Orci Talks Star Trek Sequel Budget, Scale Of The Film, & Engine Room | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Orci Talks Star Trek Sequel Budget, Scale Of The Film, & Engine Room January 18, 2012

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

While interacting with fans here at TrekMovie.com in the comments section, Star Trek sequel co-writer/producer Roberto Orci has dropped a couple of interesting tidbits about the film’s budget, scale and even the engine room. See below for more.


Orci on Star Trek sequel budget, scale and engine room

In interacting with fans here at TrekMovie.com, Star Trek sequel co-writer/producer Roberto Orci has actually dropped some interesting bits of info about the film, which is currently in production and due in theaters May 17, 2013. First up he answered a couple of questions on the scale (and cost) for the sequel.

DS9 IN PRIME TIME:  boborci. What is the budget for this film? Is it the same as the last or are they giving you more?


Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire: Do you think in scope that Trek 13 will be bigger then Trek 09
Bigger? Yup.

It is good to know that Paramount has faith in the film and the creative team. The budget for the 2009 movie was around $145 million, which was a record for a Star Trek film, but not too uncommon for a tent-pole. However, it is worth noting that the film’s budget was set in early 2007, before the latest financial crisis and credit crunch which has hit Hollywood as much as Wall Street. Also, there are built-in cost savings for the sequel, with a lot of design and construction work (especially on the USS Enterprise) already paid for with the last film. And the actors were locked into option deals which traditionally increase per film, but not dramatically. So, it actually wouldn’t have been a surprise if Paramount chose to stick with the same or even a smaller budget for the sequel.

Big scene from 2009’s "Star Trek" – Orci says 2013 will be even bigger

Of course Star Trek movies have seen big shifts in budgets before. The combined budgets of Star Trek II, III and IV was about the first Trek feature. And producers and directors from all the post-Star Trek: The Motion Picture films have complained about Paramount’s budget limitations.

By the way, JJ Abrams has recently talked about the studio requiring him to produce a 3-D conversion version of the film (in addition to the 2-D version). It would not be surprising if this requirement was linked to the increased budget for the film. After all, the studio (and their financial partner Skydance) want to make a return on their investment, and higher 3-D ticket sales (especially overseas) are going to help the bottom line.  

Orci also answered a fan’s follow-up question to his previously reported comment about how we will be seeing "cool improvements" to the engineering section of the USS Enterprise.

VulcanFilmCritic: I’m still mulling over the improvements to the engine room. What could those be? I mean visually.
boborci: You’ll see more of it.

Scotty ejects the warp core in Star Trek 2009 – Orci says we will see more of the Engine room in the sequel

Stay tuned to TrekMovie.com for all the latest on the Star Trek sequel.



1. scifib5st - January 18, 2012

Oh, improvement….

2. N - January 18, 2012

I hope bigger is better.
I thought the scope of XI was just right, it worked welll with the good characters, a very Trek plot. I even don’t mind the engine room, the only weak point in XI is the dialogue, but dialogue is hard to write imo.

3. erkle - January 18, 2012

The first picture (big scene) wasn’t even in the final cut of the movie. There was no blast into the water in the background.

4. N - January 18, 2012

@3 I’m pretty sure there was.

5. JP - January 18, 2012

On a side note, anybody know what happened to Warp 11’s website? DId the band breakup? They just put a new record out recently so its odd that they gave up their domain name. The world needs all the Star Trek bands it can get.

6. Odkin - January 18, 2012

I went to college at Cal State Northridge and spent many hours (mostly looking at microfilm of old newspaper comic strips!) in the Oviatt Library that stood in for the Academy building in the pic above. Seeing in it the last Trek movie was WAY more distracting to me than the distillery engine room.

I actually didn’t mind that – the tubes and tanks all looked pretty “engine room”-y to me. If Orci reads this, was that the Busch brewery in Van Nuys (where Busch Gardens used to be?)

7. CarlG - January 18, 2012

I hope you guys finally get to make use of all that gorgeous engine room concept art.

Question: Is it easier on the budget now that some of the sets like the Bridge are already constructed? Or did they get torn down and you have to re-build them from scratch?

8. Khan was Framed! - January 18, 2012

The improvement to the ridiculous engine room is that we get to see more of the ridiculous engine room?

Great, maybe we get to see Scotty pouring hops into a vat.

And what kind of two year old always wants things to be bigger?

“I want the big truck, daddy”

I would prefer a smaller scale movie, in fact, I think it a truly inspired team could make an exceptional movie that never left the bridge. Or was set entirely in a martial court room.

Some of the “bottle episodes” of Trek are the best ever & there are a lot of great examples of cinema that are set in one room.

I’m still waiting for a glimmer of hope.

9. dmduncan - January 18, 2012

No pics of the first film’s concept art of engineering??? What gives?

10. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 18, 2012

OK – not sure I want to go there, but here goes – what was wrong with Star Trek 09’s dialogue?

11. SoonerDave - January 18, 2012

Believe certain sets, such as the transporter room and the bridge, are permanent sets that need only be brought out of storage and reassembled. Sickbay is probably in the same vein. Engineering can’t be, because there was no set. Here’s drinks to fixing that, if only rootbeer.

12. Trip327 - January 18, 2012

Thought I read somewhere (here on Trekmovie?) that the original sets from 2009 were taken down and other films were using those sets now, but I suppose some stuff (Captain’s chair, helm/navigation console, etc.) were kept or stored so they could be used again for the sequel even if the filming location changed.

13. Red Dead Ryan - January 18, 2012


You can find it in “Star Trek-The Art Of The Film” book.

