Star Trek Sequel Producer Talks “Mad Dash” Beginning & “Original” Story |
jump to navigation

Star Trek Sequel Producer Talks “Mad Dash” Beginning & “Original” Story December 20, 2011

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

And yet more Star Trek sequel tidbits emerging from the promotion of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. This time producer Bryan Burk reveals that the sequel wont go over old ground in terms of setting up the characters. He also talks about how the team approached choosing the villain for the film, saying they have an "original and unique" story. Excerpts and video clip below [possible spoilers].


Burk: Sequel begins with "mad dash" + approach to villain is "original and unique" 

Last month Star Trek sequel producer/director JJ Abrams said that the team were approaching the film as if they were "starting over" in terms of not relying on the audience already loving the characters. But in terms of exposition, Abrams producing partner Bryan Burk has revealed that the sequel will not be going over old grounds in terms of setting up the characters. While promoting Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, producer Bryan Burk talked  to MTV about the Star Trek sequel. He wouldn’t reveal the title of the film or the tone, but he did comment on how the film starts out:

What is exciting about it is, unlike the last film where we were restarting and resetting up all the characters, we are going to jump right in and we don’t have to set up everyone again and we can go right into it. For those who haven’t seen it, go get it right now. We are kind of in a mad dash at the beginning of the film.  In all of our conversations we reference our favorite films and in Empire Strikes Back it is spectacular how they were able to pick up immediately and carry on from the last one.

Burk was also asked about the persistent rumors about Khan being the villain in the film. He didn’t confirm or deny reports, but did talk about the process they took in deciding on the story for the sequel:

There are amazing villains throughout the Star Trek universe, as well as new villains as we did in the last film. There are a lot of directions we can go in the film and in this particular case we chose to do something that would be original and unique and different and again on paper I think we made the right choice.

Watch the video

Get More: Movie Trailers, Movies Blog


1. rm10019 - December 20, 2011

Just sitting back and watching the wheels go round on this new Trek. Can’t wait and I’m sure it will be awesome!

2. Sunfell - December 20, 2011

I am so disappointed that they’re doing it in 3D. It’s going to be so dead by the time it gets released.

Let’s just hope they’ll have a plain old 2D version for folks like me who get migraines from 3D.

3. Kracko - December 20, 2011

wonder if two movies are being shoot at the same time?

4. Cygnus-X1 - December 20, 2011

“Original, unique and different” sounds good! That implies no Khan! Which is good news!

I do, however, have to take issue with the interviewer saying that he would like to see Khan in the new film because he “liked Ricardo.”

The great Ricardo Montalban is gone forever! His irreplaceableness is precisely why you SHOULDN’T want Khan in the new film.

I mean, seriously…what the hell is this guy thinking?!?

He’s NOT thinking, is what it is.

5. Karen Brown - December 20, 2011

It is being shot in 2D, so as long as your theater will show both, I imagine it’ll have 2D offered. I’m hoping, at least. 3D is wasted on me, can’t even see the effect. And yeah, Khan in the new film wouldn’t be a good idea. People often forget this wouldn’t be a redo of The Wrath of Khan, but of the episode, Space Seed. Which probably wouldn’t really play well in 21st century US. So new villain is a great idea!

6. CarlG - December 20, 2011


You should be ok. :)

7. - December 20, 2011

Sorry to be off topic but new batman trailer released yesterday.

it’s also up on apples site in high def.

8. Red Dead Ryan - December 20, 2011


DeForrest Kelley and James Doohan are both “gone forever”, yet their characters were recast with younger actors.

Also, Bryan Burk didn’t say there would be no Khan. He said the movie would be “original, unique, and different” which means the plot is not a rehash of any prior movie or episode. So it won’t be a remake of either “Space Seed” or “The Wrath Of Khan”. It’ll be a new story that stands on its own, yet could still involve Khan.

I’m also glad that “The Empire Strikes Back” has been recognized as the standard to which all sequels are measured. I hope to see a little bit of “Empire” in the sequel.

9. - December 20, 2011

It is looking like No Khan then. That alone is getting me excited.

10. njdss4 - December 20, 2011

After early reports said it WAS Khan, I’m glad everything since then has basically debunked it. Original villain that uses Empire Strikes Back as its measuring stick? Sounds good to me.

11. Vultan - December 20, 2011

I’d like to see a lot of Star Trek: TOS in the sequel.
Seems reasonable.

12. NCM - December 20, 2011

Anthony, thanks for all the articles.

13. DaddlerTheDalek - December 20, 2011

I have nothing against to see Khan, but I really rather want to see a new Villain. Cannot wait to read the Star Trek Sequel & see Teaser material!
By the way. I saw Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocoll in Theatre today. Great Movie. :)

14. Red Dead Ryan - December 20, 2011

Bryan Burk was being pretty evasive in his answers. Once again, there was no comment about whether Khan is in the sequel or not. Nobody’s been cast as the main villain, so obviously they can’t talk about Khan, or any other villain for that matter.

So, in conclusion, nothing much has been revealed that we didn’t know already. The idea of an original and unique story had been floated around on this site by J.J Abrams and Bob Orci for awhile now.

15. Capes - December 20, 2011

Just think……it was only one short year ago at this time that the REAL question was being asked……….WHERE IS ANTHONY AND WHEN WILL THERE BE NEW UPDATES ON THIS PAGE??????? Ah…..the memories……

16. its me - December 20, 2011

once again a video you cannot see in germany. alas. what would be so bad about let some videos also be seen by german users? here are also a lot of fans! really! ;)

17. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 20, 2011

Anthony left us on 17 December 2010 and did not resume communications with this site again until some time in January 2011, if I recall correctly. This thread is an Anthony Pascale thread and it is 20 December (well, it is 21/12/11 here).

Now the real question is (for now) – who is playing the bad boy – Edgar Ramirez or Jordi Molla? Jordi Molla LOOKS badder, but can he play bad as well as Edgar Ramirez?

They can talk about Khan or any other TOS villain if they want, irrespective of who and when the actor gets cast. They just choose not to and leave us fanboys and fangirls to get our panties in a knot wondering who the bad boy is. Even if/when one of those two actors is definitely cast, we still won’t be any the wiser as to who they will be playing.

Khan was never Kirk’s nemesis. The Klingons were his nemesis or certainly became so the Klingon Kruge had Kirk’s son murdered. The Klingons throughout the TOS series were an enemy, untrustworthy, an irritation and annoyance but once his son was killed, that annoyance etc turned to hatred and deep pain, something which Sybok in Star Trek V (I know the movie everyone loves to hate, but not me) picked up on.

18. The Unknown Poster - December 21, 2011

The way they talk around this issue makes me think they have a “new” and “unique” way to introduce Khan into this Universe.

19. Harry Ballz - December 21, 2011

I would guess that with the popularity of Inception we will have the sequel feature the Talosians. Mind-altering illusions sets the stage for a myriad number of dramatic scenes. Too bad. I was hoping for something real to happen with the Enterprise crew, not just something they imagine happened.

20. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 21, 2011

#16 You are not the only one who can’t see the video. I am in NZ and I can’t see it either. So much for wanting a bigger share of the international market. I don’t think this is Hulu video either. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol has been on screens in cinemas here in NZ since 15 December. Sheesh.

21. dixey - December 21, 2011

Betcha it’ll have Klingons in it. And it’s just gotta have a love story to it. Please, no more killing off family members. James Horner maybe???? And William Shatner!

22. CaptRobau - December 21, 2011

I have a feeling that they might set it up as a trilogy. Much like the original Star Wars trilogy. First a film that has a beginning, middle and an end like A New Hope. Followed by a sequel that treats the first one as the beginning of trilogy even though it wasn’t exactly built like that (Empire). Followed by a third film which is the end to the story of the second film (ROTJ).

23. La Reyne d'Epee - December 21, 2011

Video not working for UK either.

24. Jay - December 21, 2011

I’d like to see the ST09 Klingons, whether as main villains or not.

I’d prefer not having Khan in it at all though.

25. Rob - December 21, 2011

@ Keachick: You’re right. Right on the money. The most profound nemesis of Kirk’s life was “those Klingon bastards” and what they represented (his youth, his memories of the five year mission, the pointless death of his son, who we can only assume he had a relationship with during those months between ST II and ST III…). There’s nothing else of consequence.

Khan’s a wonderful counterpoint to Kirk in this way, because though he no doubt had many enemies during the Eugenic Wars and after, Kirk became the focal point later in life. Like Kirk and the Klingons, Khan grew to hate Kirk as a representation of all he had lost.

As Nicholas Meyer said…….SpAce OPera!

26. mr. trek77 - December 21, 2011

nor denmark

27. Rob - December 21, 2011

@ dixey: Sorry Pal, we know it ain’t so…

28. TrekkerChick - December 21, 2011


And, at the end of the movie, it turns out that the first and seond movies were a Talosian illusion for an aged Kirk – played by William Shatner- who retired to Talos IV in the enclosure next to Capt Pike.

/Bobby Ewing-esque shower scene

29. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 21, 2011

DId I read “Empire Strikes Back” above?
Do I really need to comment on this? Should I care at this point?

It’s Star Trek guys! We do not need to see R2 in the next one. Please, Please, no more Star Wars references. Wrong universe (not that Trek is is in the same universe anymore either).

30. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 21, 2011

Yeah, I know. my bad.

But, I am thinking of changing my title to TOSTrekMadeMeWonder.

31. Jim, London - December 21, 2011

Would be nice to hear the Jerry Goldsmith theme tune return to the big screen, perhaps some nids to the Horner tracks aswell. As for my campaign to have Tom Hanks cast as Commodore Decker – I give up.

32. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 21, 2011

31. Jim

I am on board with the Hank suggestion.

I really liked the score at the end of “Trek 09″ though.

33. VZX - December 21, 2011

@19: I actually think that sounds pretty cool. An Inception-like illusions created by Talosians would work for me!

It’d be cool to re-visit the very first Trek villian. We haven’t seen Talosians since 1966. I also know that Abrams likes classic sci-fi imagery. What’s more classic than a big-headed alien?

34. Roobydoo - December 21, 2011

18. The Unknown Poster

Me too. Perhaps Khan was found earlier and has joined Starfleet? Or Khan was picked up by Klingons and has formed an alliance with them? Maybe Khan uses an alias and that is why Pegg “hasn’t heard his name”…

I feel like Miss Marple.

35. Mandy - December 21, 2011

What is the problem with the producers of these new Trek movies, again with the star wars reference?!?!?!

Sadly I am beginning to think that Star Trek was only the SECOND best thing that they can grab. I think that all they wanted to do is a new Star Wars movie but never had the chance!

36. rm10019 - December 21, 2011

35- Every boy in his 30’s and 40’s wanted a crack at a Star Wars Movie and play in the Star Wars universe… Every boy with well educated discerning parents wanted to play in the Star Trek universe.

37. SciFiGuy - December 21, 2011

Suuuuure…it’s an original and unique story about NuKhan…HAHAHA!!!

We’ve never seen THIS story about NuKhan…therefore, it’s “original”…


38. Crewman Darnell - December 21, 2011


No kidding, Mandy!
Yes please, enough of the Star Wars references!!!

39. SciFiGuy - December 21, 2011


Here’s the story: Khan is a Starfleet officer and, when the Enterprise goes through the great barrier, he and his girlfriend, Dr. McGivers are transformed into Hulk-like super humans with telekinetic powers! The corporation — run by Peter Wellers’ CEO character KNEW in advance (or suspected) the ability of the GB to transform humans so they wanted Lt. Khan and Dr. McGivers brought back to Earth for study. However, Klingon Warlord Kor gets wind of the corporations plans and wants to create a battalion of super Klingons to take over the galaxy with — so he sets course to intercept Enterprise to retrieve Lt. Khan and Dr. McGivers.

