, if you feel that the folks producing Star Trek have a clue, then by all means, give them your money.

97. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 25, 2011

Oh, get over yourself, Doom.

98. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 25, 2011


Spock-Uhura had GREAT chemistry. Maybe not to you, but plenty others thought so. To each his/her own.

99. Rusty0918 - November 25, 2011

Keachick – Yes dangit I DO know what franchise they’re writing for. But even for something like “Transformers,” that second movie was vile. And secondly, I’m not the only one who believes so.

Unfortunately, summer blockbusters are mostly style and very little substance. Aimed mostly at a teen audience who doesn’t typically like to think. Granted of course there are exceptions, like “The Dark Knight,” but as I say, they are exceptions. They’ll do what sells, even if it’s garbage. This is what Captain_neill has commented on regarding them going Michael Bay on the sequel.

When you come to think about it, I don’t think the masses care about Trek being about the “human condition,” etc. Sadly, it was sacrificed in the first movie. I hope they get back to that in the second movie.

100. da laffin tlhIngan - November 25, 2011

What he means is the franchise “started over” in ’09.

I really hope the Klingons will get a nod in the new one. A Trek without Klingons is no Trek at all.

101. somethoughts - November 25, 2011

Good thing we have jj and team, if the hardcore trekkies and trekkers got their way it would be so boring and would make $40million.

Nothing is worst than talking for 2hrs and listening to ramblings about how to better ourselves and technobabble, if it werent for jj and team you hardcore nerds be still watching tos reruns on your vhs player while taking a nap away from your boring lives.

Star Trek is alive simply due to star trek 2009. All I say is appreciate what we have. So to boborci and team, please sir, can we have some more?

102. Rusty0918 - November 25, 2011

#101 – Ah, a brick wall attitude. A lot of those.

I never, EVER said make things boring. Hey, I like space battles and action.

But not sinking to the Michael Bay level. That’s the bad thing. No the last movie didn’t do that, but the next movie just might.

You’re right about one thing though. Something made by hardcores would be LIKELY to get only a paltry $40 million.

103. Bruce Banner - November 25, 2011

Romulas and Vulcan were destroyed in ST09. Maybe Kronos will be destroyed in this one and the Klingon threat will be gone.

104. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 25, 2011

Transformers 2 was not a vile movie. It just could have been better. Even Michael Bay knows that. Vile is just a strong word and it simply does not apply to Transformers 2. It is an over-the-top exaggeration. I think I know what scenes you see as being “vile”. I don’t. Get over it and grow up.

“Unfortunately, summer blockbusters are mostly style and very little substance. Aimed mostly at a teen audience who doesn’t typically like to think.”

Well Star Trek 09 was not one of those movies. If you did not see the “human condition” being shown, however one might define the “human condition”, then you weren’t paying attention.

Perhaps Star Trek, like other blockbuster movies, may have been aimed at an unthinking teenage audience, but the movie was seen by a lot of people other than teenagers. Anyway, I suspect that a good many people go to the movies so that they can unwind and for a couple or so hours, NOT to have think about their “human condition” – like the condition of possibly having problems with money, employment, health and pain issues (chronic pain is difficult to avoid even while watching a movie, even when you are watching a fast paced, intellectually stimulating movie – ask my better half), childrens education, dealing with a moral dilemma – any number of issues to do with the “human condition”.

Teenagers who don’t typically like to think? Well, my two teenage sons must be the exception. They are always thinking, researching, asking and arguing, whether it is about politics, the school system, global warming, the US/European financial crises…it would be nice if they did stop thinking (and worrying) occasionally!

Anyway, my older son is soon to go and vote for the first time in the NZ General Election held today, Saturday 26 November, along with his parents, and if we haven’t heard the various parties politicking on TV, then it has been coming from our son. Our computer has been quite busy of late and not just here on Trekmovie.com.

As I said, I am sick of reading generalizations made about people, especially derogatory ones made about youth. The youth of today have enough problems already, many of them generations in the past did not have face in quite the same way. Youth suicide is up in all the developed countries. Shouldn’t that tell you something? Perhaps many kids are doing too much thinking of a negative kind, with few, if any, adults providing any sort of hope or guidance. They certainly won’t find much here in some of the comments made here and on other sites, about the “typically” “dumbed down” “ADD/MTV generation” teenagers.

105. Vultan - November 25, 2011


Yes, you’re right. Adults aren’t providing hope or guidance to the young—especially those “adults” in Hollywood.

Like it or not, most young people look to popular entertainment as much as their parents and grandparents for role models, and the majority of messages broadcast toward the young over the past two decades have been dismal at best, and downright “vile” in their worst offerings.

I wouldn’t say the Transformers movies fall within the latter category, but they’re close.

106. Rusty0918 - November 25, 2011


First off – yes, some of what I said was over the top, and I was wrong to say some of it.

I think it’s time to show my full feelings:

1. Am I against change? Am I against different people playing the original crew? Am I against every single change done in the Trek 2009 movie? NO! I’m not. The JJPrise isn’t a bad design, not as good as some of the other designs, but certainly not the worst. As with the barcode readers on the bridge, which I previously railed against: other Treks had their share of tacky reuses, such as Rubbermaid Action Packers being used as storage for phasers in DS9. After that and finding out they used re-decorated art scanner in Enterprise, I dropped that. People who go whining that the bridge isn’t the cardboard thing it was in TOS or the bussard collectors in the nacelle colors, now that’s over the top.

Dangnabbit heck I’m for other changes, like a female chief of security to join the Enterprise crew.

2. Engineering – The basic premise of engineering being more functional with more “guts” etc, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But the execution of using the bud-engineering was a poor excuse. Really didn’t fit too well. Not to mention I know someone in the military who couldn’t stand the brewery either. Does this mean I want a pristine shiny new engineering with a glowing warp core? Not necessarily. I think Mass Effect 2 showed the guts and bowels of a spaceship right with the Normandy SR-2.

3. The Transformers rants: I think everyone knows that Orci and Kurtzman were PARTLY responsible for the debacle of the second movie, which was extremely lowbrow. Yes a lot of the blame falls on Michael Bay, but you can’t excuse the other two. Keep in mind that the first “Transformers” movie actually did fairy well with Rotten Tomatoes top critics, garnering a 68% fresh rating (53% overall). And that adds to my weariness, that the next one stooped so low. Also, Cowboys vs. Aliens didn’t fair too well with critics either, which does add to suspicion.

4. Female roles. Keep in mind that originally Gene Roddenbery had in mind a female first officer. Now, doing that at the moment would be blasphemy. Truthfully, I’m not a fan of the mini-skirted uniforms. They’re inappropriate. However, I have to acknowledge that it’s the source material. Now not all the females in Trek ’09 wore miniskirts. And that’s one thing some need to keep aware of.