They aren’t going to use it for the sequel; the brewery is going to be redressed and maybe additional rooms attached, but essentially, its just going to be the same thing we saw in the first film, except that it will look less like a brewery.

You can count on that.

14. N - January 18, 2012

@10 To me, there were several moments where I felt I was watching a film that was trying really hard to be modern, edgy, youthful, my complaint is more about the fact that it was obvious that it was trying so hard it comes across as forced in places. It felt a little dumbed down in places, I’m not trying to sound pretentious or anything but it didn’t feel like it fit, if that makes sense? It’s 5am so forgive me if what I say is a little disjointed. Sorry for the rant I need sleep.

15. CaptainDonovin - January 18, 2012

So instead of only a brewery in the engine room maybe they’ll ad the bottleing plant & a resturant. :)

Thanks for the updates, getting excited to see what these guys come up with.

16. Jamziz - January 18, 2012

When I hear the word scale tossed around I think about more glimpses into starfleet, armada’s of ships and vessels, more sets! One thing the Motion Picture got right was the scale of their Enterprise interior and Starfleet HQ sets. I want more of that! Star Trek VI’s scene at Starfleet HQ as well..

Don’t be afraid to show us the scale of the Federation! Lots of ships, a bustling region of space!

17. UMA Fan - January 18, 2012

It would be cool if during the first movie right after Spock chokes Kirk towards the end, when Sarek and Spock are in the transporter room and you see Sarek look at Spock you see Sarek flash back to Spock’s birth and they could have injected that scene that was supposed to open the movie but they cut, right in there.

Even though I loved Trek 09 upon deep reflection it was everything going on with the characters before the Enterprise that I loved the most. Kirk at the bar, Spock at school, The Academy etc.

It also highlighted a problem with Trek movies in general where they feel like they’re episodes in the sense that the status quo for the characters is always retained by the end of the films so they can just continue another adventure. What’s cool and what I personally believe is the most important part of Trek 09 is that the characters from the beginning of the film have evolved to different people by the end of the film. This is rare in Trek movies and trek in general because of its episodic nature and I hope the Trek sequel delivers on this.

18. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 18, 2012

Once people reach a certain age, there tends to be very little change in the way they are and how they respond to situations etc. So to see a lot of change in a character would not be very natural for the most part and in fact, would seem out of character and the person at odds with himself/herself.

As someone mentioned on another thread, the only way you might see a very different facet of that person would be if they underwent some kind of trauma, were suffering amnesia or something like that. However, that change is not likely to be permanent.

19. Commodore Adams - January 18, 2012

This is all music to my ears. Larger budget, larger scope, more to be seen of the engine room….. Warp core (fingers crossed).

20. Anthony Pascale - January 18, 2012


I think you are mixing up terminology. We reported that some “stages” at Paramount used by Trek in the past are being used by other productions. However Stages are just empty buildings rented out by the studios. After shooting ended in 2007, the Star Trek “sets” were put in storage to be used for the sequel. These Sets are now set up on Stages at Sony Studios.

21. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 18, 2012

Why are they now at the Sony Studios? Are those empty buildings used by Sony bigger and more modern than the ones owned/rented(?) by Paramount?
I would have thought that big film companies, like Paramount, would actually own many of those buildings…

22. pissed off virgin vulcan basement nerd - January 18, 2012

So freakin’ stoked. . .

Thank you so much, Orci, et al.

23. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 18, 2012

Pretty Kool. Where else,What other Website would have big time hollywood writers come on and talk to us fans. Thanks Bob for coming on and giving us Crazy Trek Fans Hints about the new movie. So Stoked about the new Bigger Budget Movie and better engine room?

24. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 18, 2012

I want and hope to see a real star fleet engine room and not a Brewery. I think that will be the case as Bob Orci and I bet J.J and the rest of the court read our post about what we liked and did not like, pretty much 98% of us crazy Hard Core Trek fans hated the engine room.

25. Anthony Thompson - January 18, 2012

So far, so good. The only thing I’m still a bit foggy about is Engineering. Does “more” and “cool upgrades” = a new set or just a better redress of an industrial location? Here’s hoping for the Ryan Church version as seen in the “Art of” book.

26. Anthony Thompson - January 19, 2012

Oh, and Anthony P: Please bring back the countdown clock! I know you were burned once before (we all were), but this date is set in stone!

27. jesustrek - January 19, 2012

a ver Orci ya que estas respondiendo a los fans pregunta directa…¿El USS Relativity esta involucrado en la historia?

Orci as fans are responding to the direct question … The USS Relativity is involved in the story?


28. Chasco - January 19, 2012

What #8 said.

We don’t want “more” engine room. We want a better engine room – you know, something that looks like it belongs in a 23rd century starship, and not in a 20th century brewery.
The original series engine room looked more futurisitic than the nonesense we got in the last film.
More money? Build a proper set!!!!

29. somejackball - January 19, 2012

so we’ll see more of the brewery.. does that include the beer trucks and fork lifts?

30. madtrekfanuk - January 19, 2012

Engineering….. Plain and simple…….. Vertical intermix chamber please!!!

31. captain_neill - January 19, 2012

Well I hope that the improvements to Engineering mean that we will actually get an Engine room this time. One that fits in with previous designs and feels like it belongs in the 23rd Century rather than a 20th/21st Century brewery.

I despised the engine room so much that I felt the 60s design was still superior.

I have to say I am a bit jealous that Abrams movies get the bigger budgets, when sime of the better ones had smaller ones but then to me that proved you didn’t need massive budgets to make great films.