Complications arise when the Organians show announcing that THEY gave Khan and McGivers their powers in an attempt to evolve mankind into a higher and more peaceful lifetime. However, humans are just too primitive to use their Organian gift for anything other than violence and destruction.

Kor’s ship — The Amar — and the Enterprise are flung back to Federation space after they take away Khan and McGivers powers. A battle ensues between the Enterprise and the Amar. The Enterprise battles the Amar with the saucer section after the secondary hull and warp drive are destroyed.

The Amar is destroyed but Kor escapes in a Klingon escape pod vowing revenge in Kirk — thus, setting up for the sequel: Star Trek IIIII: The Wrath of Kor!

Yep. That’s the story. You read it here.


40. SciFiGuy - December 21, 2011

Forgot to say — pretty original, huh? You’ve never seen a Khan story like that before!!! HAHA!!!

41. Crewman Darnell - December 21, 2011

Lord Garth, aka Garth of Izar. The once Star Fleet hero who became a genocidal maniac. So much villainous potential. Such great possible story fodder and I’d bet we’ll never see it, because that would take a something a bit more than just a superficial interest in Star Trek history.

42. Mandy - December 21, 2011

36. That I understand, and don’t get me wrong, I like star wars (first trilogy) and their new Trek, but my problem is that I am tired of hearing these guys saying how wonderful star wars is and how cool would be if they can emulate that on their versions ST!.

Again, my feeling is that they aimed for SW and settle with what they can grab, and sadly that is Star Trek.

I want them to stop whining and embrace ST with all the wonderful possibilities!

43. - December 21, 2011

Now we know there is no Khan and there is no Shatner the new rumor is that the kardashian’s will be in the sequel.

44. - December 21, 2011

#42. I think you miss the point Mandy. They said they learnt something from Star Wars not that they wanted to make Trek into Star Wars.

And what they learnt pertained to story telling, that the second film started in it’s own setting yet still tied completely with the original.

The lesson is in the story telling technique and that can apply cross genre.

45. Mandy - December 21, 2011

44.- That I understand too. But, every lesson they want to apply comes from SW and they use every opportunity they have to remind us that.

They have great movies like Super 8, Cloverfield even MI3. Haven they learn something from those movies?

Enough with the SW references!

46. Mandy - December 21, 2011

BTW, JJA did said when making STXI that he wanted to do a Star Wars Movie!.

47. TrekMadMeWonder - December 21, 2011

Enough of the Star Wars talk!

39. SciFiGuy

I already postulated that scenario a few days ago. You need to catch up on your TrekMovie posts.

48. SciFiGuy - December 21, 2011

#47 — You mean to tell me someone else could come up with a plot that dumb? HAHA!!!

49. TrekMadMeWonder - December 21, 2011

Hey. at least it was partly new.

50. NuFan - December 21, 2011


Yeah, refusing to give a straight answer is an answer.

51. - December 21, 2011

Why does everyone keep missing the target. It is not Khan…I believe its Gary Mitchell. It makes perfect sense. Just because Gary Mitchell was not in the first movie does not mean he cant be in this one. Gary Mitchell gets his powers and start a war with the Klingons. Meanwhile Kirk has to transport Pike to Talos IV he meets the Talosians and they let me see what it will be like in his future ..enter William Shatner for a cameo… Pike , Tango and Vina are then sent home [Hawaii]. Kirk realizes that Gary has to be stopped and enlists the Talosians to help him defeat Gary Mitchell his friend. Once the movie is finished …their is a spoiler show …USS Botnay Bay … Hows is that bob O. for a plot.

Any feedback would love to hear it

52. n1701ncc - December 21, 2011

Why does everyone keep missing the target. It is not Khan…I believe its Gary Mitchell. It makes perfect sense. Just because Gary Mitchell was not in the first movie does not mean he cant be in this one. Gary Mitchell gets his powers and starts a war with the Klingons. Meanwhile Kirk has to transport Pike to Talos IV he meets the Talosians and they let Kirk see what it will be like in his future ..enter William Shatner for a cameo… Pike , Tango and Vina are then sent home [Hawaii]. Kirk realizes that Gary has to be stopped and enlists the Talosians to help him defeat Gary Mitchell his friend. Once the movie is finished …their is a spoiler to show …USS Botnay Bay … Hows is that bob O. for a plot.

PS The tombstone for Kirk please get it right Jame T. Kirk not James R. Kirk…for those who dont know this watch where no man has gone before TOS.

Any feedback would love to hear it

53. Vultan - December 21, 2011


I dunno, Harry. Avatar and the Smurfs are pretty popular. Does that mean we’ll see Andorians in the sequel?

Don’t be blue.

54. Greenberg - December 21, 2011

“He also talks about how the team approached choosing the villain for the film, saying they have an “original and unique” story”

The very fact that they’re going with a villain suggests that it won’t be all that original and unique, but as long as it’s better than the last one I’ll be happy.

55. John from Cincinnati - December 21, 2011

I don’t think the Batman movies should ever again use any of the villains from the comics. They need to break new ground, with NEW characters. The same with the Spiderman, Superman and X-Men movies. The same goes for any future Star Wars movies, no old characers. Only new ones!

Why should the universe in the next movie even resemble Star Trek? I think the Enterprise should get destroyed and they fly around in the USS Decatur. I think Kirk, Spock and McCoy should all get killed in the next movie and have Scotty be the Captain with a whole new set of characters as the crew.

56. Sebastian S. - December 21, 2011

I’m choosing to optimistically regard Burk’s comments about an ‘original’ villain as meaning ‘no-Khan.’ Nothing against the Khan character, but the prime universe covered his arc well enough, IMO. Nothing new (or interesting to add that wouldn’t be a rehash to some degree).

I sincerely hope his comments are accurate to what I’m taking from them…

57. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 21, 2011

#51 – I don’t think that Gary Mitchell will be in the sequel because his character has been written about in the Ongoing comics and at the end of the story, Gary Mitchell dies. Many of the stories told in the comic series are re-imaginings of various TOS episodes, including the Gary Mitchell episode. However, Bob and others have said that the movie series will contain original stories.

I don’t want to see some Inception type of story – great for Inception but this is Star Trek. That is not to say if the Talosians do appear in the sequel, that there may not be a small part of the movie where the characters do not realise that they are living within a Talosian created illusion, but they quickly discover the illusion.

Yes, enough with the Star Wars references. However, I think that the Bad Robot team not only like to be secretive, but also like to tease and stir to see what rises they can get from Trekkies/ers. These are all mere males after all – very talented, very bright but still little boys at heart playing in their sandpit…;)

58. Harry Ballz - December 21, 2011


Vultan, I turned green after reading your post! :>)

59. Anthony Thompson - December 21, 2011

ORIGINAL! Got that, Khan lovers? No retreads of Space Seed / TWOK. Something fresh and new. Now Trek can make us wonder again. ; )

60. jas_montreal - December 21, 2011

Dear Bryan,

Your no Chris Nolan. Until you figure that out… then only then, will you produce a better quality Star Trek film.


61. Vultan - December 21, 2011


Thanks for reading my post, Harry.
So I guess you’re a well-RED person?

62. Planet Pandro - December 21, 2011

I could see it going down like so: Possibly the Klingons or whomever facing off against starfleet, bringing on big space battles and life and death decisions etc. But our antagonists are being manipulated by a power-hungry shadowy figure, who goes by some name like “the overlord” or “supreme leader” or whatever. Kirk is captured and brought to this villanous mastermind who has pitted starfleet against other alien powers in the universe, and Kirk asks: “what’s your stake in this? who are you???” and our shadowy villain steps forward and says: “on earth, 200 years ago, I was a prince…with power over millions…”
Intro Khan.

Unique and Original?

63. Tarkov2000 - December 21, 2011

I’m with #29 & #35 – stop with the Star Wars references. There is a whole wealth of human history, events, and literature that existed before 70s-80s movies. Dig into that for inspiration. The original series producers and writers knew this and used it well.

Every pro in mainstream Hollywood today seems to only be influenced by other big budget movies that have done well. The “we really wanted to make Star Wars” vibe of Trek 2009 is abundantly clear in the film (listen to the dvd commentary if you want proof).

I really hope they steer clear of anything near “Obsessed with finding young Kirk, the evil lord Khan has dispatched thousands of tribbles into space…”

64. I, Mugsy - December 21, 2011

I think it’s a damn shame they’re even talking about a villain at all. Is Trek now just a villain of the week (or every 3/4 years!) franchise tarted up with sci-fi trappings?

Trek I and IV both dared to do something different (in terms of the big screen) and I hope this isn’t yet another revenge story. Bring back the damned sci-fi in my sci-fi……

We have Transformers for the brain-dead morons in the audience who just want to see “sh*t blown up innit” – treat Trek differently…

Fingers and toes crossed…


65. Admiral_BlackCat - December 21, 2011

Alright, that confirms it, no Space Seed or TWOK remake! But definitely leaves open that they’ll do Khan with an “original and unique and different” approach.
Bring on Khan!

66. Vultan - December 21, 2011

#63 & #64

Well put.

The thing I liked about TMP and TVH was that they more puzzle/mystery sort of stories instead of the good-versus-evil plot that gets retread over and over and over again. Kirk and crew had to figure out how to solve problems with their brains instead of just blowing up something (which Trek 5 did in spectacularly bad fashion. Got an evil God-entity after you? Ah, just blow it up. Problem solved.)

67. Kirk, James T. - December 21, 2011

@ 7, I downloaded the Batman trailer and I was pretty disappointed by it. It’s by no means a bad trailer but it’s not as blow your mind or as epic as TDK trailer. Thats not to say that the final in Nolan’s Bat-flicks is going to be anything but mind blowing…

Trek 2 is going to be amazing I think, the 4 year wait alone is going to drive me nutty for this second outing of what I’d say is the best crew since DS9.

68. Decker - December 21, 2011

Khan will still be in carbon-freeze when they find him.
Also, Khan’s ship doesn’t have hyperspace.

69. Red Dead Ryan - December 21, 2011

I hate to break it you folks, but the original “Star Wars” trilogy set the bar for sci-fi on the big screen. Those movies are the blueprint for how to bring in the mass audiences. Part of the reason the last Trek movie was successful was because it appealed to “Star Wars” fans by reminding them of what made the original trilogy so great. TESB will be the measuring stick for the Trek sequel. Just as it should be. Something that makes us remember why TESB is so great.

The smartest thing that J.J Abrams did was to add a little bit of “Star Wars”.

Even after all of these years, “Star Wars” is still the standard to which all else is compared and measured, including “Star Trek”.

70. Blake Powers - December 21, 2011

Haven’t posted in a while.
Still super Excited.
That is my Haiku.

71. Gordon Ramsey's knife - December 21, 2011


The new MMO star wars game is actually real fun… compared to Star Trek online

72. Vultan - December 21, 2011

You know, I heard JJ Abrams was criticized for Trek ’09 even when he went to his local synagogue. His reply:

“Silly rabbi, Trek is for kids.”


73. rm10019 - December 21, 2011

groan, i guess not everyone can be funny.

74. Mikey1091 - December 21, 2011

I love how they confirm but don’t confirm anything at the same damn time.

75. Vultan - December 21, 2011


Hey, we tell bad jokes here.
It’s a tradition.

76. Odkin - December 21, 2011

Kirk’s main nemesis was NEVER Khan, Klingons or Romulans.

The opponent in TOS that gave Kirk the most heartburn was always bureaucrats, technocrats and diplomats. Petty people with grey morals and superior attitudes.

77. rm10019 - December 21, 2011

75 – Here is to a new tradition in 2012 [toast] :)

78. Maxwell Everett - December 21, 2011

@ 69. Red Dead Ryan – December 21, 2011

Except, STAR WARS isn’t sci-fi… it’s fantasy. It’s set in the past, in some other galaxy. It’s wizards and goblins and magic. STAR TREK is set in our own future world. That’s real sci-fi.