I’ve always suggested of course that they put a female chief of security on the Enterprise, one who wouldn’t wear a miniskirted uniform. That’s a fair work-around. Uhura can still wear hers, and still please the male chauvanist pigs out there, while feminists can relate to this person. Hey, new universe, young minds, fresh ideas? Isn’t that the point? :)

I do NOT want to see Yeoman Rand (or any other wenchy Yeoman for that matter). In TOS, they were nothing more but glorified cocktail waitresses, maids, or secretaries, and they weren’t very promising. Trek inspired people to become doctors, etc. Inspriing girls to take low-brow positions that exploit them…not good. Yes Grace Lee Witney delighted in it, but keep in mind that Majel Barrett wasn’t too happy about her Chapel character. Hint, hint. As with the whole Hooters’ waitress/fake boobs thing, that came from someone on Trek BBS who responded a post where I compared Yeoman Rand to a Hooters’ Waitress. I know one person here who beleives it’s harsh figurative language, but well, that’s basically what it all came down to. Someone responded saying it would be cool product placement for the sequel for Rand to be a Hooters’ waitress. That’s what gave me the dread idea that Kirk would meet Rand who is working in a skanky joint and offer her a “slightly” less skanky position, which in my opinion is a pathetic excuse. But there should be more available stuff to women than just skanky crap.

Chapel wasn’t too good either. I remember watching the Sci-Fi Channel Special Edition of TOS back in ’98 and Majel Barrett commented about herself not being too impressed with the character.

5. Racist, annoying characters – the folks walked a fine line with Kessner. Frankly, I wonder how he ended up being in Starfleet and on the Enterprsie to begin with. As some people say, he does teter on the line of Jar Jar Binks. Hopefully, Abrams won’t allow a Jar Jar or a Skids or Mudflap on the Enterprise, if you get what I mean.

6. The lens flares and shaky-cam. Frankly, I wouldn’t have cared for them if it hadn’t been for everyone screaming about them. While I do have issues with the movie, it almost seems like it’s kind of forced.

7. Spock / Uhura. If you’re going to continue the relationship, make it meanigful. I don’t want it to be an excuse just to show dry humping or gratuitous sex or whatever.

8. About a lowbrow movie getting stellar reviews. While Trek ’09 isn’t lowbrow perse, I do smell some trouble over the horizon. I’m not berating the actors, and the makeup was a part of the movie that was Oscar worthy, I didn’t think Trek 2009 was Best Picture material (and of course neither did the Oscars themselves). What I’m getting at here is that Paramount did a massive campaign in this movie to accentuate the positive and pretend there’s no negative. Some reviews say this is a flawless movie, which in my opnion it’s not. It was fun but the plot was a mess (along with a few other things). The thing is that what if they do go Michael Bay on the sequel, if you get what I mean, will the critics just hail it anyway because it’s JJ Abrams? Or will they hail it intentionally to insult hardcore Trekkies, and by extension people who have legit criticisms of the movie, even if it’s really a piece of garbage? Now granted this is the extreme measure. Some of the reason why it did so well was because it was basically “fresh life” into the franchise. Only time will tell whether or not whether the Supreme Court are truly the real deal or not. Or if the critics believe that questioning JJ is heresy, or of course they want to just annoy hardcore Trekkies (and inadvertently annoy people who DO have legit issues, not caring who else they step on).

9. Kirk maturing. I didn’t really see much character growth for him in the first one. He needs to act like he belongs in the chair. He can have a sense of humor, but there are some places where he comes off as a douchebag. I don’t want to see him doing lots of “conduct unbecoming of an officer,” if you get the gist.

I thought I needed to put a more level headed post here so others, especially one, can truly get a real perspective on my two cents.

107. Brian K - November 25, 2011

Two tidbits I find intruiging and interesting:

1. While reading a story on the Deadline Hollywood site about the release date this stuck out to me: “No title yet. But this one is being co-written by Abrams with Lost‘s Damon Lindelof, plus Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci.”

2. As quoted in this posting above, JJ says: ” Well, I’m working with Damon Lindelof right now on the new Star Trek.”

Perhaps JJ was not pleased with the script Orci & Kurtzman finally delivered after 2 years of procrastination…… Their track record since ST ’09 has been poor at best….. Just sayin…..

108. Rusty0918 - November 25, 2011

Brian K., I think you’re taking a few things out of context here.

1. They might not decide on a title for a few months. That’s not surprising.

2. Damon Lindelof is Abrams’ Co-Producer.

I don’t think those are as intriguing as you say they are.

109. Brian K - November 25, 2011

The lack of title wasn’t what I was referring to. It was the mention of Abrams and Lindelof as writing the thing, “plus” Orci and Kurtzman. First mention I’ve seen of JJ as actual writer, not just producer/director, plus the inference of Orci & Kurtzman as secondary players in the process. And, in the second quote, no reference at all to O & K. I still stick to my impression that JJ was less than thrilled with what O & K put on his desk once he was finished with Super 8. I may be wrong…..

110. JP - November 25, 2011

Most misleading article title ever…

111. Red Dead Ryan - November 25, 2011


You must be David Jones’ brother. Your complaints/bitching line up perfectly with his!


The romance was unnecessary. Plenty of others agree.


“A Trek without Klingons is no Trek at all.”

On the contrary, a Trek without Klingons is a Trek that dares to do something different for once!


“Transformers 2″ was crap. Absolute crap! Time to cut the PC crap as well.

People have the right to call it “vile”, especially if the description fits. Which it does. If you’re offended by that, too bad. Maybe go find another website!


I said it before, and I’ll say it again: Keenser is NOTHING like Jar Jar Binks.

And you seem a bit angry with the last movie. You need to grow up. And grow up real fast.

112. Adolescent Nightmare - November 25, 2011

I can be excited for everyone who claims they’re not excited but comes here every day anyway.

113. Rusty0918 - November 25, 2011

OK…about that last post. I admit I blew my top off at that remark. Anthony, I will gladly face whatever punishment is necessary, even if I’m banned for life. What I just said was immature, out of line, and extremely nasty and uncivilized. RDR, Anthony, and whoever else is modding this board, I formally apologize for my disorderly conduct.

114. Anthony Thompson - November 25, 2011

104. Keachick

I see that on IMDB you are predicting that Torres may be a “rogue Vulcan or Romulan” in the sequel. Didn’t we already do “rogue Romulan” in ST 2009? LOL!

115. Anthony Thompson - November 25, 2011

There is also someone claiming to know the “TrekMovie inside source” (that would be Bob) who claims that Khan and the Borg (with a queen) will BOTH be villains in the sequel!

116. John - November 25, 2011

I think it would be cool to find out how Vulcan being destroyed changed things for the Federation. Nobody would want to join the Federation after hearing about that.

Maybe Starfleet would stick to military stuff and stop wandering around looking for homicidal aliens. Secure Earth’s borders d@$% it!!!

117. Fowler - November 26, 2011

• The Orion Syndicate as the villains
• Large all-star cast as well as many cameos
• More planets
• Larger space battles with more starships
• Kirk having better fighting skills
• Kirk having several human love interests played by Hollywood’s most beautiful young actresses
• The Star Trek theme music from the Insurrection end credits used at the end

118. BeatleJWOL - November 26, 2011

Y’know, it was several comments ago, but I’m kinda tired of people taking apart the writing work on Transformers and trying to apply it to Star Trek.

The minute they decided to have human actors PLAYING HUMANS in a film about TRANSFORMERS, it all went to crap anyway; I suspect that decision was made long before Orci/Kurtzman got the screenwriting gig.

119. falkan - November 26, 2011

A lot of people forget that Vulcan still DOES exist. Only its DIAMETER has changed.

120. skyjedi - November 26, 2011

Its pretty pathetic that the first hobbit film will be out first considering how many times that film has been in development hell.

Almost 5 years between star treks, just put a new tv show on the air. The long wait is too long. A weekly show would make more sense.