32. Jeffey A. Nelson - January 19, 2012

Perhaps the improved engine room will look more like a microbrewery than for Bud or Bud Light…

33. captain_neill - January 19, 2012

As I said an engine consistent with the others and an Enterpprise in which all decks are consistent. Did not like the high tech at the top and dirty, grungy at the bottom. All decks should be consistent like in the prime universe Trek.

34. zillabeast - January 19, 2012



35. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 19, 2012

[quote] VulcanFilmCritic: I’m still mulling over the improvements to the engine room. What could those be? I mean visually.
boborci: You’ll see more of it. [/quote]

Am I the only who reads this more as a deflection than an answer? VulcanFilmCritic asked about “improvements,” which refers to quality, and Orci replied about “more of it,” which is (1) about quantity and (2) is ambiguous – could refer to size but also could simply there are more scenes that take place in the engine room. In no way does he indicate they may be shifting away from the brewery. In fact, he could be read as implying that the engine room will be the same as what we saw, and the only change will be seeing more of it (in terms of space, time, and importance).

Mind you, the brewery thing doesn’t bother me as much as it does other fans, although I must confess there is something very terrestrial about it.

36. DaddlerTheDalek - January 19, 2012

Bigger Budget sounds Good. But i really want a upgraded Engine Room. And a name please!

37. Buzz Cagney - January 19, 2012

All they need is a large room with a big sparkly think in the middle! How complicated is that.

38. Jason S. - January 19, 2012

@14 – Agreed, but that was exactly the audience this new film series is going after. JJ is going after teens/ 20-somethings and folks that don’t normally go see “Star Trek” films. If past fans happen to join up, great, but the target audience I’m sad to admit is much greater then the original audience, and JJ and Paramount know that. Looking at the box office and realizing the bulk of who bought those tickets for the last film, there is no question about that.

Point being, I expect the sequel will be more of the same sadly. Old fans of the franchise can hope intelligent dialog will find its way in the next film, but let’s not hold our breathe here! The studio is more concerned with the bottom line then holding true to Roddenberry’s original model for this show.

39. Nick Cook - January 19, 2012

I get the impression the powers that be like their take on engineering, and have no desire to replace it with something else. So I imagine any criticisms of it at this stage are likely wasted energy.

I really wish I could get into that bit of design, but I just can’t. It breaks the illusion for me. Sorry guys, the rest of the design ethic works for me, but Engineering simply doesn’t.

40. N - January 19, 2012

I can’t really use the age argument, I was 17 when XI came out haha

41. VulcanFilmCritic - January 19, 2012

Thank you Mr. Orci, for answering my question. I suspect you are someone who parses his words very carefully, but maybe I’m reading too much into those five words.

@35. I didn’t get the feeling that this was a deflection of the question. If that were the case, why bother answering it?
I guess if Mr. Orci had written it this way: “You’ll see MORE of it,” it might make more sense, MORE being the key word

I suspect that we will be treated to either some kind of deep perspective view of the engineering section (like the view of the Krell machines in “Forbidden Planet”) or some kind of Scotty-led walk-around of fantastic machines, hopefully accompanied by stirring music that will bring tears to my eyes. Otherwise why even bother showing it? This is after all, Star Trek; its supposed to astonish us and make us long to live in the future.

I just hope the engine room does not look like the weird circular parking lot in “Mission: Impossible, Ghost Protocol.”

42. CmdrR - January 19, 2012

Budgineering FINALLY serves Guinness Extra Stout!

43. N - January 19, 2012

“Budgineering” sounds like something to do with budgies :P

44. ToMaHaKeR - January 19, 2012

If they are upgrading the engineering (adding the ‘core, with few shiny bulkheads and a bunch of consoles would be just fine), they could also upgrade other industrial-ish areas: shuttle bay (remove all those pipes and girders), comm center (remove those huge shiny tanks), and torpedo room (bring it at least to NX-01 style weaponry room). In essence: upgrade them, but don’t make them as glossy as bridge and transporter room – leave them ”darker”.

45. Bob Mack - January 19, 2012

#8 – I’m not sure they even use hops at Budweiser. Certainly can’t taste them.

I loved Trek 2009. Great job by all involved. But engineering – please. If there had been giant rodents running inside wheels to power the Enterprise I might have been slightly less impressed than what we got.

46. Dr. Image - January 19, 2012

The TMP engine room would’ve looked right in place in the Trek ’09 Enterprise.
We don’t need “more,” we need better.

And ILM could generate Church’s great design and it could be integrated via blue screen and look excellent, without question. AND it could be cheaper- just utilizing whatever foreground set pieces the actors needed.

The “reality” is that “real” can look like shit sometimes, JJ.
Time to rethink, I think.

47. banned - January 19, 2012

Deleted by admin

48. Notorious T.R.E.K. - January 19, 2012

@ 46
“The “reality” is that “real” can look like shit sometimes”

sounds like something George Lucas would say.

I prefer “real”

49. VZX - January 19, 2012

47: Sure, “Bill.”

I am not sure if I like the concept of a bigger budget. Sometimes having less to work with will force filmakers to be more creative and intimate with the story. And having a large budget can make something like The Phantom Menance, where the creator’s whims are not kept in check. I do not want Star Trek to become like the Star Wars prequals.

50. Trekker5 - January 19, 2012

#47,even though your not in it “Bill”? :) I am so freakin’ out for this thing man!! And it’s still 1 year and (counting from Feb.) 3 mon.s till we get to see it!! Can’t wait for the first pic!! :) :)

51. VOODOO - January 19, 2012

When are we going to get some leaks on the script? On the last film AICN had the entire script a year and a half before the movie hit the screen.