79. Thorny - December 21, 2011

69… Well, the first two SW movies, anyway. I was disappointed in Return of the Jedi and haven’t really changed my mind in the years since. I mean, “Luke and company blow up the Death Star… again”… Really?

80. Luke Michalski - December 21, 2011

Is Burk saying Star Track? hahaha. I could be wrong.

81. rm10019 - December 21, 2011

78 – well said. There is a difference that is lost on most people.

82. John from Cincinnati - December 21, 2011


There’s nothing unique and original about Klingons. You might as well and Romulans to that statement as well.

83. Vultan - December 21, 2011

Star Wars? Is that still around?

84. Battle-scarred Sciatica - December 21, 2011

Everyone seen the Hobbit trailer?

Enjoy! :)

85. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - December 21, 2011

I would like to see…

– Klingons without cranial ridges again. That would be cool.
– Nurse Chapel.
– Janice Rand.
– Spock/Uhura.


86. Brett Campbell - December 21, 2011

“Original and unique,” huh? I’ll believe it when I see it.

87. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - December 21, 2011

Hmm. Let’s have the Doomsday mAchine blow up some more planets.
Seriously though. Make it baout the Dokmsday machine and find out where it came from and who built it.

88. Effinit - December 21, 2011

Khan, Gary Mitchell, Klingons….whatever. As long as it’s something we’ve already seen over and over and over again. As a true Star Trek fan, I only want the same old thing. I want my films to be completely self-referential rehashings of ideas, memes, and characters that Ive seen since the day I was born. Yeah, it’s ok if it’s a little bit different, but only a little – truly new stuff makes me uncomfortable. It’s simply not enought that the film is good ol’ comfy Star Trek, it must be the SAME ST with the same villains and the same stuff…again. Still. Surprises make me uneasy.

89. NuFan - December 21, 2011

78 STAR TREK is set in our own future world

Obviously not. We never had any eugenics wars. Captain Christopher’s son never went to Saturn and whatever else. Although, I guess the new universe could be the one that we are all living in.

90. N - December 21, 2011

If Khan wasn’t in it we would know by now. So we are getting a different spin on the Khan story, big deal. OMG what will they do after ST 2 they won’t have any idea what to do with out Khan. Or who knows maybe 2&3 will be back to back Khan, Space Seed for 2 and Wrath for 3. roll eyes.

91. John from Cincinnati - December 21, 2011

I think it is important to note, saying they are doing an original and unique story doesn’t necessarily exclude an original character such as Khan.

Star Trek 09 was an original and unique story while it also had the original characters of Kirk, Spock, Prime Spock, Pike etc. etc.

92. Captain Ransom - December 21, 2011

well no surprise here. jj abrams is ruining the star trek universe with star wars as inspiration. i’m surprised he even realizes they aren’t the same series. star trek XI was awful and setting up the characters was basically non-existent in that movie as well. compare it with startship troopers which has the same boot-camp style set up. far better done. setting up the characters was clear a waste of time for abrams.

star trek has always been about character development. abrams wants it to be about fast-paced in your face 3D action. fail. notice the guy references the empire strikes back. he can’t even pull anything from ten previous trek movies. and um, the empire strikes back was part 2 of a three part trilogy, hence no need for setting things up. star trek XII is not part 2. can’t wait until trek is back again in better hands.

93. Craiger - December 21, 2011

Guys, we forget its not want the Trek fans want its what will get the general audience to see the sequel mainly and pleasing the Trek fans second with little nods to TOS that only the TOS fans would know about.

94. SciFiGuy - December 21, 2011

#88 — You sarcasm is NOT lost on ME and I love it!!! I could not agree with you more.

95. AJ - December 21, 2011

Bryan Burk doesn’t sound exactly like the “Trekker” in the Supreme Court (that goes to Orci). He just sounds like a corporate dude who’s skilled at talking ad nauseam while revealing nothing (and that is NOT a put-down).

With JJ’s penchant for secrecy, Burk is in fine form. Additionally, using “Empire Strikes Back” as a reference does not imply some kind of ‘star-warsification’ of the ‘Star Trek’ franchise under JJ. It seems here to imply that we’ll be thrown right into the action rather than be re-introduced to the characters. Fine by me, and an apt comparison.

96. John - December 21, 2011

Oh lord get over it man. I’m so tired of the same crap coming out of peoples mouths EVERY time an character in a classic movie is recast for a new movie. Guess what… IT WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN! Your love and affection for the original is great and we’re all very impressed by your dedication, but with new generations come new story tellers specifically tailored to current target audiences.

Enjoy your classics, but keep your generic comments in your head where they belong. If you can’t deal with the sight of a character recast don’t see the new movie, pop STII and go to town.

97. - December 21, 2011

I hope it’s not another wrath of film. Wrath of Khan, Wrath of Shinzon, Wrath of Nero.

Wrath has been done as often as time travel in the movies.

98. Craiger - December 21, 2011

Also what I mean by bring in the general audience is I don’t think we will see any type of intellectual Trek in the sequel it will probably be action packed like before. I don’t think the general audience will want to see a remake of Where No Man Has Gone Before or The Cage type situations.

99. Shilliam Watner - December 21, 2011

I don’t care if it’s Klingons, Khan or Screech as the villain(s), as long as they do it well!

100. soonerdew - December 21, 2011

I don’t think anything said so far”debunks” Khan at all. All we’ve heard and read are non-denial denials. Anything these guys do with Khan will be original because they wrote it, and I think they’re trying to deflect the negative early feedback to the notion of Khan being retread as the villain.

And I Hate the 3D decision, period.

101. Captain Karl - December 21, 2011

Why does there NEED to be a villain? Why do we need to rely on the crutch of a bad guy to generate drama? Villains tend to all turn out to be essentially the same anyway, and we know the good guys will always win out in the end.

102. T'Cal - December 21, 2011

3. Kracko – December 20, 2011
wonder if two movies are being shoot at the same time?

I was wondering the same thing. That would explain the ginormous delay.

103. N - December 21, 2011

I’m personally sick of the villain angle. I guess a real ST story is out of the question.

104. NickInABox - December 21, 2011

I feel like I’ve read this article before, but with the names and context changed. Dejavu!

105. Vultan - December 21, 2011

C’mon guys, only the last seven Trek movies have had the villain angle.
Only… seven….

106. Barb - December 21, 2011

I have posted here repeatedly that JJAbram’s reference for JJA Trek I was Star Wars (ep. 4), and his reference for this would be The Empire Strikes Back (Ep. 5) he’s a Warsie, not A Trek fan. I can’t believe he actually SAID that he wanted it to be like Empire Strikes Back to the interviewer. I repeat: The bad guy will have a mask. He is NOT Khan. George Kirk did not die. He was captured and taken to Romulas where he has been brainwashed. We will not see the Romulan connection this time, but the end of the third movie is: Kirk, I am George, your father…

107. Jonboc - December 21, 2011

…and I’m personally sick of people who think Star Trek never had villains. Yes, there were perilous situations with nature and battles with ravaging diseases, but there were also villains. Mean, nasty villains. Kor, Kang, Colonel Green, Roger Corby, Dr. Adams, Trelane, Captain Tracy, Sylvia, Harry Mudd,Parmen….just to mention a few. Enough with the “real Trek stories don’t feature villains” already. It’s utter nonsense. Ad yes, villains are fun. TOS realized this as do JJ and company. Bring on the bad guys!

108. Jack - December 21, 2011

103. Agreed.

WNMHGB is probably my favourite Trek episode, tied with Balance of Terror. Both had villains, sort of.

Heck, antagonists are fine, especially if there are a few or it’s a bit more complicated. But no mustache-twirling villain. That said, I actually thought teh MI4 bad guy worked — we knew nothing about him, and that was fine, strangely. We’re always saying that Trek doesn’t need a villain, especially a Bond villain like Soran, Shinzon or Nero… but what’s a workable alternative?

And for everybody who (I mean generally — not here today… because it comes up sometimes) loves the doomsday machine as a movie idea — I still don’t get it. And I’m not trying to be a dick, I”m just trying to understand the appeal of a movie based on this and how it would work. That story wasn’t the doomsday machine at all, really, but about obsession. It’s interesting that it’s this mindless machine that consumes everything (with a mysterious origin that would probably suck if it was actually revealed, because the mystery is better)… but, that’s kind of it. As a big time movie plot it doesn’t quite work as a commentary on war, consumerism, rape of the environment, etc. etc. and it just seems kind of, well, boring. And, yeah, there’d be lots of fx and explosions and things that others on here think are anathema to Star Trek. And to have any real stakes, it would need to destroy Vulcan… I mean Earth. Which fans wouldn’t like. Me, I don’t get it. But I’d love to be wrong.

I’m hoping for a bit of a thriller with cold war-y intrigue, general out-smarting (on all sides), and a bit of a real moral dilemma for our heroes. I don’t want to see a remake of Avatar.

109. Vultan - December 21, 2011


No one is saying Trek never had villains.
It just doesn’t NEED them to be successful.

110. Red Dead Ryan - December 21, 2011

There was nothing wrong with Paramount hiring a “Star Wars” guy for the reboot. In fact, I think it helped, along with the huge budget, to inject some much needed visceral, energetic, and epic storytelling that was much needed since Trek had become too slow at times. Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman are the two resident Trekkies who advise J.J Abrams on what will work and what won’t through the script writing process, while Abrams brings in the outsider perspective to help create a unique film series that fits into Trek lore but also stands apart at the same time.

Its simply the “best of both worlds”. I don’t know why some people are so up in arms about having a couple of “Star Wars” guys producing the new “Star Trek” movies. The box office shows the movie was successful. Fan and critic response was overwhelmingly positive.

What more can be said?

111. Vultan - December 21, 2011

I remember when George Lucas put a little Trek into Wars.
They were called “midichlorians,” and I don’t believe they were all that well received.

That’s not to say Trek shouldn’t be as exciting and dynamic as Star Wars; it certainly can be. But the central ideas/philosophies of the two are completely different—and should remain so. If not, Trek will be as simple and common as all the other franchise wagon’s out there trying to be the “New Hope.”

112. Vultan - December 21, 2011

Correction: wagons out there racing…

113. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - December 21, 2011

What no article about the announcement that Star Trek is not being shot in native 3D but being converted in post production?
Or that JJ is hoping to shoot some scenes in IMAX?

114. DennisR - December 21, 2011

Uh…click on the main page and scroll down 5 posts.

115. AJ - December 21, 2011

My main concern is that with ‘Star Trek,’ JJ is batting 2 for 2 in terms of long delays and potential budget overruns (The Budweiser Engine Room was a money-saver).

Trek went through many movies on slim budgets with Harve Bennett in charge, and thanks to stock ship shots and plasticky sets (Ceti Alpha V, Genesis) which some say adds schlock-appeal, with which I disagree.

TMP had access to cash, and it failed to become Star Wars reincarnated, and, since then, I don’t believe there’s really been the commitment from the studio to ‘do it right.’ JJ Abrams and his team is as close as they’ve come, but as fans, we get pure amateur hour in terms of missed release dates, and cut corners (fake 3D). “Maybe” we get true IMAX. Shooting in three weeks, and it’s still a question? Come on.

Where JJ and team come through, however, is on the DVD/BR release, which ranks as one of the best in the history of digital video.

3D may actually crash and burn by 2013. “The Hobbit,” which is being shot in high bit-rate 3D on James Cameron’s equipment will already be preparing for its 2nd installment. If Peter Jackson raises the bar, as Scorsese has apparently done this year with ‘Hugo,’ Star Trek in ‘Faux 3D’ will be an anachronism upon release.