121. AJ - November 26, 2011

I’ll guess that their must have been lots of hand-wringing and frustration at Paramount with the delay to 2013. The public, corporate face has to say crap like “we didn’t want to rush and make a bad story,” when, obviously, had proper deadlines and financing (no longer Spyglass) been in place on time, the film would be running on schedule.

It seems the script was delayed, because, with no financing, there is no film. Orci, Kurtzmann and Lindelof move on to the next projects along with all the actors.

How do you ‘account’ for investments made in brand equity in 2009, which have now been lost due to the delay? Perhaps JJ is simply being honest in that many opportunities were lost due to the delay, and it’s time to learn from the mistakes and move on.

My personal opinion? Get a franchise-runner back, and get the super-pooper hoo-ha wanna-be Spielberg out of the equation. He annoys the fans with useless secrecy, and constantly shows us that ‘Star Trek’ is just another paying job, and not a commitment.

JJ must realize that Star Trek is not part of his personal brand, but that his participation in Trek today makes him a small but significant part of a much greater whole. I hope, after ST2013, he’ll pass it on to a more dedicated franchise runner.

122. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 26, 2011

#111 RDR – “Transformers 2″ was crap. Absolute crap! Time to cut the PC crap as well.
People have the right to call it “vile”, especially if the description fits. Which it does. If you’re offended by that, too bad. Maybe go find another website!”

Yeah, people can call it anything they like. Stop telling me to go find another website. If you had ever paid attention to anything I have ever written, which apparently you don’t (along with another poster, so I’ve been told), then you would know that I do not go in for writing what you call “PC crap”. I call it the way I see it and if it seems like it is “PC crap” to you, then so be it.

#104 – “I’ve always suggested of course that they put a female chief of security on the Enterprise, one who wouldn’t wear a miniskirted uniform. That’s a fair work-around. Uhura can still wear hers, and still please the male chauvanist pigs out there, while feminists can relate to this person.”

Feminists can relate to which person; Uhura or the female chief of security? This is really patronising and really proves that you have little knowledge or understanding of why, how the mini-skirt came about in the first place. Ask Nichelle Nichols. She lived through those times. She knows. She has explained that the mini-skirt represented feminism then…it had nothing to do with satisfying some male chauvinistic whim, quite the opposite. It represented to women that they could embrace both their femininity, their feminine form and their sexuality as women in their own right. The fact that men liked seeing women in short skirts was a different matter.

Putting women in pants has little to do with real feminism, nor is allowing Uhura to wear a mini-skirt, as a “fair work-around”. This is tokenism.
Women may, and do, find pants very practical and comfortable, but that is not what this is about here. You have proved that.

123. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 26, 2011

#114 Who is Torres? I was just surmising, speculating on who JJ Abrams might be casting Benicio Del Toro as. In this alternate universe, Romulus still exists, so why not another Romulan or a grieving and disaffected surviving Vulcan. This Romulan would not be Nero. Del Toro could just as likely be cast as a younger Klingon like Kang, or somebody completely unknown to us.

124. Red Dead Ryan - November 26, 2011


“I call it the way I see it and if it seems like it is “PC crap” to you, then so be it.”

Nope. You’ve been calling it as how you want others to see it as! Thus, this “PC crap” continues!

“…it had nothing to do with satisfying some male chauvinistic whim, quite the opposite. It represented to women that they could embrace both their femininity, their feminine form and their sexuality as women in their own right. The fact that men liked seeing women in short skirts was a different matter.”

Look, no woman wears short skirts in the military, right? And the reason for that is it would be too distracting, impractical, and objectifies the woman as a sex object. And for the men, it makes them feel entitled to sex. There is a reason that men like to see women wear short skirts, and it isn’t for altruistic reasons, such as women’s liberation, etc. And I would argue that the only places that women need to express their sexuality is in the bedroom with their partner. A little modesty goes a long way. Something we as a society are short on thise days. Uhura needs to wear pants like everyone else.

And before you say that Starfleet isn’t military, it is. The Enterprise and other ships in the fleet are all fairly-to-heavily armed, with the crews trained in combat excercises, and Gene Roddenberry based the crew ranks on the U.S Navy’s. End of story.

125. Rusty0918 - November 26, 2011


I said Uhura could still be in her mini-skirt. Yes it was a trend in the 1960’s, but that was then, this is now. I was saying the female chief of security would wear pants, not Uhura.

In military-wise, something like that is highly inappropriate. But I am not suggesting getting get rid of them (for your benefit), just put in one who doesn’t wear the miniskirt. They can have both options. This one could find pants practical and comfortable, Uhura can still show off her legs. There are other women who find the miniskirt uniform impractical and offensive. Granted not all of them do, like you. But you don’t speak for all female Trekkers. And if it pleases you, neither do I.

126. Daniel - November 26, 2011


I agree. Where is Walter Cronkite when you need him? This isn’t the first time that this website has posted a misleading headline. Perhaps this site is better written than a well-known trek prop collector blogger who always begins his blogs with the word “well.”

I guess we need to get use to it and try to have some fun, hard as it is.

127. Jamesspock - November 26, 2011

I just hope that the next Star Trek movie has some content this time, the last Movie was Brainless action with flash flares for special effect, so the defects of the set would be hidden from the audiance.

128. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 26, 2011

No, Red Dead Ryan, you and others like you objectify women as sex objects simply by what they chose to wear or not wear. The truth is that what someone wears has little to do with real modesty. Are you calling the women of the 60s immodest? Are you calling Nichelle Nichols immodest?

Rusty0918 – I am not speaking for all female Trekkers. I don’t know who the female Trekkers are. The ones I do know are female and who come here do not say anything, so none of us have much of an idea of what they think in this regard.

When I made a semi-serious suggestion the other day that maybe posters put an F or M beside their names, somebody rebutted the notion in what seemed a strangely defensive manner. WTF.

There were women in pants in the last Star Trek. There were options. However, people have rallied against the mini or shorter skirt being worn in this Star Trek movie series. What you talk of is tokenism – actually that was my husband’s phrase when he read your other post – as in Oh gee, look how accommodating I am being – I will let you see Uhura “show off her legs”. (Actually, in reality, nobody’s legs get seen – they get covered by pants or skirt, tights and boots.)

This is nuts. Now, some are equating watching guys sitting and relaxing in a spa pool with homoeroticism and homosexuality. What I am seeing is an unhealthy, immature culture that is both obsessed and afraid of sex and sexuality with a lot of tokenism thrown in. And you talk about me being PC? LOL

129. Cervantes (M) - November 26, 2011

But…but…the minis were one of my favourite bits of ‘production design’ on ‘TOS’!.

It’ll just seem like yet another sop to the ‘TNG’ look if they go, and the sequel would look the poorer for it I reckon… ;)

130. somethoughts - November 26, 2011

mini skirts, higher the better and while they are at it, no grandma panties, I want fleece red or black panties :) more sexy in Star Trek won’t hurt anyone except the uptight principles and pc peta folks.

I am sure Victoria’s Secret will survive the last great earth war.

There is nothing wrong with females wearing skirts in Star Trek, if Troi or Seven of Nine can wear spandex that shows camel toe, high skirts and upskirt shots is on different.