52. Chris Doohan - January 19, 2012

Yes!! I’m assuming that “more engine room” means more Scotty. Am I right about that, Bob?

Can’t wait to see the new set.

53. VOODOO - January 19, 2012

By the way, why do you nerds care so much about what the engine room looks like?

54. Damian - January 19, 2012

33–Agree. The bridge was pristine and spotless, while I keep thinking of Freddy Krueger’s boiler room for the engine room. It also seemed to violate the 3rd dimension. To me, engineering was clearly bigger than what can fit in the ship. The warp core is the heart of the ship and anyone watching it should clearly be able to pick it out. It wasn’t until they jettisoned the warp core in Star Trek (2009) that I was able to pick it out. You need to be able to see it and say instantly, that is the heart and power of the ship.

Also, if we can lose the hanging “freezer” plastic from the shuttlecraft, that would be a plus. When they went into a shuttlecraft, I almost thought they were going in to get a case of beer.

55. Horatio - January 19, 2012

Regarding the engine brewery room, it gives the Warp Core a whole new meaning. The folks at Quarks at the now defunct ST: The Experience in Vegas had it right all along.

56. Nomad - January 19, 2012

Of course the problem is that the brewery engine room is now canon, so if they change it they will have to explain why it no longer looks like a brewery.

57. MJ - January 19, 2012

I think the one major thing that those of us who post a lot on this web site will be able to legitimately take credit for is the improvements to the Engine Room.


58. Notorious T.R.E.K. - January 19, 2012

why? have various set design changes ever be explained? the different looks of the Enterprise bridge in II, III, V or VI? the difference in the design of the bridge of the botany bay in III and IV?

59. T'Cal - January 19, 2012

We need pix!

60. Notorious T.R.E.K. - January 19, 2012

btw, I loved the buweiser engineering, I’d be sad to see it gone completely.

61. Chuck - January 19, 2012

In three little words –
Less Lens Flare!

62. Planet Pandro - January 19, 2012

I’m torn on the engineering set. I certainly understand the intention of redressing the brewery…I’m just not sure I was sold on the execution.
But then again, everyone clamoring for a vertical intermix chamber should remember that we never saw one on TOS. Engineering was a control room w/ a bunch of pipes etc in the background. Maybe redress the brewery this time around with a control room, and we can see all the pipes etc…in the background.
And a Jeffries Tube? Yes?

63. Desstruxion - January 19, 2012


64. Craiger - January 19, 2012

Would it be neat at the begining of the film they showed the Enterprise leaving the Starbase and Kirk ordering punch it then show Scotty in a new Engine Room next to the Warp Core smiling?

65. Daoud - January 19, 2012

@53. I.r.o.n.y.

@47. Bill rocks. Especially big papier mache ones thrown by Gorns! :)

@52. Let’s hope Smilin’ Transporter Guy cross-trained as Engineer In The Background With PADD.

@62. Simple clarifications that Scotty was in the actually “engine room” before, and now will work from the “Engineering Control Room” which can look more akin to TOS’s Engineering Control Room. We’d be up higher, and see the “pipes” through a screen mesh, just like in the original. The explanation could simply be that the ECR hadn’t been finished yet, so you had to work around the actual engineering coolant control room.

Aside. The tanks that Uhura was working around originally? What was that ‘sensor’ room called, anyway? What was in those tanks!?!? Were they containing spice-deformed navigators? Axotl tanks? Enquiring minds need to know? Dolphin navigators? Everyone’s all over budgineering, which isn’t as bad as the place Uhura was working in. What the heck was that?

66. Leen - January 19, 2012

I feel like I’m the only one that didn’t even notice the engine room, I was too busy paying attention to the movie to nit pick. It looks fine, better than the crap in the old shows. Why does it matter what it looks like if it does it’s job? Engineering isn’t supposed to look polished and pretty, it’s there for people to work in and run the ship- that’s all.

67. Locke for President - January 19, 2012

It’s a few weeks after Kirk and crew have saved the Earth from Nero, and Starfleet gives them some time off for a job well done.

So Kirk, Spock and McCoy go camping for some male bonding. Meanwhile, Scotty finds out that the ship wasn’t quite ready for its maiden voyage, and the beer vats are springing leaks all over the place.

She’s got a fine engine and all, he says, but the rest of the ship was put together by monkeys.

Oh wait . . . . never mind.

68. Aurore - January 19, 2012

@ 47. Mr. Shatner.

It’s an honour to have you here, sir.

You made the character of James Tiberius Kirk a legend.Thank you for your hard work.


69. Jamziz - January 19, 2012

When I hear Budget, Scale of Film, I think of this:


70. Chris Doohan - January 19, 2012


Regarding the “Smilin’ Transporter Guy”, there’s a story behind that. That morning, the young lady who was doing my make up said to me, “Honey, you should have had your teeth whitened”. When I did that scene, I was so self conscious about that, I smiled while covering my teeth with my lips. I looked really goofy. In retrospect, it would have been fine if I just smiled a normal smile, as I don’t think the camera would have picked that up (yes, I had had my teeth whitened after that).

I guess it’s better to be known as the Smilin Transporter guy, than the Transporter guy with the yellow teeth.

71. Aurore - January 19, 2012

@47. Mr. Shatner.

Christopher Pine was *amazing* as Kirk in Star Trek : The Future Begins in 2009, wouldnt you agree?