116. Sean - December 21, 2011

How bout the Klingons find khan and his ship, wake him up and khan starts a Klingon civil war as he vies for power and kirk is sent to stop him

117. Harry Ballz - December 21, 2011


And they could call it…….KHAN’T TOUCH THIS!

118. Daoud - December 22, 2011

When they cast Khan, they won’t cast Khan, they’ll cast “Singh”.
Those of us who pay attention remember his name was Khan Noonien Singh.

119. Daoud - December 22, 2011

Go back to JJ’s May 2009 interview:
“[Khan and Kirk] exist — and while their history may not be exactly as people are familiar with, I would argue that a person’s character is what it is,” Abrams said of the notion that his Khan could be just as evil, even if Kirk never stranded him on Ceti Alpha V. “Certain people are destined to cross paths and come together, and Khan is out there … even if he doesn’t have the same issues.”

120. Daoud - December 22, 2011

Hiding in plain sight.

121. Harry Ballz - December 22, 2011


Surely after all these years of discussing the character, wouldn’t we be on a first name basis?

122. Bugs Nixon - December 22, 2011

I think the new villains will be super intelligent pan dimensional coloured lights – yes, its the lens flare aliens next!

123. Daoud - December 22, 2011

Well, we could call him Schweddy.

124. The Unknown Poster - December 22, 2011

The people saying Khan should not be used for the same reason Batman should create new villains just doesnt make sense to me.

Look, we can all want an artsy-fartsy, super-dramatic, Oscar-season art-house version of Star Trek (or Batman) but it aint gonna happen.

Nolen went right back to The Joker even after the much more recent (than Khan) Jack Nicholson version made it seem impossible. Why? Well partially because of the type of character Batman is makes him more interesting as a counter-weight to his villain especially the Joker, but also because it sells. A great move about Batman vs his number 3 villain might sell big but not as big as a great movie about Batman vs his number 1 villain.

I suspect the same is true of Star Trek. As deep, deep fans, we look at it differently. But the movie isnt really for us. All we can hope for is the people making it continue to respect the fans enough to stay true (or somewhat true) to the establishment and throw us a few valentines once in awhile. We, as fans, will always watch (and please save me from the “I wont” BS…you will). But Kirk vs Khan will sell. And to the uninformed media out there, it will be the easiest headline ever to generate interest (Kirk vs his greatest foe, even if we know that isnt true).

We might know that Khan isnt to Kirk what The Joker is to Batman. But it’s an easier sell than Klingons or a new villain.

125. Anthony Thompson - December 22, 2011

118. Daoud.

Singh is the most common Sikh name. It means “lion”.

126. - December 22, 2011

Nicholsons joker was pantomime. Apart from one half decent line his version was a bad performance.

However Khan is not the joker. He is not a great character and had TWOK never had been made very few would remember the episode he was in. He worked in the context of TWOK which was a story about Kirk coming to terms with aging and mortality.

People think they want Khan but they really want what made that film great.

Khan is not a sell. The general public will assume trek is simply recycling stories they were not interested in in the first place.

Remember the general public were never interested in Khan, the character has no pulling power. If you don’t believe that hold a video night and watch TWOK and see how many non trekkies beat your door down for an invite.

On the other hand a few trekkies will stay away if Khan is the villain.

127. P Technobabble - December 22, 2011

I am still proposing a wait and see attitude. I’m sure no one would have guessed the first film would set us up in an alternate universe, so there’s hardly any point in second-guessing whether or not Khan is the villain. I think Abrams intimated that Khan would not be the villain. There are numerous ways to approach the villain, going back to TOS episodes. Kirk certainly had a few conflicts. I’m a bit more interested in speculating on who, other than Khan, the villain might be.

128. NuFan - December 22, 2011

126 Khan is not a sell. The general public will assume trek is simply recycling stories they were not interested in in the first place

Who is actually that old? Besides the people here, I mean.

129. John from Cincinnati - December 22, 2011

No Klingons!


Get that Klingon lovers!

130. John from Cincinnati - December 22, 2011

It is so easy debating with the noobs on here, the under 30 crowd, as their brains haven’t fully developed yet.

The fallacy in your argument is….you can’t scream for original, new stories, with new characters and at the same time cry to have Klingons. That’s called, contradicting yourselves.


131. SoonerDew - December 22, 2011

@130 Have to disagree with you. If the mere presence of an existing or established character or characters invalidates the argument for a “new” story, then we can’t have another Trek movie at all with Kirk, Spock, or any other of the original crew. So you more or less invalidated yourself.

The trick is creating a story with organic dramatic conflict that is compelling enough for a non-Trek fan to be willing and interested enough to fork over the $10 (or whatever) to go see it, AND for that same person to be sufficiently intrigued and entertained to go tell someone else at work the next day that “Hey, that new Trek movie was pretty good..”

While I have little to no use for the blight that Berman was on most things Trek, I will at least offer he *tried* to present some of those kinds of stories – at least with Insurrection. Problem was the conflict centered around the protection of a set of characters that were so boring, no one really cared if they survived or were all eaten by the Galactic Slime Monster , and that was fatal for the film – the rest of the story centered on how and why the Planet Of Boring People were being compromised, but if no one cared, the balance of the plot was pointless.

It’s very hard to create organic conflict within a Trek story that simultaneously compels that non-Trek audience to join in; unfortunately, that tends to move most story writers toward a plot involving the stereotypical madman mustachioed villain, time travel, or The Galaxy Will Die If We Don’t Stop the Evil Alien Force plotline (V’ger, the moaning shiny cigar whale whisperer from ST4).

I still think we’re being setup for a rebooted/reimagined Khan story, and I think the writers are going to use the alternate timeline to explain how everything is “original,” when we all know its a cheat, but c’est la vie. My suspicion is we’re going to see something from a story about the explosion of Ceti Alpha 6 as explained in TWOK, only with an alternate-timeline tie-in to it being part of a Khan plot to get back into the Federation…who knows.

We’ll see.

132. Vultan - December 22, 2011


I’m under 30.
I don’t want Khan.
I don’t want Klingons.

Put that in your arrogant lil’ pipe and smoke it.

133. Decker - December 22, 2011

Could Khan beat a Klingon in a fight? What about a Gorn?

134. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 22, 2011

#130 – If you read the article for the thread about the possibility of casting BDT, it specifically noted that any actor cast would be playing a villain known to Star Trek TOS. Just because the actors being considered are of Latino descent does not mean necessarily that the villain is Khan, but it does mean that we should consider anyone who was not nice to Starfleet and Kirk and the Enterprise as a possible character to appear in the sequel.

The ability to read and comprehend basic English (for someone brought up speaking English and having received a basic education) is a clear sign that the brain is reasonably well developed. It is not about what we imagine but about what the relevant article actually said. There seem to be a lot of “noobs” here.

135. n1701ncc - December 22, 2011

im over 30 dont want khan. There are better villains then Khan.

My original idea was making Mudd into a Joker like character like in the Dark Knight

Then I considered Gary Mitchell which could tie with the talosians , Pike and Talos IV

Khan did not match up to Gary Mitchell and the Talosians who can make anyone do anything. Khan had strength but 2 dimensional thinking. Also he is from 1996 which we are now 12 years past and of course super human asians have yet to rule the planet or deep sleep technology has yet to be invented

Another great choice would be trelane. A young Q could tie in TNG with TOS reboot

Klingons are cool but a whole movie around them doesnt suit me. They are good to have fights and wars but havent we done enough Klingons

Another great villain could be dr daystrom. computers fighting the federation and Dr. Daystrom the evil genius has gone mad.

or finally and evil Gary 7 who comes into this time line making sure kirk cant stop the destruction of earth by the humans themselves

Any thoughts please post

136. t'cal - December 22, 2011

I always figured Khan was his last name and that it was a cultural thing to say it first, not unlike the Bajorans.

137. Shaun - December 22, 2011

#133: “Could Khan beat a Klingon in a fight? What about a Gorn?”

if a well-trained human from starfleet can beat a klingon, i think khan can. :)

138. Craiger - December 22, 2011

In Enterprise they show the Augments just tossing the Klingons around with one punch right?

139. Briht’uhn - December 22, 2011

Nam-tor nash sem-rik’es na’nemut-elifsu ved sem-rik. Ki’puva’prah cha’i t’ran-votaya na’vitehvaral-difan’es-nosh velik uf? (This fascination with the villain is quite fascinating. Whatever happend to a simple, good-ol’ life-threatening situation?)

140. AJ - December 22, 2011

I think the Enterprise should encounter a sleeper ship containing the Republicans in the current House of Representatives.

Tricked into returning to work on December 25th, 2011 to vote on an extension of tax cuts for a majority of Americans, they are unknowingly placed aboard a DY-100 sleeper ship along with Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, a good supply of Bibles, and a McDonalds-branded food dispenser that only takes AMEX.

The ship strays into the Great Barrier, and hilarity ensues when Gingrich and Bachmann gain mysterious god-like powers, and scour the galaxy for gay activist judges, only to be intercepted by the Enterprise during a routine star-charting mission.

Kirk and Spock awaken the House Republicans, who vote to seize the Enterprise as long as laws banning gay bowling and increasing the use of coal-fueled matter/anti-matter engines on board, are added to the bill.

When Gingrich and Bachmann seize Q, who swears he is NOT a gay activist judge, Kirk and Spock sabotage the Enterprise, steal the DY-100, and escape with him to Iowa to elope. Q presides over the wedding, and then moves to New York to do a one-man show on Broadway and raise sentient cats.

Meanwhile, the Enterprise hurtles out of the galaxy never to be seen or heard from again.

Or does it?……

This is my attempt to prove why I am not a Hollywood screenwriter, just as many of you guys do here every day ;-)

141. Michael Hall - December 22, 2011

@ 139 Briht’uhn–

Absolutely, but Qap’la! (or however you spell it) in getting people to see that. Very few TOS episodes featured out-and-out antagnoists (let alone villains), just interesting problems for the heroes to solve, which sometimes tested their meddle as explorers and individuals. Defeating a villain in a big Hollywood tentpole franchise is easy and as predictable as Tuesday following Monday. That Trek 2009 was, in the claims of its producers, “optimistic” because it portrayed a group of diverse individuals coming together to meet such a challenge is patently absurd. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a trope as old as Mankind, and while technically true there is nothing optimistic about it at all.

142. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 22, 2011

#139 – People like to see others have the crap beaten out of them and have situations bring out the worst, and maybe the best, of their heroes. Nobody is allowed to be “too” nice. It makes audiences feel better about their own negative thinking and behaviour if they see people on screen behaving like mean dicks.

That is also why having characters being in love or even feeling each other out emotionally/mentally/physically to see if a nice friendship/erotic relationship is possible is not really liked – too cheesy…”this is not a soap opera” sort of stuff.

Re: “a simple, good-ol’ life-threatening situation” –
Another scenario I had about how James Kirk meets the Menosian woman (you choose nice name) is that many years before, perhaps about the time Jimmy is totalling antique Corvettes, in another corner of the universe, a space travelling virus is reeking havoc on some worlds and Starfleet crews causing that whole region to become a no-go/quarantine zone.

A patrolling Starfleet vessel spots a small seed pod like vessel drifting with all life signs apparently nil, but just as the Captain orders its destruction to stop the virus spread, a faint life sign is detected. It is beamed aboard to a special quarantine section within sickbay. Inside a tiny pod, a little girl of about five or six, is discovered, belonging to an unknown race… She is well, apparently protected by the pod from the infectious disease, however the pod dies soon after she is removed from it.