131. somethoughts - November 26, 2011

Angelina Jolie in animated cgi Beuwolf as the seductive huntress would be a good villain type for Kirk, nothing but a little booty to make the great captain Kirk prone to mistakes


132. Aurore - November 26, 2011

Regarding Lieutenant Nyota Uhura’s uniform in general and the miniskirt, more particularly, I gave my opinion, on the following thread, some time ago :


(posts 151,164,167,169,170,177etc…)

Moreover, I would add that, although he is not female, in my opinion, dmduncan wrote a few interesting remarks on the question in 162 & 165 .

133. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 26, 2011

@ #111 Red Dead Ryan

That’s up for debate. I see a fresh twist with Spock as necessary. I don’t want these characters to be exact replicas if the originals. I don’t see the fu. Or the intrigue in that. For a character that is fully capable of real emotion and love, I think that it’s wonderful and necessary to see what a life with love will be like for Spock. We already know what the alternative was like.

I also see it as necessary for Uhura too. For a character that was not allowed to have any real personal ties in the original storyline, it will be and has been wonderful for me to see how she incorporates love onto her life to live life wholly.

I don’t think that we have truly lived life until we have been loved and have loved someone, and watching that happen between these 2 characters is a beautiful thing to me. You may see it as unnecessary, but I don’t.

At the end of our lives, I think that the most important things to many, if not most or all, of us is the relationships we’ve had. Friendships, family, love… Those things matter. One of the main things that Spock Prime treasured toward the end of his life was his friendship with Kirk. He allowed himself that, but not the lifelong and meaningfully intimate (and not just sex) connection with someone he could call his own. I am glad that in this timeline he is allowing himself both.

I want to see how he balances his love and commitment to Nyota with his Vulcan nature and his professional life. If you don’t want to see that, okay, but I do. Spock/Uhura were my favorite part of the last movie. I’m quite sure that this little fact disqualifies me from being a trekkie/trekker, but it’s the truth and I’m not ashamed to say it.

Let’s hope that the come out with a film that we can both enjoy if that’s possible.

134. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 26, 2011

I meant to put

‘I don’t see the fun or intrigue in that’

135. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 26, 2011

Uhura is turning out o be a Ho.

136. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 26, 2011

I thought Scotty was her man.

137. Aurore - November 26, 2011

135. TrekMadeMeWonder – November 26, 2011
Uhura is turning out o be a Ho.

And, I thought your “screw you orci” was bad…

But, so long as Trek still makes you wonder, that is all that matters.

I guess .

138. Red Dead Ryan - November 26, 2011

Look, every attempt at sexuality depicted in Trek was designed simply to titillate the fanboys. Except possibly for the women in TOS, who wore skirts because Gene Roddenberry liked to see women dressed that way, which a lot of women found sexist.

I didn’t find Troi all that attractive until she wore a regular uniform. Seven Of Nine was sexy in the “Voyager” jumpsuit in the episode “Relativity”.

When it comes to sexiness, its easy to go overboard.

What I want to say, is that female crew members should be wearing pants on shift. Off shift, if Uhura wants to wear a mini, so be it. That’s perfectly fine. Just not while on duty. It’s too distracting. And while “Star Trek” is mostly fantasy in how it depicts itself, there should be a little bit of realism, especially since the crew rankings are based on current day military practices.

Also, while its true nobody wants an exact replica of the TOS characters in the new versions, some of us don’t want massive changes to the essence of who they are, and what makes them tick. I’d prefer that Spock and Uhura remain close, good friends. You can still have good character moments with those two, and perhaps Spock needs some advice that only a woman can give, or Spock enjoys playing his Vulcan harp in her company.

139. somethoughts - November 26, 2011

I see nothing wrong with nurses or female comm officers wearing standard issue skirts, didnt they wear those in tos? Its not like they look whored out and those sexy halloween outfits yum

140. Platitude - November 26, 2011

#2 – agreed. He is just saying they can’t rely on the first movie to sell the second movie. Saying that he means the story will be completely stand alone is an assumption.

141. dmduncan - November 26, 2011

138: “Except possibly for the women in TOS, who wore skirts because Gene Roddenberry liked to see women dressed that way,”

And in real life women who dress that way like to be seen that way.

Sure, I like it when women with nice legs wear skirts. I pay attention to that because, relatively speaking, skirts are actually a conservative way for a woman to display some of her physical beauty.

If, as a woman, you want to censor yourself by buttoning up tight what you have from collar to toe, well okay. But why should every other woman follow that practice, and why wouldn’t they be evolved enough in the 23rd century to allow women their choice of uniform options to match their personalities, without men running into walls distracted by a nice pair of legs?

If you watch TOS carefully you’ll see that while the mini skirt was the option of choice for some, like Uhura, other female crew members were wandering the halls in the background wearing pants.

I think that’s a good way to keep it. More choices, less regimentation.

142. dmduncan - November 26, 2011

132. Aurore – November 26, 2011

You remember everything! You’re like the Trekmovie librarian or something.

143. somethoughts - November 26, 2011


Lol yes I had to go click on link and re read what dmduncan posted, aurore let us know if u have any other nifly links :)

144. Jovan - November 27, 2011

Have to agree with #2. The out-of-context or sensationalising article titles are the only thing that gets my goat about this website… it’s a bad journalism tactic.

145. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 27, 2011

142. Aurore is like the Guardian of Forever. If it happened here, she has record of it; that may or may not be used against you at a later date, at a time of her choosing.

146. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 27, 2011

I vote: more leg – less bitching.

147. Aurore - November 27, 2011

“…..that may or may not be used against you at a later date, at a time of her choosing.”



148. Harry Ballz - November 27, 2011


Yes, Aurore’s razor-sharp memory has bitten ME on the ass more than once!

149. Sarah - November 27, 2011

I really hope to possibly see Bill Murray in the next Star Trek movie. He’d be a great captain. I can’t wait to see him as FDR in Hyde Park on Hudson. Apparently, it’s a serious role and I’m hearing that he nailed it!

150. Aurore - November 27, 2011

“Yes, Aurore’s razor-sharp memory has bitten ME on the ass more than once!”

I like it when you speak…FIGURATIVELY, sir.
“Memory”, what a lovely nickname for it.


151. Aurore - November 27, 2011

I always loved, and, admired Bill Murray’s cool demeanour.

152. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 27, 2011

I don’t see how Spock and Uhura being in a loving relationship changes ‘the essence’ of who they are as individuals, and especially in a major way.

I’ve been in different relationships in my life, and I know others that have and still are, and it never changed the essence of who I was as a person. Real change comes from within. It’s been my experience that when a friend or relative of mine got married or started dating someone, they didn’t all of a sudden turn into a completely different person where I wondered where their essence had wandered off to. I never looked at them wondering “Who are you?” To me that’s just a little off and over the top. Now sure, I had a dear relative marry a man and I just knew wasn’t going to work, but she had to figure that out for herself. It took 4 years and then a painful divorce that lasted a few more.

During the time they were married, he was controlling, and so she couldn’t be as social as she normally was, but her ‘essence’ never changed. She was still the same person, just like Spock will be the same Spock in and for this timeline and Uhura will be the same Uhura. They will just be themselves in a loving and fruitful relationship.

I just don’t understand the resistance to this. I really don’t. I guess if people are used to a person having one state of being in a different lifetime, then maybe they think that’s all that person should have, but I disagree.

Spock and Uhura deserve to be in love just like anybody else, and I am glad that they are taking that journey in life together. You know, Star Trek is about exploring and going where no one has gone before, but you don’t always have to go into to outerspace to do that. Sometimes seeing the journey within can be just as satisfying to me.