72. ShatFan - January 19, 2012

#47 — If you are really William Shatner, you are the MAN!!! Thank you for all the great memories and contributions to Star Trek and hell — my life!! Your character, Captain James T Kirk, was always my idol…Thanks again for everything!! :-)

73. Aurore - January 19, 2012

wouldnt = wouldn’t

74. Robofuzz - January 19, 2012

Please – no more Keenser, OK? That was a stupid distraction not quite on par with Jar Jar Binks, but annoying. A completely unneeded distraction.

75. Lore-ie - January 19, 2012

@ 58
They weren’t on the Botany Bay in 3 and 4, it was Kruges confiscated Klingon war bird.

76. Lore-ie - January 19, 2012

@71, 72
Do you really think Shatner visits this site? Seriously?

77. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 19, 2012

Hey Chris Doohan. You going to be in the new movie.

78. Phil - January 19, 2012

Okay, enough b******g about engineering – it was fine. Conversly, if the complainers don’t like seeing…engines… in engineering, what would you want? TOD didn’t have the big glowing plexiglass tube, so what else is there?

79. SciFiGuy - January 19, 2012

#74 — A-FREAKIN-MEN!!! The movie should upen with Keenser being jettisoned out a photon torpedo tube!!! Please, no Keenser!!

80. Aurore - January 19, 2012

@50. Olivia.

I think I see what you mean, Olivia.

I have not changed my mind, regarding you know what, though…

(Do not say a word about what you know! Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease, I’m begging YOUouoOooouUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!)


81. ShatFan - January 19, 2012

#76 — It’s not impossible. We have other Trek-alum here — why not Shat?
Anyway, you’ll notice I started off by saying “IF” you really are William Shatner…” That implies I’m not completely convinced it is him…duh…

82. Captain Realistic - January 19, 2012

Anyone notice IMDB has Benedict Cumberbatch as playing the role of Khan. I know they are wrong a lot, but that got my heart racing……… in a bad way.

I don’t want Khan in this movie…. This will confirm all the critics appraisals that all trek series and movies are unoriginal….. new villains!

83. DarExc - January 19, 2012

I just hope ST12 will have references to past Trek, even if they can only do ST: Enterprise. Just a little tiny nod to fans of that last 45 years. Hoping Enginerring will look familiar but I’m expecting a new take on what someone else thinks it should look like, rather than what has been established as what it does look like.

84. Aurore - January 19, 2012

“Do you really think Shatner visits this site? Seriously?”

To my knowledge it would be a first.


85. Captain Realistic - January 19, 2012

58 and 75 – I am sure he was talking about the HMS Bounty but was using the incorrect name…..

But yes, those Vulcans certainly know how to redesign a klingon ship in a short period of time.

86. Tony Todd's Tears - January 19, 2012

Yes something definitely needs to be changed about “budgeneering”.

When you have a 150 Million dollar budget, and you’re using the same type of locations for your “Futuristic Space Ship” as “Space Mutiny”, which is perhaps the worst space ship movie of all time, that’s an issue that needs to be addressed.


87. NuFan - January 19, 2012


What do you care? You’ve never said one kind word about modern Star Trek.

88. I'm the real Bill Shatner. - January 19, 2012

He’s not William Shatner, I am. I actually just kissed the other guy and yes, it was my life long ambition. ;)

89. Landry - January 19, 2012

ST II, III, IV cost more not less than ST I.
ST I- 44 mil
ST II – 10 mil
ST III – 18 mil
ST IV – 24 mil

It’s good Paramount is spending money on trek but 160 mill is still on the low end compared to any of the “big” tent pole films of the last 4 years (200+ mill)

90. Chris Doohan - January 19, 2012


Keep in mind that they already have many of the sets from the last one. Saving a little money there.

91. Deflector Dish Guy - January 19, 2012

I just want one engine! One warp core! None of those funny glowing pods being ejected into a black hole! lol.

Hardly the intelligent, constructive suggestion that I’m sure people would rather read about. But hey, I’m a trekkie. Its the nuances that make or break a trek film!

92. ShatFan - January 19, 2012

#89 — That “44 million” budget for TMP is deceptive because they rolled the costs of developing (set were constructed, FX models built and some discarded, etc.) the aborted Star Trek Phase II series into that figure. It’s unclear to me what the actual budget of TMP was because of that fact.

93. Aurore - January 19, 2012

“Anyway, you’ll notice I started off by saying “IF” you really are William Shatner…” That implies I’m not completely convinced it is him…duh…”

Not to mention that posing as William Shatner, on this site, could be “problematic” for the person doing it…….I think…

Therefore, I did not bother to resort to the conjunction “If “, myself.

In any case, I meant what I said in 68 ; Mr. Shatner, as Captain Kirk ,created a legendary iconic character.

I’ll always be grateful to him for that.


94. Bamasi - January 19, 2012


The real Bill Shatner would not remember that reference.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

95. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 19, 2012

Zoe Saldana rescued an elderly woman injured last Jan. 18, while driving through Culver City … She called paramedics and comforted the lady … I imagine that Zoe was in Culver City because they are filming the sequel there in studios of Sony Pictures …

96. AJ - January 19, 2012

I seem to remember Scott Chambliss joking somewhere in a reference on this site that the Engine Room “issue” would be addressed in the new film.

Maybe they’ll have a line in it for us where Scotty says to Kirk “…and look what’ave done with the new Engine Room!” (winks).

97. VZX - January 19, 2012

90: Will they use the same costumes and props?

I hope so, one of my favorite things about the new movie was the uniforms, they were perfect. Well, Uhuru’s lack of sleeves bothered me a little, but over all I loved them.