The ship brings the girl back to earth. Nobody knows who or where she comes from, however she has a pleasing humanoid appearance and learns quickly. She is adopted by a family living in NZ, of course…:). The father teaches survival skills to young people, some of whom may be first year Starfleet cadets. A young rebellious James Kirk is sent there to keep him out of trouble and to prove himself being able to negotiate and survive the forests of *Fiordland, South Island, some of which have still been unexplored at this point (2011). James Kirk proves that he does have certain skills and aptitude like leadership, something noted which Pike picks up on later…The instructor is impressed and invites a teenage Kirk to spend a few days with his family afterwards. There Kirk meets the young girl. They seem to have a natural, nice rapport, but they are more like brother and sister, at this stage.

* Of course, Fiordland could become a heavily forested Hawaiian island.

Briht’uhn – What language is it that you write?

Bob Orci – another possible backstory for the new Pine/Kirk?

I cannot put a copyright on my own original story ideas here, without revealing my full real name, and besides it is a public board, so I do not think a copyright sign is allowed. I trust that people will respect that these are my ideas and seek me out if they wish to use (abuse?) any of them. That goes for anything else I have written here. I cannot stop anyone doing whatever, but I hope that people will show some goodwill and honesty in this respect.

I can be contacted under the name “Keachick” on the IMDb Private Message board. Everything written there is confidential.

143. AJ - December 22, 2011

The idea is to get out of origin stories, and get into an active ‘Star Trek’ story which is part of the 5-year-mission, if it even exists in the new timeline.

‘Star Trek’ is Star Trek because it is ‘Star Trek.’ That means a universe of established and heretofore unknown races who may or may not share our Judeo-Christian traditional value system, and our slow evolution into a truly secular society. It is the slippery slope of being a Police force vs. trying to learn about peoples and phenomena we don’t understand while keeping the peaceful UFP peoples safe.

It is about unique characters who take that concept inside a metal Starship, and apply it to their personal everyday interaction, creating a whole that is so much more than the sum of its parts. They also try, sometimes unsuccessfully, to not be arrogant about how, as a society of mixed races and peoples, they have overcome ignorance and bigotry, knowing there is so much “out there” they have yet to understand.

With all of that out there, Star Trek TOS is strictly about Kirk & Spock, and well as Kirk, Spock and McCoy. A TOS adaptation on film has to be about that.

In terns of the former, it seems ST09 has set us up for that. As far as Bones is concerned, we’ll see.

Trying to ‘escape from the trap’ of using traditional and known villains/locations is what gave us VOY (until they caved to the Borg) and ENT, Why do you think Michael Dorn was recruited for DS9?

Why don’t they do “24” where Kiefer Sutherland becomes a Repo Man? Because it’s “24.”

144. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 22, 2011

I haven’t read the comments here, but I’m going to.

I hope they don’t “Jump in” right after the last movie because too much real time has passed and even with SFX, the actors as the characters are going to look like more than a few weeks or months have gone by.

145. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 22, 2011

@143 AJ

“Star Trek TOS is strictly about Kirk & Spock, and well as Kirk, Spock and McCoy. A TOS adaptation on film has to be about that.”

No it does not. I do not want to see a movie about three people. I want to see the TEAM. I think most people that are not old school Trekkers want to see the team.

146. Zachary Fruhling - December 22, 2011

I would really appreciate a story involving genuine exploration and strange, new phenomena. Genuine adventure does not always require a villain.

147. Odkin - December 22, 2011

I have a story idea.

The Enterprise has to travel back in time, in order to save the the Trek Universe from a fate worse than the Borg – a deadly braincell killing romance virus called “KeachickMenosianMarySue Disease”.

So they blow up New Zealand.


148. Danny - December 22, 2011

The next movie needs to be about Klingons and why the Federation was at war with them. Throughout the modern years, thanks to Worf, the Klingons have become too familiar and nice.

Everyone needs to be reminded why there was no peace with the Klingons.

149. MJ - December 22, 2011

The Hobbit trailer and the Prometheus trailer blew me away….WOW, do those movies look great!!!

150. Danny - December 22, 2011

Just to add, an allegory could be made that the Klingons are much like American Indians and are fighting to protect their way of life from the Federation.

151. tom vinelli - December 22, 2011

But heres the thing that bothers me. No matter who they interview, not one person( when asked about Khan) says no , not going to happen. Hollywood does this everytime with these types of movies. What Burk said could mean anything, guys just say yes or no and get it over with. Besides once they start shooting , like all the other Trek films of the past. Somebody leaks info about the film…lock &key my ass.

152. Jim - December 22, 2011

Honestly, and i realize i’ll get roasted alive for saying this, after all the hype has died down and having rewatched the new movie several times…I’m not sure it was really all that good.

I get TOS remastered in HD and i watch it literally every day along with STNG and Voyager. I also recently completed a marathon of all the movies starting with TMP and ending with Star Trek 2009. The newest movie is by far the weakest in the Trek universe matched only by TMP in my eyes, in fact I think TMP is better overall despite it’s many problems.

My brutally honest opinion of Star Trek 2009? It’s derrivative, the casting isn’t that great, the characters are watered down (especially Kirk) and the shaky cam makes it feel like an overblown action movie rather than a remake of a science fiction classic.

To me it seems everyone, including myself, drank a little too much of the JJ Kool-Aid back in ’09. Is it the worst movie I’ve ever seen? No. Is it the the best of the Star Trek line, not by a long shot. At it’s high points, Star Trek 2009 is mediocre at best and it’s low points it’s downright bad.

So far,all the news i’ve read about the upcoming sequal hasn’t peaked my interest very much because of my reformed opinions and frankly I’m starting to get George Lucas vibes off this project now. It’s a “how will they disappoint me next” type feeling.

Star Trek 2009 has gone to the bottom of the blu ray pile so to speak and I think I’ll leave it there for quite awhile.

153. Vultan - December 22, 2011


Agreed! Especially Prometheus. That’s the first time I can remember being excited and disturbed at the same time by a trailer.

And it’s just the teaser!

154. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 22, 2011

152. Jim

A well worded and thoughtful review, Jim.
Although, I doubt it will ever make it onto “anyones” desk.

Your second to last paragraph stands on its own.

155. MONGO - December 22, 2011

Mongo think Prometheus and Hobbit be very, very good. Mongo not want wait for movies.

Star Trek 09 movie make Mongo think same as Jim mans #152. Mongo enjoy movie much when see in theater. But after see many time at home Mongo think it not hit right notes.

Mongo wish Star Trek on TV again. In normal universe.

156. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 22, 2011

149. MJ ..

“The Hobbit trailer and the Prometheus trailer blew me away….WOW, do those movies look great!!!”

Yeah… I loved, too!

157. Jack - December 22, 2011

155. Agreed. I loved the experience in the theatre, which is what a movie should do. But now, I know everything that’s going to happen and there’s no particularly amazing dialogue, or much there there. There are still great scenes — the Kelvin, the young Spock stuff, all the enterprise stuff until Pike leaves, Quinto’s reaction after the loss of Spock’s mom, maybe the Scotty introduction…. and it had incredible momentum…

158. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 22, 2011

@DamonLindelofDamon Lindelof
How does Santa cover the entire planet in one night? WARP SPEED, baby.

on his twitter… :-) :-)

159. Vultan - December 22, 2011


I agree with you and Mongo, Jack. I thought the movie was fun in the theater, not so much on DVD. As much as I like some of the good parts you mentioned, I can’t see myself dusting off its DVD in twenty years with the same sort of joy I have with the Treks of the ’80s. Maybe it’s because I grew up with those flicks. But… maybe not.

160. Jack - December 22, 2011

PS. 147: That’s f$$$ing funny.

At risk of sounding like a dick Keachick — soppy romance ruined the Star Wars prequels (and was the least interesting part of the original trilogy). I would not want to see an Avatar retread, ever. And, yeah, the last thing I want in Trek is romance. If it adds emotional heft to the story, sure… but Trek’s never needed it, apart from romance signalling this life that Kirk can’t have. The actor’s probably like it, but. Even the Uhura/Spock thing seemed a little too easy.

161. VulcanFilmCritic - December 22, 2011

@149,156. “Prometheus” looks AWESOME!!! Ridley Scott is the man when it comes to creating entire worlds. I just hope Star Trek can live up to that kind of filmmaking.

And “The Hobbit” too! I’m having such wonderful flashbacks to “The Fellowship of the Ring.” (And please no “Ballad of Bilbo Baggins” jokes, although it will be hard for Star Trek fans not to hum it inside our heads while watching the film.)

162. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 22, 2011

What – you find the idea of blowing up my country New Zealand funny, do you? Yes you do sound like a dick! (especially since the REALITY is that your country, the USA, does have enough firepower to do just that!)

Yeah, lets just blow up something, shall we? Now that really does seem a little too easy.

I’m sorry but I am offended by Odkin’s comments.

BS – there is nothing that says Kirk can’t enjoy the friendship and love of a female. Some people just don’t want it and you have to ask why. Anyway, why would the actors necessarily like to play romantic parts more than any other part? Having and maintaining a loving relationship can be as interesting and important in a person’s life as anything else, even for James Kirk. Captain Kirk is NOT married to the Enterprise nor has he taken celibacy/chastity vows, nor should he have to.

Kirk, Spock et al are all “married” to an ideal, a set of values and ethical standards of behaviour, to a greater or lesser extent. Kirk can often see his own personal values tested and played out best within the structure of Starfleet and its ship, the Enterprise, however these ideals, values, ethics, beliefs go with him wherever he is. He and they (ie values, ethics, beliefs) are not dependent on his being on a metal ship or him being a member of an organisation like Starfleet. They can’t be and they shouldn’t be. The same applies to Spock.

I wrote that alternate story outline for Bob Orci’s consideration. I have no more idea of where the writers are at storywise than any of you here, so I wrote something that may or may not get used. The short story I outlined had a three-fold purpose – non villainous, but life-threatening problem, introduction of a new alien race via the little girl and a little of Kirk’s backstory, demonstrating certain natural abilities and underlying attitudes and behaviour. After all, how did Pike know that his aptitude tests were “off the charts”?

But all anyone can see is *gasp* the “shocking” possibility of a love liaison between a healthy human male with a high intelligence and equally high libido and a healthy sexually compatible alien female, like it will take up the whole movie, which it wouldn’t. The pairs’ “hanky panky” is interrupted even in my own original story outline. Sheesh. Grow up people!

I think that some people are already suffering from a braincell killing virus. Who knows – Menosian Suranai might be able to help, if he would be bothered taking the risk. Nah, he has more sense…

163. Battle-scarred Sciatica - December 22, 2011

Don’t worry Keachick. Our beautiful country may well pull itself apart before anyone can blow it up!

We just had another 5.8 quake down here.

The land just keeps rolling.

164. lostrod - December 22, 2011

#162 Keachick:

Although I do appreciate Odkin’s conservative analytics on these posts (we have many common grounds), I do agree with you that “blowing up New Zealand” jokes are uncalled for.

Having seen the effects of “blowing things up” first hand, I don’t think it’s a joking matter.

Which is why I hesitate to post on this site. Granted, my former excuse recently was because I was deployed and had limited options …. I tend to look at how my words may affect others. I try to look at thngs as “how would I feel if …” However, as you know, even that has been used against me.

I realizethe World Wide Web is a playground today. Say what you wanna say anonymously and no one will know who you are, kind of thing. I knew it when it was ARPANETand not available to tweens, teens, trolls or even trekkers. It’s a powerful medium. Please use it wisely.

Yikes, I’ll try to shut up for now. I’m trying to study for a Microsoft certification exam, but gave in to my weakness … plus my second pind of Foster’s Premium All …

Happy holidays to everyone!!


165. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2011

Not a fan of Keachick’s Menosian musings, but I agree that Odkin’s call for the destruction of New Zealand was uncalled for and over the top. He was probably being saracastic, but still, we live in a world where, unfortunately, there are individuals urging the destruction of another civilization.

166. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 22, 2011

Cripes. Another earthquake in Dunedin? 5.8 is fairly big, isn’t it?. I am not hearing about it on the News, although I haven’t listened much in the last 24 hours. The quakes can’t be happening in or near populated areas.

I hope NZ doesn’t pull itself apart, although throughout history, some pretty hairy geological events have happened here – Taupo, Rangitoto, the Pink and White Terraces etc. I am just irked that someone would suggest blowing up NZ – not nice.

167. Battle-scarred Sciatica - December 22, 2011

It was in ChCh literally just up the road.
A 5.8 followed by 6.0 then 5.3 and finally a 5.
All in the space of about 3 hours.

Hairy stuff.
Not a merry Christmas for A lot of folk.
What a bugger.
Odkin will not have to do much to destroy NZ at this rate.
However I am sure his comment was not intended to be quite as offensive as it appeared.


168. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 22, 2011

Yes, I have just seen some of it on “Breaking News” on TV. Luckily there are no fatalities or serious injuries. Since 4 September 2010, Christchurch has been subject to so many earthquakes and literally thousands of aftershocks…it’s all taking a real toll of people’s nerves down there. It really is. I think it could be a bit like living in a sort of war zone, except that it is nature doing the “dirty”.

I thought you lived in Dunedin, BSS?

169. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 22, 2011

With these new set of earthquakes occurring in Christchurch, don’t be surprised if you hear of more than usual volcanic and/or seismic activity in and around Hawaii and as far up as Japan. I believe there is no direct connection, but there is a pattern and for some reason it seems to start down here with Christchurch. The seismologists have said that things should calm down from now on, but that was before these latest earthquakes, so who knows if these three today are not the beginning of another build up to an even bigger one later. Don’t know.

The other thing I just thought of – is it likely that some of the Star Trek movie will be filmed on one of the Hawaiian islands some time early next year? I’d hate it if they couldn’t film in Hawaii, if that has turned out to be a suitable place, or worse, got caught in any rumblings. Fingers crossed.

170. Odkin - December 22, 2011

After firing off a few photon torpedos, Communications reported that Lostrod was offended, so Capt. Kirk had a change of heart about COMPLETELY blowing up New Zealand. He hopes however, that he has given fair warning to carriers of the “KeachickMenosianMarySue” virus.

He apologizes for any seismic disturbances he caused in his initial attack.

171. Battle-scarred Sciatica - December 22, 2011

Yeah I do live in Dunedin and as we are next door to ChCh we feel everything the poor buggers get slammed with.
We have lots of structural damage as well.
It’s quite interesting when you are up in the 7th floor of the hospital when these blighters occur- especially as the building is made to absorb the shocks- it moves even more! Not great on the nerves.
Usual quake pattern is Japan next.

JJ et al should stick to Hawaii shoots.
Hopefully he would have cleared the wreckage from his last jaunt over there:)

More non news from the team.
Great Prometheus trailer.
Hobbit trailer looked good. I posted a link to it yesterday.
More real Trek news is required for an impatient B-sS.

Sorry but I just want more Trek details.
Waiting hurts and all that predicted and inevitable date pushing is making it more painful!


172. Jim Nightshade - December 23, 2011

JJ mentioned elsewhere he was happy to do trek as a movie to do fun stuff like ray guns n blowing up planets—since star wars was already taken–why doesnt lucas let jj make a wars movie like he wants ha–

173. Jim Nightshade - December 23, 2011

FYI–Just back from Disneyland n the new improved Star Tours motion simulator is stunningly great in every way a perfect attraction—its like they took the best parts of vegas’s trek experience n added them together with tours–motion simulator much improved–the 3d stunningly clear…the pacing amped up past a typical indy jones first 10 minutes and sped up…they target someone in the simulator as a rebel spy n put their pic on the screen–funny—some 50 plus different computer picked adv. n locations…its so popular lines meander outside—wars gets this hi quality update while trek gets closed down—is jj wrong trying to promote trek as wars?
sigh sniff pout—-

174. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 23, 2011

“Mary Sue” – from Wikipedia (sorry about length)


The “Mary Sue” concept has drawn criticism from feminists and amateur and professional authors.

In chapter four of her book Enterprising Women,[10] Camille Bacon-Smith includes a subsection on the “Mary Sue” concept. While not denying that such characters exist, with reasonable psychological observations as to why “Mary Sues” exist in the first place, she observes that fear of creating a “Mary Sue” may be restricting and even silencing some writers.

Smith quotes editor Joanna Cantor[11] as identifying “Mary Sue” paranoia as one of the sources for the lack of “believable, competent, and identifiable-with female characters.” In this article, Cantor interviews her sister Edith, also an amateur editor, who says she receives stories with cover letters apologizing for the tale as “a Mary Sue”, even when the author admits she does not know what a “Mary Sue” is. According to Edith Cantor, while Paula Smith’s original “Trekkie’s Tale” was only ten paragraphs long, “in terms of their impact on those whom they affect, those words [Mary Sue] have got to rank right up there with the Selective Service Act.”[12] At Clippercon 1987 (a Star Trek fan convention held yearly in Baltimore, Maryland), Smith interviewed a panel of female authors who say they do not include female characters in their stories at all. She quoted one as saying “Every time I’ve tried to put a woman in any story I’ve ever written, everyone immediately says, this is a Mary Sue.” Smith also pointed out that “Participants in a panel discussion in January 1990 noted with growing dismay that any female character created within the community is damned with the term Mary Sue.”[13]

However, several other writers quoted by Smith have pointed out that in Star Trek as originally created, James T. Kirk is himself a “Mary Sue,” and that the label seems to be used more indiscriminately on female characters who do not behave in accordance with the dominant culture’s images and expectations for females as opposed to males.[14] Professional author Ann C. Crispin is quoted as saying: “The term ‘Mary Sue’ constitutes a put-down, implying that the character so summarily dismissed is not a true character, no matter how well drawn, what sex, species, or degree of individuality.”[15]”

I just wrote an outline of a character who was a lovely humanoid female from a nice place called Menosia. You guys have to immediately give the story and her a derogatory label, which meant nothing to me other knowing that it was a putdown, even though you know very little. And what’s this warning to any who is supposed to be carrying a KeachickMenosiaMarySue virus? HaHa – “I’m laughing at your superior intellect!” You couldn’t even come up with the virus idea yourself. You took it from my storyline and perverted it. What can I say? A lot, but I won’t – not here.

175. Phil - December 23, 2011

Great. Another member of the production staff telling everyone we are not retreading old ground, and all it seems to to is fuel speculation that they found some clever way to get Khan, ShatKirk, Klingons, or some other story built around a TOS episode. Just tell a good story, guys, that’s all I ask.

176. Jack - December 23, 2011

James T. Kirk wasn’t a Mary Sue, even as originally written. Wesley Crusher was, though.

I thought it was funny because it was so assholey. Nobody’s blowing up New Zealand, in his nonexistant joke script or otherwise. And I’m Canadian, not American.

I’d be thrilled if they blew up Earth in one of these Trek movies. Or just North America.

We’re not going to agree on this. I’m a guy — I’m not a romance fan and dislike the squeezing-in of a love interest into genre flicks. Kirk can have healthy relationships and a healthy sex/love life, but it doesn’t really interest me in a Trek adventure.

Romances are usually there to give the hero the possibility of a life he can’t have and has to give up to be a hero, or have him have to make some other love-interest vs. whatever choice (and I hate when the hero has to rescue said damsel). Or just to get girlfriends to come along to geek movies.

And yeah, the (formulaic) idea of the tragic hero doomed to loneliness has probably screwed up my love life (about as much as the competing idea of the One, and happily-ever-after, from Disney)…

Yes, when done well, they can provide emotional heft…

I was a big fan of the Carol Marcus story. Antonia and Anij, not so much.

MI4: I had no interest in whatever happened to Ethan Hunt’s wife (partially because I don’t care about his emotional life — he’s a robot… and partially because it’s been awhile and I didn’t even remember who played her). Fine, it provides (presumed) motivation, but…

I didn’t critique your idea (other than saying I don’t want a James Cameron movie) criticize you personally or call you any names.

Yep, I haven’t read your treatment:

The substance needed to cure millions and the native population not wanting to give it up/ be exploited has been done in Trek, on TV and in novels.

Pokahontas, and Avatar (which would have been unwatchable without the animation), also’ve been done.

177. Phil - December 23, 2011

@169. No worries about problems in Hawaii. Hawaii tends to sit over a hot spot on the crust, so any change in volcanic activity is coincidental. NZ is on a plate boundary, entirely different type of seismic activity.

On this side of the Pacific, information is available on the State Department website for relief efforts to NZ:
* Red Cross – visit:
* Salvation Army: 0800 53 00 00 (Specify that your donation is for the ‘Canterbury Earthquake Appeal’)
*Txt QUAKE to 555 to donate $5 or TXT QUAKE to 333 to donate $3 (100% of your donation will go to the Red Cross)

Oh, BTW Pacific Command of the USN is still active in quake relief in Japan, too.

178. The art of film is dead. - December 23, 2011


The STAR WARS trilogy might have set the bar at the cinema, but I feel the direction it took–putting production application above story–has been the death bell of quality sci-fi, and film making in general. The “look” of film is now more important than substance. What a pity.

179. Phil - December 23, 2011

@177. To the specific movies mentioned, yes, it set the bar. The first three movies told the story, but the last three got lost in special effects.

Also, continuing to insist that Star Wars is fantasy is to just be in denial. Death Stars vs. Doomsday Machines (unstoppable machines)? Sith vs Q (individuals with magic powers)? Warp Drive vs. Hyperdrive (junk science)? Psychic powers vs….well, psychic powers (more junk science)? Come on now, there is just as much fantasy in ST as there is in SW, if not more. At least SW was fairly consistant with how it’s hardware worked, hardly a week went by where Trek wasn’t swapping iso whatchama callit chips to invert the flux capacitor through the Spewburg Compensator to make things fly through time, use the transporter as a copy machine, or turn the sewage treatment plant into a power phaser gun. Fantasy all, I say!!

180. Phil - December 23, 2011

oops…..@178. Sorry. And the Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy rant was not directed at you, it was just a rant. Cheers….

181. Odkin - December 23, 2011

For the record, my definition of MarySue:

A new character, introduced out of the blue, who outshines characters who are supposed to be the stars. Usually a wish-fullfillment alter-ego or marketing ploy for the author.

I disagree with the idea that they are defined by having traits of perfection. They are defined by the average fan saying “who the F is that and where are the real characters?”

I consider Will Decker a Mary Sue, as well as Gary Seven. So it isn;t a female thing necessarily.

But Keachick, really – the whole Menosian girl thing is just your wish fantasy. Please stop it.

182. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 23, 2011

My Menosian girl thing is a fantasy wish. Yes, of course, it is, just like almost everything else in Star Trek! Where the hell did I say that the Menosian suddenly comes out of the blue and outshines everything/everyone else, including Captain James Kirk himself? Answer: I didn’t!

183. Red Dead Ryan - December 23, 2011


If you don’t want people criticising your Menosian stories, stop posting them here.

And somebody else mentioned Anij. Shudder! Boy, I watched “Insurrection” a couple of nights ago, and was still shocked at how ugly Donna Murphy is after all these years! She would have been better looking as a Son’a!

They obviously couldn’t find a nice looking woman to cast, which I find ironic, since they had cast the hot Jeri Ryan to be on “Voyager” just a year earlier.

184. The quickening - December 24, 2011

SW was and is clearly aimed at children, therefore more fantasy than sci-fi. How can you not notice the intended juvinile dialog, the silly, childish humor, the fairy-tale aspects of the plotting and characters, the “cute” robots and aliens, the child actors who are featured regularly in the movies? No. You are wrong. SW IS FANTASY, because it was designed that way.