That was what I loved about the Odo storeyline in DS9. He was the changeling that secretly fell in love with a solid, and there were all kinds of issues involved in that. He had to ask himself some very tough questions, and once they were a couple, then her. They understood that they worked together, and that when they were on duty, the job came first. They were mature adults that were able to do that very well. I believe that Spock and Uhura will have that same understanding too. They are very professional people. I would love to see the contrast between their professional lives and their personal lives together as a couple.

As for Uhura wearing a skirt or not, it doesn’t matter to me. She can wear her skirt on the bridge and a pants uniform if and when she gets to go off-ship to help explore a bit. Let’s hope she gets the chance. Perhaps she can use her xenolinguistics skills to help out for some reason. :-)

153. VulcanFilmCritic - November 27, 2011

@124,125,128,128, 152

The last thing I’d like to see for Star Trek is the Fashion Police dictating who can wear what. Nobody was trippier than William Ware Theiss when it came to designing costumes for Star Trek. Thank the Creator that this talented, creative man was NOT constrained by logic in deciding what folks should wear in the 23rd Century.

I was watching “Friday’s Child” the other day and laughing my head off at the utter ridiculousness of the outfits! But they were effective in increasing the height and menacing quality of the Capellans.

Ditto the savage “feathers and leather” looks in “A Private Little War.” Now I know that expenses (or the lack thereof) had a lot to do with the extreme creativity of the costumes (e.g. place mats used for material) but that “anything goes” fashion sense was part of TOS’s charm.

As for the ladies, mini-skirts were more a projection of where fashion was heading anyway. I don’t think the short skirts and exposed skin in any way detracted from the power of the ladies. T’Pring and Elaan of Troyious Wow! I wouldn’t want to mess with them (despite the skimpy costumes.)
And what could be less functional than extremely tight, iridescent high-water pants worn with tight black leather boots with Cuban heels?

It’s all about drama. The costumes have to be a little over-the-top in order to give us a sense that we are in not in Kansas anymore. With the generous budgets the new movie will have for costumes, I’m sure we won’t be seeing much of this whimsy, but I for one can still hope.

154. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 27, 2011

148. Ah, Aurore got you as well Harry?

155. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 27, 2011

Oh Harry was speaking FIGURATIVELY?

156. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 27, 2011

@#153 VulcanFilmCritic

That’s what I thought about the skirts in TOS too: It was just a reflection of where fashion was at the time. Mini skirts were all the rage. They tried to reincorporate them at the beginning of TNG, but that didn’t work so well, and so they updated the look.

The mini skirts in this new Trek seem to me to be a nod to the classic style of the original show but with a nicely updated contemporary twist. It looked like the best of both worlds (and times ;) ) to me.

The reason I think a pants uniform might be best for some off-ship exploration is because the added coverage might provide some additional protections against climates and potential pests. So for me it’s sort of just a ‘function over form’ thing for Uhura to wear a pants suit sometimes if she gets to go off-ship to help investigate or explore.

157. Sam - November 27, 2011

@ #133. Im in full agreement with everything you’ve said. I too thoroughly enjoyed the interactions between those two characters during the last film and im intrigued to see a more indepth look and how they strike a balance between who they are, what they do and caring deeply for one another. Not everyone has to feel the same,but it was a fresh take to me and something different to explore for each of the characters in this new timeline.

As for uhura’s uniform, I think its obvious women have a choice between pants and the skirt, and uhura likes to wear the skirt and that’s fine. I hope if/when she leaves the ship and is in a hostile environment she will wear pants then. Wearing a skirt doesn’t make her a weak female and I believe she can still be respected in it. But maybe we will see them mix it up a little in the next film, skirt sometimes and pants others.

158. Harry Ballz - November 27, 2011


Yes, mw, Aurore has drawn first blood from me on a couple of occasions.

In another universe i could have called her…friend.

159. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 27, 2011

@#157 Sam

Thank you, Sam. Thank you very much. :-)

Yes, let’s hope they do mix it up a bit in this next film.

160. dmduncan - November 27, 2011

Well, sheer panty hose made of an impenetrable 23rd century material might make mini skirts as logical to wear on a jungle planet as they are stylish.

For example, material that temporarily stiffens against contact with hard or sharp surfaces or insect bites (locally, that is, where ever on her person that compromise is threatened, leaving the rest of the material flexible), could offer great protection to the lovely ladies of the enterprise even in some so called harsh environments.

161. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 27, 2011

@#160 dmduncan

That’s a good idea if they have or will come up with it for the movie(s). It didn’t look like she or any of the other ladies were wearing panyhose, but there are nude pantyhose, but even those show a bit of a shimmer from their pretty glossiness. Still, I guess it is possible that by this time in the future, truly nude looking pantyhose exist. If not, there’re always pants. :-)

162. Jack - November 27, 2011

Which episode had Kirk telling them to set their suits to something degrees (an innovation lacking for Sulu and friends in the transporter accident episode… the Enemy Within?)? A clever idea. 160. Yeah. All sorts of possibilities without becoming too lame/Batman/Inspector Gadgety. A tiny detail (and probably teh only detail I loved) I loved in The Phantom Menace was the Jedis carrying that little water-breather thing on their belts. It wasn’t an absurdly unlikely, plot-requirement-fullfilling tool, but something which made sense.

By the way, can I babble on for a second about the trimvirate/traid/trio — a fan created idea/description? I think its importance gets overplayed in comments here. It#s a description more than a necessary ingredient. In the best episodes and, say, Star Trek II, both McCoy and Spock were key, in different ways, to Kirk’s command. They often advised him seperately. And they had their own relationship. But the three weren’t constantly on screen together or interacting as a trio (except, say in Star Trek V). The scenes with all three of them are, typically, pretty limited… apart from landing party and some bridge scenes.
I just think it’s tricky when we try to break down Trek into requirements — we need the trio, we need an allegory to a social issue today, we need a moral to the story, we need quotes to show that Kirk has a library card, we need a mildly racist barb from McCoy to Spock (I guess bastard and son-of-a-bitch are off limits now that his mom is dead, which might explain the weak hobgoblin slam from Star Trek 09), we need Scotty to miraculously save the day.

Trek 09 stayed just on this side of caricature (I need spell check on here) — and all that stuff can be fun. But, again, look at the Trek that didn’t work (the worst of teh third season, Trek V, almsot everything made after First Contact) and you see them trying to use a formula and fit in all these requirements of the brand, like they’re checking stuff off on a whiteboard.

All that stuff developed over time — the big three were the stars of teh show so they got the bulk of the lines, and yeah, both started as pretty standard figures. Spock was cold logic and McCoy was, arguably, human emotion.

163. somethoughts - November 27, 2011


Indeed, smart clothing that provides cloaking, temlerature control and ability to deflect weapons, shields up!

164. VulcanFilmCritic - November 27, 2011

@156 Spock/Uhura Fan. I agree. The women do need an “away” uniform.
I can’t imagine them running around a frozen wasteland of a planet in their usual get-up, but on board the Enterprise, it’s OK by me.

As for the Spock/Uhura relationship, I’m all for it. As you say, just as long as they maintain who they are. That would be the fun of watching this duo in the next movie. The problem with ST09 is that we don’t really have a chance to find out who this new Spock is before this relationship gets shoved in our faces. We assume that their personalities are the same as the classic Spock and Uhura, but that might not be the case.