98. Damian - January 19, 2012

Typically, the site administrators monitor the posts and have said in the past that anyone pretending to be someone they are not are cut off.

If #47 is not really William Shatner and is claiming to be, we’ll find out soon enough.

It’s in their own best interests. After all, if anyone could post as Bob Orci, it would diminish the credibility of the site.

99. greenusmarine53 - January 19, 2012

Wow! There is just so much passion here. You know what I’m passionate about? Ships. I love Trek ships. I’m all for a good story but I am drawn to Trek because of the ships. For 25 years now, since I was a teen watching TNG, I’ve been in love with the ships. When I’m feeling blue or just need a pick me up when coffee isn’t doing the trick, I pull up Tobias Richters’s FedCon piece (the one with the Kelvin and new E) and that always works.

So as a ship guy and a long time Trekker, I have to say that I like the new engineering. Sure it can be toned down a bit so that it looks less like what it is for those who know what to look for but at the time I didn’t and I thought it worked. Even knowing what it is, I can certainly see the reason it was chosen as a set. I’ve spend (too much?) time on Navy vessels and I know how and why it is built the way it is.

Now of course I understand we are supposed to be operating hundreds of years into the future and things are supposed to look different BUT on any working vessel there will always be a need to get at things quickly in order to do repairs. On the other hand, I’ve always wondered why the Navy couldn’t take a page out of the cruise ship design books and hide, at the least, those things that reach out and grab you and rip a hole in ones uniform.

So like any good compromise, the final design that makes it into the film should piss everyone off. A blending of the clean look we all know and love and the dirty, working-class look that is so hotly debated. (As an aside, something I’ve never heard anyone complain about the abysmal conditions that were portrayed during the first teaser we had way back when. I mean that guy doing the wielding so close to the edge certainly should have had some kind of PPE other than those wielding goggles. And the Enterprise being hand wielded? In the 23rd Century?)

But, to each his own. IDIC.

100. n1701ncc - January 19, 2012

Hey bob are we going to also see more of sick bay , captain quaters, turbo lifts, shuttlecraft bay and other parts of the ship we may have never seen before?

101. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 19, 2012

I emailed Anthony to see is this is indeed the Shat. We will see.

102. Anthony Pascale - January 19, 2012

Not sure why I have to remind some people, but spoofing real people or other posters is instaban offense

No Shat, sorrry

103. Craiger - January 19, 2012

Is Paramount’s plan to just keep Trek as a movie series? Or if the sequel does well will they green light a new Trek TV series after the sequel or wait until the third movie if they make one and would the third film be the last in the series?

104. Buzz Cagney - January 19, 2012

#102 I knew I was being a bit naughty, but a ban would be a bit harsh wouldn’t it!
I was just having a bit of fun at #88.
Now I have a worrying second or two to see if I have been banned…..

105. Buzz Cagney - January 19, 2012

phew, glad to see I haven’t!

106. Hugh Hoyland - January 19, 2012

IMO to much focus on the Engine room, I liked the 09 one, its gritty and more people can “get it”, ohhhh an ENGINE ROOM, ahhhhh.

For us Trekers it might have seemed a little obvious, but for the average viewer maybe not so much.

107. VZX - January 19, 2012

102: Haha: “instaban.” Clever.

108. Jefferies Tuber - January 19, 2012

Scotty and Kirk were not beamed into the Engineering Room and the brewery meme has everything to do with the leak of the shooting location.

Since we’re given nothing of value to discuss, I just want to offer idle speculation that BC feels more like a Vulcan or Mudd than a Khan, Klingon or colonist.

Seriously, what are the chances that they’ll go 0-2 on the Klingons and wait til the third film? My speculatron currently says Mudd + Klingons.

109. Jefferies Tuber - January 19, 2012

No offense to Anthony, of course, we’re all beggars here.

110. Christopher Roberts - January 19, 2012

Vertical warp cores are too Next Generation. Happiness is horiziontal.

111. Jefferies Tuber - January 19, 2012

If they turn BC orange [a la Jake G in PRINCE OF PERSIA] to play Khan, I may develop an ulcer.

112. SciFiGuy - January 19, 2012

We need to see an intermix chamber in engineering! :-)

113. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 19, 2012

What I would like to see are the captain’s and maybe the crew’s quarters, the science/astrophysics labs, the recreation deck with arboretum and toilet facilities. There would surely be some close to the bridge?

114. Thorny - January 19, 2012

108… I didn’t know Engineering was filmed in a brewery at the time. Not being familiar with breweries, I thought it was a water treatment facility or maybe a water storage room on the Queen Mary at Long Beach. However, I did know it didn’t look anything whatsoever like what I’d expect to see as the powerplant of a Faster Than Light starship. It looked like something Steampunk or out of the new Battlestar Galactica. I didn’t care for it at all, and am actually relieved to know the set was not a conscious design choice by Bad Robot. Bring on a real Engine Room!

115. n1701ncc - January 19, 2012

@ 108 I agree its one of 2 possiblities Mudd + Klingons or Mitchell + Talosians + Klingons. Either one works for me but please please no Khan

116. Trekker5 - January 19, 2012

#80,Aurore,hi! :) I would never tell what I know!! Not even in the-world-will-fall-apart-if-you-don’t-tell-all-that-you-know times!! (Well,….if it come to something like that maybe;but still,other than that I would never tell!!) :)

117. MONGO - January 19, 2012

Oh well, engine room probably same. Mongo deal.

Mongo just want real good Star Trek story. Star Trek not really need big set and fancy explosion. Someone say bottle show some of best Trek. Mongo agree. Mongo hope Orci mans and JJ mans strike balance between great story and some action.