As for the consistency issue between ST & SW, and how SW is more consistent. I have heard this before and it is a joke. How can you compare one franchise which has almost 800 stories in the TV/movie mediums, using different writers, with another, that has 6 stories…SIX STORIES!!! Are you kidding me? When SW reaches 800 stories–if it’s concept can produce that many stories… I doubt it can– then a debate about consistency can take place.

185. Phil - December 24, 2011

@184. SW is action/adventure, just like all the comic book movies that are everywhere these days – that audience is the 18-24 year old male. Regardless, you know as well as I that for every point you made about SW, the same can be said for Trek. They are different Sci-fi franchises, and both have been very successful, in their own ways.

Been to the bookstore lately? For every Trek novel on the shelf, there are 15-20 SW novels. Novels, not coloring books. Again, it’s a strawman arguement to suggest that when SW is producing episodic TV, then we can compare the two. SW is a generational epic, told over the span of six movies. Trek found it’s legs on TV, and like it or not most of Treks content is over 20 years old – SW is still churning out new material. What does this mean – if Trek fandom wants to reach a new generation,it needs to adapt to how it reaches it’s market, and the SW franchise is clearly the gold standard now. The first step is to stop speaking of SW as though it’s something you stepped in, and embrace what it does well. JJ and his guys seem to understand that, they just need to get marketing and CBS on board as well.

186. Phil - December 24, 2011

Thinking about it, Trek is mostly a generational epic as well, most of Treks content was based in the TNG era. So, it’s really two stories told by Trek, the TOS and TNG eras.

187. The art of film is dead. - December 24, 2011

#185 wrote:
Regardless, you know as well as I that for every point you made about SW, the same can be said for Trek.

No, I don’t. Not even close. I remember one SW movie where a character is called a “fuss ball”. That line is so corny and kiddie. And all the films are littered with them. ST dialog is bad… SW dialog is childish and bad. There’s a difference. The actors hired for SW are kids, or, at least look like kids (Hamill, Fisher). Lucas is clearly going after a kiddie audience, and also, the kid inside each of us adults. To wrap this up, Lucas himself calls SW a fantasy, so, that ends this part of the discussion, at least for me. When the creator calls it a fantasy, where’s the argument?

Don’t confuse bad TREK that does indeed turn to the fantastic, with SW fantasy which is clearly planned and structured that way. ST’09 certainly contained bad fantasy and bad TREK moments.

As to the other subject regarding consistency. I’m talking about live action productions, not books. I don’t read SW or ST books. I read Dickens, Henry James, Phil Dick, Harlan Ellison, Dumas, etc. I still maintain it makes no sense to compare SW and ST in this area, when the number of productions is so one sided. Of course TREK is going to be more inconsistent.

You’ve changed the discussion. I never mentioned who sells the most, or who’s movies or books make the most money. Since fantasy or fantastic elements will appeal to more general audiences–books or movies– SW will continue to out sell ST. It is clear to most, that movies, TV or books that don’t require you to think will out perform those that do. Fantasy doesn’t require much thought… sci-fi does.

I agree that TREK must change to capture a new audience, but this notion that in order for ST to sell again, it must be like the model that Abrams’ has set in motion (SW) is silly. It is possible to make great, contemporary, smart scifi or fantasy entertainment that sells–like Chris Nolan, Ridley Scott, Peter Jackson make and remain true to the thinking-man sci-fi approach TREK has demonstrated in the past, without wandering into the juvenile and a fairy tale.

I like SW, but frankly, it only produced 2 good movies. If it is the gold standard, then it’s not surprising why today’s movies are so bad. You can see the problems, starting with Return of the Jedi. Production tools and application are in the forefront of theme, character and plot. A recipe for bad art. I can see this problem in so many bad genre films today. Maybe Hollywood need to find another standard.


188. Jack - December 26, 2011

“Come on now, there is just as much fantasy in ST as there is in SW, if not more. At least SW was fairly consistant with how it’s hardware worked, hardly a week went by where Trek wasn’t swapping iso whatchama callit chips to invert the flux capacitor through the Spewburg Compensator to make things fly through time, use the transporter as a copy machine, or turn the sewage treatment plant into a power phaser gun. Fantasy all, I say!!”

Heck, people go on about the force and magic — well, Trek had various omnipotent, magical beings; various races of telepaths; time portals; made-up machines that magically transport people from one place to another, the list goes on.

So, being set a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away makes it fantasy while a series with made-up alien worlds & mystical rituals set in a made-up future is somehow grounded in gritty reality? Trek isn’t much less made up than Star Wars. Fine, matter and antimatter really do annihilate each other… but pretty much everything else is made up. Which is fine…

189. Phil - December 26, 2011

There seems to be a psudo-intellectual arguement being made about how Trek is legit sci-fi, as opposed to fantasy. The problem I see is that it requires selective cherry picking of “good” vs “bad” Trek to support the position. Fine, if individuals need to do that to support their position, so be it. It happens in politics all the time. I suppose that science fantasy is an adequate description for both franchises. Characters with magical/Childish/buffonish character traits have to include Gary Mitchell, Q, Mudd, Talosians, Korob/Sylvia, DS9’s wormhole beings, TNG’s Travler, and the list goes on and on. Sci-fi, Sci-fan, call it what you want, both are enjoyable and both have been successful.

190. The quickening - December 26, 2011

# 188, 189
I think what u both are missing is the structural design of SW is clearly fantasy and the fairytale mixed with sci-fi. This from Lucas himself. The conceptual design of ST is a purer form of sci-fi. Yes, ST does contain stories and characters of the fantastic, magical, etc., but these elements rest on a foundation of science fiction and are incidental to the TREK formula. They are NOT part of the ST matrix. With SW, they are.

191. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 26, 2011

@# 181 Odkin

“The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment. She’s exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye color, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She’s exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or her “flaws” are obviously meant to be endearing…

Over time, a male variant started to see use. Marty Stu (also known as Gary Stu, for those who prefer rhyme to alliteration) wasn’t really that much different from Mary. Also an Author Avatar, it usually had implications of being a male crew member that tended to completely outshine established canon members in their roles and often become the best starship captain, ever…”

Bella Swan (Twilight) would be your traditional Mary Sue.

For me, a Mary or Marty Sue is a character that gets in the way of the story and the other characters in the most annoying and absurd ways possible because of *how* obsessed the writer(s) and higher ups are with him/her. Sometimes this is because of how much they like the actor/actress playing the part. Usually, from my own personal viewing experiences, the character either doesn’t even fit the series/movie/story, or if they could fit, then it would have had to be as a secondary or guest character at best.

Some called Wesley Crusher a Marty Sue for TNG for a time.

192. Red Dead Ryan - December 26, 2011


No, I think it’s always been “Mary Sue”, for both male and female characters. But especially for male characters, by fans as a derogatory insult to whoever might be the target of fans’ wrath, such as Wesley Crusher, during TNG.

And I could never understand the fans’ hate for Wesley. Yeah, maybe he was a little too perfect, but what did fans want? A constantly drunk, party-hardy sex maniac who flunked out of the academy?

193. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 26, 2011


Mary, Marty, doesn’t make that much difference to me which is used.

Yeah, I kinda liked Wesley too, but I only watched the later seasons and I hear that the problem some fans had with the character was earlier on. I’ve started a TNG watch/rewatch (that keeps getting interrupted), and season one is a bit painful. :-/ Sorry to anyone that loves it. I was told by a friend that it gets better next season and it picks up season 3-4.

194. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 26, 2011

How is Bella (Twilight) a Mary Sue? Was she not from the beginning supposed to be one of the main characters, if not the main character? She is a boring and irritating character, but that is how she was written.

Frankly, I think this whole “Mary/Marty Sue” labeling is usually a means through which people who dislike certain kinds of characters and stories can rationalise what can be often their own bitter and derogatory criticisms. It is not enough to just say you don’t like something it seems.

Clearly I pressed some buttons by telling small portions of my own story here. I don’t get the anger. What the hell is going on with some of you honestly? It is not a rhetorical question, just a genuine question which may cause some of you pause for thought, especially Odkin and RedDeadRyan.

195. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 27, 2011


Please look at the flow of my writing. Right after I linked to a website that has it’s own definition of what a Mary Sue is, I gave Bella Swan as an example for *their* definition, i.e., the character being the writer’s avatar, etc. I know that she was a main character and that she was intended to be *the* main character from the writer’s perspective. The whole Twilight story revolves around ‘Bella’.

Then, I told Odkin what I personally see as a character being a Mary Sue since he gave his own personal definition. Then I responded to Ryan who responded to me.

I don’t even know what you wrote to have any buttons pressed, and I am certainly not angry. I just checked this thread while on my phone and read Odkin’s comment and responded to it. That is all. I will be reading further up in the comments to see what has you upset, though.

As for the Mary/Marty Sue thing, as I said, it doesn’t really matter to me if they are used or which is used. I don’t think that everyone that uses these terms is bitter or trying to be nasty and derogatory. Some people use the terms as a way to say that the potential a character has wasn’t fulfilled because of how much the writer’s obviously love the character. There is such a thing as going overboard. And in writing, even if you have a main character that is to be the center of the story, there is a way to do that without it draining on the audience.

Think of Superman, or some other story that is mainly about one person. I never got the impression that Superman was anybody’s Marty Sue when I watched those movies, and that’s because the writers didn’t go overboard – and going off of my personal definition, the character was well-developed, made sense, and didn’t take away from any of the other characters. So, Christoper Reeve (or even Brandon Routh, although the movie wasn’t the best :-/ ) never played a Marty Sue. But that’s just me, and I don’t think that makes me bitter.

It may be a little while before I can read up on your discussion with Odkin/Ryan, but trust me, I will.

196. Phil - December 27, 2011

While I don’t think of Superman as a Marty Sue, I think Richard Pryor’s character in Superman 3 qualifies. Thoughts?

197. Phil - December 27, 2011

@194. Nope, though the defination is a bit broad, a Mary/Marty Sue tends to have enough defining characteristics to be recognizable. Wesley Crusher is frequently referred to as a Marty Sue. It’s not so much that your Menosian character outshines Kirk, but you have been very vocal about what you think Trek should and should not be, and you have transfered those atributes to your Menosian character in an attempt to recreate Trek in your own image. Apparently, it’s rubbed some folks the wrong way.

198. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 28, 2011

Aren’t other people attempting to recreate Trek in their own image? Others have also been very vocal about what was wrong with the last movie – how it did or didn’t have this or that. Just look at all the anger/anxiety some people have expressed about the Spock/Uhura relationship, ever since the movie was first released. I doubt that any aspect of the movie has caused more flaming and downright disrespect shown towards the producer/writers and director as well as Zoe Saldana herself than over the issue of (God forbid) Spock having a girlfriend who happens to be Lt Uhura. There is no evidence that they were ever lovers (or even now, although quite possible) while Spock was Uhura’s tutor and yet look at all the hate that has been poured out on this site and others.

Now it seems that when someone writes a short story demonstrating a potential for a love relationship between Kirk and an alien woman (or she could be a human woman, whatever), the anger and hatred towards the notion appears again. I have been told the “shut the f*ck up” and to “get the f*ck of this site” etc, all because of the above.

My views on how Star Trek should be/show are not out of sync with a lot of people here. I am basing my views first and foremost on the stated mission that Kirk spoke at the beginning of every TOS episode, starting “These are the voyages…seek out new life, new civilizations…”. In most, if not all of the episodes, when Kirk introduced himself, the Enterprise, the Federation, he would invariably say, “We are on a peaceful mission…”

The Menosian world is a world I made up within the context of TOS – a place that the Enterprise would discover at some point and included a distinct possibility of their being a friendly romantic formed between Kirk and one of the women on this planet. It is not that original, but only in the sense that a lot of people saw Kirk as having it off with every other women from some alien world they came across. (Of course, this is nonsense, because Kirk did not seem to do as much bed hopping as people think he did). My story is written within the context of what is known about the character Kirk and his potential and is reasonably consistent with Star Trek TOS canon.