For one, this Spock cares about what other people think of him. (“I had hoped to avoid the appearance of …) Classic Mr. Spock didn’t give a rat’s ass what people thought of him. The only thing that embarrassed him was being emotionally out of control during the Vulcan mating rite. He has emotions, but as long as he’s in control, he’s fine.
Also, this Mr. Spock is petty and a little bitchy, bringing up the death of Kirk’s father. Nimoy-Spock would never do that.
And third, this Spock is not completely in control of himself.

Classic Spock and Uhura were a little bit like George Burns and Gracie Allen. At least in “Man Trap” they were. They are more useful as a light touch of comic relief, than some angsty soap opera-like tragic love affair.
If they are to retain their true natures then they should be like “chalk and cheese,” or like Mars and Venus. I am reminded of another C.S . Forester novel, “The African Queen.” I would love to see how two people who are presumably so different could get together. Instead we kind of meet them in med-stream. No mystery there.

165. somethoughts - November 27, 2011


I recall Nimoy saying ST09 spock is a much younger and raw version of spock as we knew spock from TOS, therefore a spock where he isnt as in control of his emotions is not out of the question.

166. charles charles - November 27, 2011

that is truly good film making.

167. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 27, 2011

I have said, way back, that there would probably need to be some form of an “away mission” uniform, where more protective clothing would be provided for all those (male and female) going on such missions. With the kinds of light, easy wear as well as hard wearing easy care fabrics around today, that shouldn’t be too much of a problem for the 23rd century Star Trek world. The clothing could be very functional and attractive on the wearer.

168. Cervantes (M) - November 27, 2011

I’m certainly all for a more logically ‘protected’ look to any ‘landing party’ missions, as long as Uhura and the rest of the TOS gals revert back into their more ‘trendy’ look once aboard again!

169. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 27, 2011

Yeah well that would be one messed up universe Harry. The type of place where a guy like Spock would have a communications office he could call his very own, or sport a goatee.

170. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 27, 2011

Communications officer.

171. Cervantes (M) - November 27, 2011

…of course, certain storylines could necessitate Uhura and other gals being made to make a very sudden departure from the ‘E’ to another situation, with no time to ‘change’…which would suit me fine too. ;)

172. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 27, 2011

Yes, right, the correct wording is “landing party” – I just couldn’t think of it and kept coming back to the TNG term “away team”. This is probably because my oldest son has been playing re-runs of TNG episodes on the TV…:) He watches it all and, like his mum, enjoys something of everything Star Trek made so far.

173. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 27, 2011

#169 I take it that you don’t think that Lt Uhura, Communications officer, would be for her human/vulcan hybrid man sporting a goatee. Who knows – she may think that the goatee might be his most attractive feature…:)

174. Christoph - November 27, 2011

They started over when they changed the timeline… so what else can they “start over”?

175. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 27, 2011

173. No Kea, not at all. I’m actually enjoying reading the conversation about the uniforms and THE relationship. I was merely teasing Harry about Aurore. I kind of like the S/U thing, though I understand some of the criticism. It is fraught with um, complications, but so far I’m intrigued.

176. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 27, 2011

@#164. Vulcanfilmcritic

As somethoughts said, we are dealing with a younger Spock that has not yet matured as much as Nimoy’s Spock. You said that Nimoy’s Spock would have never answered s direct question with what was basically a ‘cold truth’ answer based off of the facts, but I disagree. To me, the essence of Spock has not changed, and in this timeline, his first encoun with Kirk was when he caught him trying to get away with cheating a test. So, that’s not a very good first impression. I imagine that if those were the circumstances the original met original Kirk, then Spock would have confronted him in a purely factual way as well, absent of the care and consideration that a then nonexistent friendship might have provided.

Remember, when TOS started, they were already a team/crew. We met them ‘mid-stream’ as a crew so to speak, and not while they were just coming together in a different timeline under different circumstances.

I like the fact that in this timeline, the mystery of how the became a team was uncovered, and I’d love to see how Spock and Uhura became a couple perhaps. To me that would be nice. I think there is a lot of mystery to uncover there as their love grows and they both figure out how and when to take the next step(s).

George Burns and Gracie Allen, as well as Queen of Africa, um, I’m not so sure. I don’t see Spock as the grouch that George was, and I really don’t see Uhura as high-pitched ‘cheese’ as you say. Although I didn’t read the book, from Katherine Hepburn’s portrayal (but it’s been a long while since I saw the film), it seems to me like her character and Gracie are not much alike, so it seems to me like you have presented a controdiction of what you expect Uhura to be like. I always saw Uhura as a character with a certain poise and grace. I think that compliments this young Spock’s developing grace in logic. I look forward to seeing deepen between the both of them.

I don’t think that they should be comic relief or a tragic soapy affair. What I’d like to see is a meaningful love story about 2 people who are meant to be together in this life and timeline. It’s as simple as that for me. Just like with the popular friendships, I would like to see their bond deepen as the face and beat whatever odds together, both professionally and in their private lives together.

I don’t think that their relationship was shoved in our faces, but that’s just me. I think that we’ll get to uncover additional mysteries and learn more about who they are and what makes them tick in this timeline as their story and the overall story unfolds.

177. rangerone314 - November 27, 2011

Well if you know anything about engineers in the Navy, it wouldn’t surprise me if that WAS a brewery on the 2009 Enterprise.

178. Yorkie - November 28, 2011

DUMP THE MOVIE and start a new TV series with the same characters. You have already turned Trek upside down by altering the timeline which is a big shame. Years of work by others is now useless ‘history’

179. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 28, 2011

178 Yorkie. That is so worth tweeting twice… I agree WHOLE HEARTEDLY!

178. Yorkie – November 28, 2011
DUMP THE MOVIE and start a new TV series with the same characters. You have already turned Trek upside down by altering the timeline which is a big shame. Years of work by others is now useless ‘history’

180. miguel - November 28, 2011

Quote is out of context. Read the entire block, he isn’t talking about the plot as he is the art of making movies in a franchise. Star Trek 2 3 and 4 did this.

181. John from Cincinnati - November 28, 2011

It just means the next movie will not be a direct continuation from the last movie, as in, like 5 minutes after the last movie ended. Some time has passed, like 6 months or so. No biggie. They should be on their 5 year mission when we see them next.

182. John from Cincinnati - November 28, 2011


The new timeline exists in of itself. The original timeline is still intact. No worries.

183. somethoughts - November 28, 2011


The original timeline is rotting away with B4, no Kirk, no Spock, no Romulus, retired Picard and Riker and Troi is on the USS Titan making many babies and watching Enterprise episodes in the Holodeck. There’s constant war also with the Klingons and Borg and everyone runs around with phasers shooting on planets in that lame STO game.

No Wonder Nimoy went to the new alternate universe :)

184. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - November 28, 2011

@183 i tend to agree… The prime timeline needs to be mended!

185. somethoughts - November 28, 2011

They should do a TNG movie with the Enerprise D, perhaps start it as soon as they return from First Contact and before Insurrection and Nemesis.

A Q movie with

John Delancie, TNG Cast, Christian Bale, Joseph Gorden Levitt, Al Pachino, Jack Nicholson, Robert Duvall, Gene Hackman, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Caine, Cate Blanchett, Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, Julianne Moore, Kevin Spacey and Edward Norton.