If remember right not lot action in Wrath of Khan. Even ship battle move slow. It more about tactic. About thinking. Not big fistfight. Not big phaser battle. When Khan find Chekov he just pick him up and put bug in ear. Not chase around and shoot.

In Star Trek–One With Whales In It, most action when Spock mans swim with whale.

Star Trek not need lots action be good. Star Trek need good story. Need familiarity.

118. captain_neill - January 19, 2012

Horizontal Warp core be the way, Enterprise also honoured it by having a horizontal warp core.

119. I'm Dead Jim! - January 19, 2012

Could somebody on the production pleeeeezzz throw us a bone… even if it’s only a snapshot of a snack table with a sign reading “Klingons” or something like that?!

120. Dr. Cheis - January 19, 2012

I like the way boborci writes. Somehow these barely complete sentence answers are kindling my imagination more than a comprehensive answer could. I expect longer answers are also subject to lengthy cannon arguments too.

I just hope he’s saved his commas and semicolons for the script.

121. Hugh Hoyland - January 19, 2012

IMO use Transformers 2 as a Template for this movie.

122. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 19, 2012

I like how Bob Orci writes. Yup. He makes it sound Kool for some reason.

123. Allenburch - January 19, 2012

lol – thanks for doing a great job Anthony….we don’t need deception on these cool and informative forums.

124. Izzy_Ryder - January 19, 2012

The brewery has to go..one simple reason it doesn’t work, based in fact rather than opinion, is that it doesn’t fit with Enterprise…there’s no way we can be expected to believe that the 09 engineering came 100 years after the NX engineering. They can fix it easily by doing a refit just like Wrath of Khan to a less extent.

there are many reasons that the fans don’t like the new engineering but they’re irrelevant. The point is that most of us have a problem with it, it affects the way we experience the movie and it’s a problem easily fixed….so TPTB have no reason to keep the current design….the general public won’t care whether engineering is a brewery or not, but trek fans obviously do….so get rid of the brewery and keep everyone happy, most importantly the fans who, while maybe not the prime target for revenue, are the ones that have and will keep Star Trek alive. These ne movies wouldn’t even be made if not for the shows loyal fanbase keeping the franchise alive nearly 50 years. I’ll be surprised, confused and frankly disillusioned if they don’t do anything significant about this..

125. VZX - January 19, 2012

122: Kool? As in, you’re drinking the Kool-aid? Is that a pun?

126. Doctor Smith - January 19, 2012



127. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 19, 2012

#125. yes. I love Koolaid. it’s very tasty and Good.

128. Daoud - January 19, 2012

Well, on a side note, Bill Shatner now has some time on his hands, Bob. Maybe there’s something you were hoping to film for later use in a trequel or fourquel….
That could explain why he’s got time to hang with us at Trekmovie!

129. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - January 19, 2012

Anthony thanks for delving further into my questions!! This is why i come to this site!!! The interaction between readers and reporters and the people involved in star trek!! You have a great site here and im glad i am apart of it!

130. Bob Tompkins - January 19, 2012

The more I see of Benedict Cumberbatch, the more I think that if he is the villain, the movie is in serious, serious trouble.
The only thing I can imagine is that they are revisiting Trelaine or bringing in Q- and it can be argued that Trelaine is a member of Q.

131. N - January 19, 2012

@121 please tell me you be trolling

132. Phil - January 19, 2012

I could see engineering having a substantial control room – I had figured that that was what we saw in TOS. Propulsion, energy generation, Impulse engines, Warp drive, computers, water, air, waste processing, etc…would all be seperate functions requiring their own command and control centers. An engineering briefing room would probably also be in order, along with offices for the various commanders. Each of these sections would have their own equipment and personel to maintain them. Vital systems, such as propulsion, gravity and computers would probably have to have multiple redundancies built in, because even the tiniest failure here means the crew is dead. Instantly. So, multiple warp cores, computer cores and such don’t bother me at all.
Hell, outside of the captain and XO, this probably makes Scotty the most important man on the ship!

133. Buzz Cagney - January 19, 2012

#117 Star Trek, the one with whales in… pmsl
Me growing to like Mongo. Mongo make me feel clever!

134. Buzz Cagney - January 19, 2012

Vults, if you are out there.
One you might enjoy….. Goodnight Mister Tom. I know its available over there. I challenge you not to have a tear in your eye come the closing scene.

135. Basement Blogger - January 19, 2012

We have a Mongo sighting! (@ 117) Hey Mongo, I asked these three questions but I don’t think I’ve got an answer.

1. We know Mongo is straight. But in Victor/Victoria, Mongo played a gay man, how come Mongo did not get the Oscar nomination for supporting actor?

2. Why is Lili Von Shtupp so tired?

3. What is dark matter?

Looking forward to your answers, especially the profound Von Shtupp question.

136. Craiger - January 19, 2012

Zoe Salanda helps with car accident.


137. China - January 19, 2012

I hope we have less Simon Pegg. He was atrocious in the last film.

138. Harley3k - January 19, 2012

People forget that there was a writer’s strike during the filming of 09, and so re-writes to the script or new ideas could not be added.

I think of this every time I watch it and wonder why Nero didn’t have more to say…….still one of my favorites of the franchise, but thoughts of what could’ve been linger.

139. Khan's Mullet - January 19, 2012

More to see in engineering?… Does that mean more to see of Scotty?

140. Jay - January 19, 2012

#66 I’m sorry I’m so late reading these comments, but I agree with you 100%.