Perhaps I have spoken a bit too much about this Kirk/Jasmia love liaison. I guess it was my way of counter-balancing all the violent, kick-ass, big space battles, ugly worlds and aliens etc that so many people appear to want to see in the next movie. Then there is an obsession with whether or not Khan will be in the next movie, a person we have already seen twice within TOS Star Trek. He was never that important to Star Trek unlike the Klingons, Vulcans, Andorians etc.

Spock/Uhura Fan – I did not think that you were angry.

199. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 28, 2011

I read from #134 on down. I think that’s enough to get the gist of the discussion about Mary Sues. There’s a lot to comment on in those 50 or so posts, but I don’t have the time or feel like writing much right now.

First, Keachick, nothing’s wrong with writing fanfic or posting your ideas here. I think fan fiction is meant to be a guilty pleasure, and I enjoy reading some of it myself, but only for some of a certain franchise’s characters, not ST, and only if it comes highly recommended from friends I trust. There is such a multitude of fan fiction out there; this is the only way I can be a reader sometimes.

I think that your menosian girl story sounds like it would be better as a basis for an episode, or even better, an episodic arc, rather than a movie. That doesn’t mean that if Bob and co. like it that they can’t tweak it for film. It could have something of an start/stop treatment where Kirk likes the girl and the girl likes him, but duty calls and she has a separate life of her own and can’t or won’t be a patient penelope, waiting around for when they can have their next date. They eventually decide to be ‘together’ when they can, enjoying each other’s company, but when they are apart, no promises and no hard feelings. That sounds like something that Kirk could/would do if he found the right woman, a woman with as busy and demanding of a life and career as him.

To tie in Kirk being a father (eventually), as a nod to the Prime timeline, Kirk and his on-again off-again girlfriend unexpectedly end up expecting and decide to get married (they do love each other, so it’s not just because of the baby, but the baby provides the reason for it). She puts her career on hold for a while to spend time raising their child. They argue about whether or not she and their daughter should reside on the Enterprise with Kirk. Kirk says no, it’s too dangerous and too distracting for him as captain. If anything happens to them because of a decision he made or an enemy as captain, he couldn’t live with it. Kirk wins, and wife and daughter go to live on Earth where it’s ‘safe’. This of course means that a Khan-like nemesis will decide to attack Kirk where it would hurt the most. He/she infiltrates Starfleet on Earth, attempts to kidnaps wife and child, but is thwarted. Kirk and crew are alerted of the attempted kidnapping, and a chase to get the bad guy, who vows to try again and to succeed the next time, starts. Add to this some alternating storylines and your basis Trek sci-fi trimmings, and I think it could work.

I guess I ended up writing a lot in spite of myself. Anyway, you can see why, at least from how I see a possible Kirk love story could work, this would work best in a series or at least over a series of films. Other than something like this, I think Kirk having his flings might be the way to go. It all depends on what they want to do with the character.

On Mary/Marty Sue, I have a problem with women who would let a label hold them back from writing female characters because of what some men *might* say. That’s just too much for me, and it makes me question if those women should be writers in the first place. I mean where’s their conviction? If a woman writes a well-developed female character, then, as a writer, she should have the guts to back that character up through whatever criticism that is obvious trolling, take the constructive criticism to heart to strengthen the character and her writing, and the wisdom to know the difference between the two. That’s just my take on it.

200. Phil - December 28, 2011

@198. I’d disagree. Reacting to something that has been presented on screen isn’t an attempt to recreate Trek in their own image, it’s expressing an opinion about something that has been committed to canon. For example, I have no issues with how engineering looks, others do. As I’ve pointed out earlier, your Menosian character is someone created to reflect your values in the Trek setting. If you get some enjoyment from writing these stories, knock yourself you. However, you choose to take this character public, and a portion of that public saw the character as a Mary Sue. Citiicism comes with the territory.

201. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 28, 2011

@#196 Phil

Mmm, it’s been a long while since I’ve watched it, but I didn’t have that impression. To have a definite opinion, I’d have to watch it again and focus on Gus Gorman. But, with all of the Star Wars talk, it does make me compare Pryor’s character to that of Billy Dee Williams’ character: The semi-bad guy who turns good at the end because he has a conscience. I do think TESB did that better, though.

202. Phil - December 28, 2011

@201. Computer geek has skills enough to challange the Man of Steel, it might be a stretch, but I think it qualifies. Superman 3 & 4 were pretty bad offerings, though. With all the Mary/Marty Sue chatter, though, I was poking around a bit and discovered a blog entry where the writer suggested that Luke Skywalker was a Marty Sue for Mr. Lucas himself. Don’t know that I’d agree, but it was interesting.

203. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 28, 2011


Well anybody can challenge anybody, skills or none . That doesn’t mean they’ll win. ;-)

Yeah, Luke never struck me as a Marty Sue either.

204. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 28, 2011

Spock/Uhura Fan – Wow. Not bad. It is not quite the story I had in mind, but a good possible. You have just proved (thank you) that my simple story outline may have possibilities that writers like the Orci/Kurtzman team might be able to do something with, if they felt inclined.

You are probably right that my Menosian character would work better within a series, story arc, and your paragraph 3 more or less sums up how I think the relationship between Kirk and Jasmia could work. Jasmia does have her own world, culture, life which she can’t necessarily give up easily and there are certain needs that Jim Kirk cannot fulfill, because he is not menosian and she is not human…

The physical/emotional/psychic connection made between Jasmia and Kirk though is much stronger than the silly “bond” supposedly made between Spock and T’Pring (TOS Amok Time) when they were 7 years old. The reason why the connection is more solid is because Kirk and Jasmia are two consenting adults.

Phil – Other people have presented ideas for the new movie, some using known characters like Khan or the Klingons, but in a slightly different way from what has already been shown within Star Trek. Others have put forward notions that have seemed original for Star Trek. These people have not been sworn at, for example, even though their ideas may well reflect their own values as much as part of my story outline presented here might reflect my values. The difference is that I presented to Bob Orci an actual narrative portion of my story (minus any romance, I might add).

I think there is a fine line between what could be considered “fan-fiction”, and therefore dismissed by most, and what is considered “genuine fiction”. If, by some amazing miracle, some of my story ideas are taken on by, for example, Bob Orci and included in the next movie, what kind of fiction does that make my story and characters as presented here?

205. Phil - December 28, 2011

@204. Well, without putting too fine of a point on it, Mr. Orci was nice enough to grace you with a compliment. Until you are contacted by the Writers Guild for membership, to ensure proper credit and compensation, you are among the thousands who almost daily share their narratives with writers and studios who are basically amateur writers. GEt published, then we can talk.

206. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 28, 2011

Why would I want to talk to you, Phil, any more than anyone else?

Yes, Bob was nice enough to compliment me on the small portion that I wrote here and that was lovely of him.

How am I trying to recreate Star Trek in my own image, as you put it? What is in the little that you know of my story a recreation in my own image as opposed to creating a reasonably original story of a new world and characters that is consistent with TOS Star Trek 09 canon?

207. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 28, 2011


Thanks, Keachick. I think any story that has real effort put into it has potential, and yours definitely did. So what does the menosian versus human thing add to the mix? You said there were things they couldn’t do for each other because of it. Like what? An inquiring kind would like to know. :-)

Oh and Spock and T’Pring :-/ … I’m glad for Spock and Uhura, two consenting adults that are each other’s choice. ;-)

208. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 28, 2011

I keep thinking I would be giving too much away but what the heck. I just hope that if anyone wants to use all or part of my ideas, they might like to talk to me first. My Menosian planet and people are precious to me (I know this probably sounds very lame) so I don’t want anyone “screwing” with them. It may be hard for some to believe, but it is not about receiving any money (although I would not say No).

Menosian women need to reproduce by a certain age or else they go into a very early menopause and die of old age not long afterwards, hence my mention of Jasmia’s physiological needs. Humans and Menosians cannot procreate together – they can have sex but no babies. Jasmia can love James Kirk but needs a Menosian male to father her child. Basically, her relationship could be a polyandrous one, something that does not bother Menosians at all, but one that Kirk might have difficulties with…

209. Phil - December 28, 2011

@206. It amazes me what you pick and choose out of a comment to get snotty about. I’ve been incredibly polite with you, and the best you can give me is to go f**k myself? Knock yourself out with your writing, you seem to be your biggest fan…..

210. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 28, 2011

“GEt published, then we can talk.”

Phil – this is what you wrote. That is what I was commenting on. I thought that was quite a snotty remark to make to me. As for your comment that I meant you to go “f*ck yourself” – excuse me?

I note that you have not answered my question as to why you think I am trying to “recreate Star Trek in your own image” while other people who present ideas and storylines are not. Please answer the question or in future refrain from making comments that you cannot intelligently back up.

211. Phil - December 28, 2011

@210. Read your own posts. They speak for themselves. As to your question it’s been answered, me on 200, and by several others. If you don’t like the answer, I supposed you are entitled to that opinion. Good luck with your writing career. You’ll need it.

212. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 28, 2011

@ Keachick

1st Paragraph: Oh I can understand completely. Anyone that creates anything, and they love doing it, it’s like their creations are their children for lack of a better way of putting it.

2nd Paragraph: Interesting. That reminds me of the same problem that Worf and Jadzia had on DS9. :-( It’s too bad that didn’t get to work out for them, but Bashir was getting close. Perhaps something similar could happen for your Kirk and Jasmina, although the science probably wouldn’t be up to par for it since it takes place in an earlier time. :-( It is interesting though.

213. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 29, 2011

No, you have not answered anything, except to go along with the idea of a Mary Sue and to rabbit on about about me recreating ST in my own image. Really? Gosh, I should feel flattered…

Kirk is being the Kirk that a lot of people already see him as being, someone who becomes enamoured by attractive (alien) women, except…

The space station administrator, Admiral Pike, abides by the Prime Directive in that he does not attempt to interfere or harm the unusual alien vessels seen coming and going around the station. Attempts at communication prove useless and on one occasion when a visiting cargo ship got too close to one of the vessels, it was repelled by a strong force field given out by the alien form – no damage.

How is this creating Star Trek in my own image? I am following the mission statement created by Gene Roddenberry himself, you know, Star Trek’s original creator. Sure, the world of Menosia and the people may reflect some of myself and values, but such a world is just as likely to be out there as any other world already known within the Star Trek franchise. What is it? Are you guys pissed off that I made up an original Star Trek story outline, presented a small part of it here (minus any romance) and then read that Bob Orci says he liked it? Liking something and doing something about it are often two different things.

What – do you think that I am trying to change everything that is Star Trek TOS? What the hell are you going on about?

I don’t have a writing career and I am not looking for “good luck” any more than anyone else is, in whatever they do. Yikes.

214. Harry Ballz - December 29, 2011

Keachick is right in the respect that ALL of us have an opportunity, if not an obligation, to continue the writings of all things Trek, in any way, shape or form.

215. Phil - December 29, 2011

@213. Jealous? Hardly. A few of us have told you that if you enjoy this, then have fun. I, and others have explained Mary Sue, you choose to belive this to be nothing more then unwarrented attacks and criticism. We are beating the dead horse here, it’s time to move on. Again, good luck…

216. Red Dead Ryan - December 29, 2011

Look, Keachick, if you don’t want people criticising your story, DON’T POST IT ONLINE! Your story sucks! So stop ramming it down our throats!

217. UpTooLate22 - January 3, 2012

Lets see some Borg. Maybe a “how the Borg began” scenario

God I’m a genius

218. Andrew - January 3, 2012

So Alice Eve has just signed on to an “unspecified” role.

Hello, new Carol Marcus! is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.