Budget: $350million, expected ROI $1billion

Director: James Cameron, JJ Abrams and Stephen Spielberg

Wrtier(s) Ronald D. Moore, Bob Orci, Alex K, Damino L, Leonard Nimoy, James Cameron

1970-1980s Style ILM, detailed models and 3D IMAX cameras and ground breaking special effects like T2 in 1990s.

Music: Michael G and James Horner

Martial arts: Donnie Yen, Tony Leung Siu-hung and Sammo Hung choreography

Villains: Gorn, Orion Sydicate, Mudd, Talosians, rebooted Klingons and nature

Themes: Racism/hate, and Greed/Human condition

Length: 3 hours and 25mins.

Special help from NASA, UN, China, CIA, Navy, Military, Top Gun, Russia/KGB

186. somethoughts - November 28, 2011

Fight scenes like this boborci, please and thanks :)


gets pretty epic at 7:15

187. somethoughts - November 28, 2011

here’s a better version with english subtitles


188. Yorkie - November 28, 2011

I think we have people directing the ‘NEW’ Trek movies that don’t know the history and the following of it’s Trekkers and the writers who have painstakingly put together stories that interlink. You get one director that has the idea of doing Trek before Trek eg young Kirk Spock etc and then flashes it up to look more modern than Voyager TNG etc. It’s not logical, they did the same with Enterprise it looked more flash than TOS, it’s out of time.
If you can’t do the Trek world proper justice forget it and lets face it, if directors are interested in a project they wouldn’t wait 4 YEARS between films.
Bring back a good quality TV series and use the money from the film to pay for it!

189. Lee Watson - November 28, 2011

The creation of the new time line doesn’t erase the original past, that would still continue. Spock has created an ‘alternate’ timeline (as mentioned in ST09) a la ‘The Mirror Universe’ and the timeline change of First Contact, which people must not forget (Bring the borg into Pre-TOS timeline explains the ‘borg were in the past, so why didn’t they have tech in TNG’ question (Again, seperate timeline). This new timeline could still have the same stories, with the exception of the fact that the ‘intellectual puppets of the federation’ (STIII) will be in effect, ineffectual in this universe, so relations with the Romulans and the Klingons may be even worse or better and technological advancements may be completely different.
TOS Episode, Space Seed, may even be the next film, a totally plausable premise for the next movie as Khan & co are still on the SS Botany Bay somewhere out there, providing it’s done with someone who can emulate Riccardo Montalban’s epic Khan in STII (Not in the fasion of Space Seed tho!). As for Spork and Uhuru, they were in fact supposed to get together in TOS, but Shatner wanted to have that kiss, and the storyline was abandoned. I like the fact Gene’s version was brought to fruition here. Don’t forget Spock is half human, we’re seeing what Sarek and Amanda must have been like!
Just thought I’d throw my opinion in!

190. Aurore - November 28, 2011

“Just thought I’d throw my opinion in!”

The more the merrier!


191. Danny Mahon - November 28, 2011

Too long a wait! Creators shouldn’t take advantage of fans patience…Yawn!!!

192. NuFan - November 28, 2011

192. if directors are interested in a project they wouldn’t wait 4 YEARS between films.

I’ll let Christopher Nolan know you said that.

193. somethoughts - November 28, 2011

This should help young Kirk survive in “Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence.”


194. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 28, 2011

Hope they’re not too far along the five year mission. The characters need to evolve some after the last flick and I’d like to see how they become those people we’ve come to know. No rush getting old – I’d like to see those early days. Show us something different boys!

195. somethoughts - November 28, 2011

Kirk and crew needs to learn krav maga! Kick some ass!

196. Hat Rick - November 29, 2011

Here’s some far-out ideas for the next sequel, in no particular order:

Have “Commander Tom” Jolls, longtime fixture (now-retired Buffalo, NY weather forecaster and children’s TV host) make a cameo as a Starfleet officer. ( http://www.staffannouncer.com/irv/commandertom1.jpg ) Consider it a shout out to the folks in TV-land who used to watch Star Trek in reruns when the Commander Tom show was also on.

Have an ancestor of Worf do a cameo of some sort. (A tribute to a similar device used in STVI for the Klingon defense attorney.)

Show us a version of Nurse Chapel that has her as a physician, not a nurse, as a tribute to the fact that women these days can aspire to become a medical doctor / everything that a guy can do (and more).

Mention Ilia or her species (from ST:TMP) in some sly and oblique way, such as throwaway line referring to how the Deltans manage to get around their pledge not to take advantage of sexually immature species or some such thing. (Remember the “farm animals” joke in ST09? Star Trek can be “risque” business.)

Mention V’Gr; Spock Prime knows of its existence.

Speaking of Spock Prime, have him serve (off camera) as official advisor to the Federation Council, since there are a great many things in the JJverse that are still exactly the same as in the Prime Timeline.

You can really have a ball with inside references that Trek geeks like me can enjoy.

Heck, have someone enjoy a classic episode of that ancient Earth TV show, “I Love Lucy,” without which there probably wouldn’t have been a Star Trek.

And, finally, incorporate Gene Roddenberry’s name somehow in the new movie as the ultimate tribute to the Great Bird of the Galaxy.

ST movies come but once every four years or so. Gotta make ’em count.

197. Hat Rick - November 29, 2011

^^ I meant to write, “longtime local TV news fixture”.

198. DJT - November 29, 2011

“Prepare to re-activate!”

199. George - November 29, 2011

My only concern about the movie being in 3D is that it’s shot in 3D and not a conversion to 3D. Sorry but the conversion process just doesn’t work very well but if it’s shot that way it should be GREAT!!

200. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 29, 2011


Start Over?

I really don’t know what to think. But the LAST movie was really a Start Over.

201. Phil - November 29, 2011

@186. Why? Trek Fu kinda runs a bit counter to people in the 23rd century trying to get along. If we go that direction I suppose we could dig up Bruce Lee to go mano a mano with Shatner. I’m sure at least….oh, 20 people would pay good money to watch that….

202. Phil - November 29, 2011

Regarding 201……oh, never mind….sucks when you read the thread from bottom up.

203. somethoughts - November 29, 2011


Count how many fight scenes was done in all star trek movies then ask yourself if you would like to see them improved with better choreography, realism and awesome.

204. Harry Ballz - November 29, 2011


Did you say BOTTOMS UP?

Pour me a martini!


205. Rusty0918 - November 29, 2011

RDR – First off I apogoize for comming of as an immature jerk eariler. But you raise a good point. As uniforms, the miniskirt variety is inappropriate. One thing I like to think of is “What Would Patton Do?” There was this one scene in the 1970 movie “Patton” with George C. Scott where General Patton he sees a pinup girl poster in one of the barracks. He admires it some, then whacks it down with his swagger stick commenting that “This is a barracks, not a bordello!”

somethoughts – another TNG movie is NOT going to happen anytime soon.

Keachick, what I was going at is simple: one female main who wears the skirt variation, one who wears the pants (that security chief idea I’ve been mentioning).

206. somethoughts - November 29, 2011


Yea was just fantasizing out loud :) wanted my TNG to go out in style lol

207. somethoughts - November 29, 2011


Yea was just fantasizing out loud :) wanted my TNG to go out in style lol

208. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 29, 2011

“What Would Patton Do?” There was this one scene in the 1970 movie “Patton” with George C. Scott where General Patton he sees a pinup girl poster in one of the barracks. He admires it some, then whacks it down with his swagger stick commenting that “This is a barracks, not a bordello!”

Geez, you still don’t get it, do you? Now you are comparing Lt Uhura and other women who wear the mini-skirt to pin-up poster girls and then by inference, refer to them dressing the way a prostitute might dress. Lt Uhura and those other Starfleet women are not prostitutes. Now you really are being insulting!

I couldn’t give a shit what General Patton might think. Very outdated and not relevant.

209. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 29, 2011

What I don’t understand is why are people picking on the women/woman for wearing a Starfleet UNIFORM. Sorry about the capital letters, but it seems like there are some people that might be overlooking that.

210. VulcanFilmCritic - November 29, 2011

My, my, my how quaint and Victorian we all are regarding the revelation of a woman’s, ahem, nether regions! Ye gods! All this talk of the sight of a well turned ankle is about to make me swoon!

So forget about skirts; what about wigs? It seems that in TOS there were only a few female officers who wore “normal” female hairstyles: the pixie cut, the pageboy, the ponytail, and the Afro. All the rest seemed to have these impossibly whimsical constructed hairstyles which could only be wigs or hairpieces. In one episode saw Yeoman Rand running onto the bridge and it seemed she was tucking her normal hair into a wig, as a woman would put on a swim cap.

Nurse Chapel seemed to have a gazillion different styles, some blond some gray, and never the same style. Wigs would be the only way they could achieve such fanciful looking hair without much fuss.

Even the men seem to be wearing hairpieces. I’m not going to mention the Captain or Chekov, but I swear, Dr. McCoy certainly looked like he was wearing a “rug” too.

I hope we get to see some glamourous looks for the ladies in the next film, even if it’s only at a formal reception or a cocktail party.

211. somethoughts - November 30, 2011

Well, TNG we had Troi to gaze at? :) DS9 hmmms Dax? Voyager hmmms Kes and 7of9? Enterprise T’Pol and Sato? :)

Let’s continue the trend and have one hottie to gaze at :) keachick gets to gaze at chris pine in Kirk and Spock zq :) so us guys gets to gaze at uhura or hot nurses :)

212. Aurore - November 30, 2011

“’What Would Patton Do?’ There was this one scene in the 1970 movie ‘Patton’ with George C. Scott where General Patton he sees a pinup girl poster in one of the barracks. He admires it some, then whacks it down with his swagger stick commenting that ‘This is a barracks, not a bordello!’”

That was in a movie.

It is somewhat off-topic, but, does anyone, here, really know anything about the General’s thoughts on pin-up posters, in “real life”, as it were?

For, from what I have discovered, in a documentary, recently, I was under the impression that pin-up posters represented much more than lovely faces in a bathing suit, to many of the people who enjoyed them, in those troubled times.

Apparently, some pin-up models could receive mail from servicemen who would share their stories of hopes, fears, loneliness and desire to return home.

In the documentary I watched, for instance, one such woman told how the death of a young man she had had a correspondence with had greatly affected her.

If I remember correctly, she surmised that it was probably due to the fact that, he had been, at the time, the first, and, only person of her generation she knew to have lost their life…

213. P Technobabble - November 30, 2011

Ah, good old wardrobe debates…

214. Hat Rick - November 30, 2011

For those who are so inclined, there are even sites out there that on a parodic basis provide a certain kind of wardrobe (or lack thereof) that might be deemed scandalous even by current standards.

Of course, I refer to those parodic sites featuring actors in “birthday suits.”

Underneath our clothes, we are more or less similar, no?

215. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 30, 2011

Something perhaps Rusty0918 and others might like to bear in mind. This is not from a movie, btw –

In the WW2 one of the most popular pin-up poster girls among US and allied servicemen was a lady called Anne Gwynne. She was from Hollywood and was a member of a singing, dancing and theatrical troupe who performed for allied troops on leave in England, part of the USO(?). Many troops were enamoured by her beauty and stage talent. One US airforce pilot even went so far as to have her image (the famous swimsuit one) painted on the front of his bomber plane. He reckons that she was his “lady luck”, given that he went on many bombing missions near the end of the war over Germany and had survived without injury to himself and crew or serious damage to the aircraft. The actual bomber plane can be seen today at the US Airforce base museum, in England, just outside of London.

Anne Gwynne, after the war, went on to marry a Max Gilford. They had two children, a boy and a girl. The girl is Gwynne Gilford. Gwynne Gilford married a man called Robert Pine in 1969 and 11 years later, they had a son they named Christopher Whitelaw Pine. Yes, that’s right. Our very own Chris Pine/Captain James T Kirk! Anne Gwynne (b. 1918) died on 31 March 2003.

Another more or less fact – my better half has read a lot about the second world war and of General Patton. The first thing he told me was that Patton was well known for being the ultimate male chauvinistic pig and none too pleasant at times either, even in those days, when attitudes towards women are not as quite fair minded or positive as they are today. Frankly, I think General Patton is the last person anyone, especially Trek producers, should be taking cues from when it comes to appropriate uniform dress for women.

216. Aminocell - November 30, 2011

J.J Decided to reboot STAR TREK to the 23rd century again, jump now to the 24th century would be really hard. What we would really like to see is something with a very strong moral content, something that unites humanity instead of divide it, and something with action, passion, excitement, and adventure.
Help make a difference again!

217. Aminocell - November 30, 2011

It would be nice also (Promoting Time traveling again, or in other way :)) to see Zefram Cochrane. James Cromwell is 71 now and it would be nice to have such a figure on a movie to enrich the Star trek history.

218. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 30, 2011

They should have devoted 1 movie to each of the 5 years of the original enterprise missions.

219. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 30, 2011

That way by the fifth sequel it will be just like season 3 of TOS. : )

220. ilkers - December 2, 2011

#11 ROFL! Bless you dude…

221. Chris Drolette - December 2, 2011

Wow, I just don’t have time for this debate right now. I’ve got some opinions but no time to state them. Must be nice for those of you who do. We’re talking about a whole future universe and timeline, you can’t just sum that up in a few offhand comments. I need to think about this though. Some very interesting ideas here. Galactic War, the Federation defeats the Klingon Empire… Long overdue.

222. Chrono - December 3, 2011

Start over? Sounds good. Start over by scrapping the beer reactor in the ship’s brewery and make a real, futuristic engineering set, please.

223. corwin - December 4, 2011

I for one loved the star trek 09 movie and grew up enjoying the series and movies before it and just because it wont be a 2012 movie does not mean it wont be good the way i look at it this is exactly what they need to do to make a movie that isnt just “eh alright” this gives them time to make a damn good story line that will interest and capture an audience like me (im only 20) for one i refused to watch it back in 2009 and didnt watch it till the beginning of this year. so we have to wait longer my oppinion its a necessary evil to make it apeal to everyone old fans and new. i wont make idiotic assumptions do to the fact they want to make it stand alone and so what if they want to make a bigger hit that is what pays for the sequel. i will look forward to the next movie until i watch it let me be disapointed at that point. One point that interests me is the last movie altered the timeline do to a major event in the original timeline that threw everything into a alternate timeline that was forced to play out. If im not mistaken a few episodes of the next generation had a mild case of the same thing but were relativly easy to resolve. It interests me to see what the sequel will do with that timeline they have created and on that note i say good bye and hope that my wait for the movie in 2013 is well worth it

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