The reality is that 95% – basically I mean the vast majority – of those going to this movie, and that went to Trek 09, will not and did not care. They accepted that it was suppose to be an industrial part of the ship.

Like someone else said, those that come here and read this blog and post comments are not the target audience. We are far too small a segment to make this movie for.

I, even as a Star Trek lover, can accept that as truth and not be offended. I’m happy they are making these movies and that they are making them so well. Alas, some Trekkies that feel way way way too much self-importance will continut to hate on the JJ Trek and want to nit pick everything that is done, while the vast majority of the audience going to these movies will be perfectly happy.

141. MONGO - January 19, 2012

#135-Basement Blogger person

Mongo say hi. Mongo try answer question.

1. Hollywood full of politics. Not Newt Gingrich cheat on wife kind politics. Other kind.

2. Mongo think she tired from low blood sugar. Or maybe have headache. That what she tell Mongo all time.

3. That interesting question. Many scientist say that dark matter form 25% of universe. It not same as dark energy. Most scientist sure what dark matter not and not what dark matter is. Maybe baryonic matter. Maybe weakly interacting massive particles. Mongo think dark matter is stuff that inside bean bag chair. Or packing peanut.

Hope that help.

142. Jay - January 19, 2012

#121 Oh please no. That would be a disaster.

143. Basement Blogger - January 19, 2012


Thanks, Mongo for answering my questions. I also agree with the points you made @ 117.

Sorry to hear that Ms. Von Shtupp has a headache the times you try to talk to her. I get the same problem when I try to ask a girl out. It’s a headache or they’re washing their hair. I’ll think of more questions to ask you in the future.

144. MONGO - January 19, 2012

Woman creature of mystery. Mongo spend life try figure out.

Mongo at your service. Mongo recommend persistence. Mongo use computer at Library. Old library lady say Mongo scare other people. Mongo have to be sly.

145. Sebastian S. - January 19, 2012

By ‘more’ of the engine room, I hope they don’t mean the employee break room of the brewery location. ;-P

I’m kidding; I’m sure it will look better. Production wise, that ‘engine room’ was my only real gripe about the last movie.

Here’s hoping it looks more properly ‘Star Trek-ish’ in the next film. ;-D

146. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 19, 2012

Keachick step on cowpoo one time. It look like dark matter too. All over field. Make up 25% of field? Have to watch for dark matter.

147. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 19, 2012

I think Mongo would be great in the Empire. He would be the operator of the Agony Booth.

148. Brock - January 19, 2012

We’ll see MORE of the engine room?
Uh, that makes it worse. The Engine room shouldn’t even be that big. This is Trek for goodness sake, they have highly advanced technology, their engine room shouldn’t look like a turn of the 20th century brewery. Dumbasses.

149. Phil - January 19, 2012

@148…Dumbass here. Each of the ships nacelles actually house the warp drive, and they are huge. Warp cores and such generate the power used in the nacelles. Like it or not, it’s unlikely 23rd century ship designers will opt for complex, energy consuming ways to move materials around a ship when pipes will do. Hey, I get you didn’t like the artistic license the producers took. A lot of people don’t seem to mind.


150. Phil - January 19, 2012

…sorry, Dumbass again. Further, the implule engines and thrusters are seperate systems, too. If the impulse drive uses fuel, it needs to be stored somewhere. The thrusters probably operate off of waste gasses, when need to be stored as well. Captain Picard walked over to his sink and got some water in First Contact. Where do you suppose that came from? Further, if the saucer seperates, each seperated section needs to have all these functions for the seperated parts to operate….so, not only is there one engineering section you hate, but in reality THERE ARE PROBABLY TWO!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
Yeah, I know. Ships are basically big machines build around whatever the purpose of the vessel is. As long as they hold together in space, it really doesn’t matter a ton what they look like, except to please the eye of the audience watching the show.

Love, Dumbass….

151. Phil - January 19, 2012

Dumbass Phil needs to not take stuff personally. And stop arguing with the wife….


152. Jack - January 19, 2012

I liked the engine room — mostly. It gave the action aboard ship way more scope.

The Enterprise E was supposed to be massive — and engineering was this little carpeted room and the warp core was a bunch of flashing lights in a tube (they flash faster when the ship is going really fast!). Can you imagine any of the engineering scenes in Trek 09 working as well in a little carpeted room with pastel-upholstered walls? I can’t.

Heck, in TMP, they had to use kids in radiation suits and background paintings to force perspective to make the engineering set look larger than it was. The original series had those paintings behind those screens to suggest a bigger engineering. And all of the other movie and TV engineering sets felt like sets. Now we finally got a bigger engineering – and it’s not all CGI.

What gets on my nerves — all these “shoulds” and assumptions the filmmakers are idiots and have never seen Star Trek. This enterprise is huge and has lots going in inside — fair enough. Trek’s engineering was big, busy bright, and colourful — and that’s how it shou;d be.

The only scene that wasn’t convincingly on a fictional starship, to me — the one where security’s chasing Scotty and Kirk.

And, yeah, some of the engineering touches (the alert lights, some of the consoles) lookedportable/temporary and like they’d been brought in for filming, which they were. And the plugs on those tanks in Uhura’s section looked a little beery, once I knew where it was filmed — but those tanks looked fantastic (and Trekky) the way they were lit…

If I recall correctly, people on here who were outraged at the pipes figured they should have filmed in CERN or a nuclear power plant. How feasible would that be?

So, yeah — 149, I agree totally.

153. Jim, London - January 19, 2012

Only thing missing for me is the proper red alert klaxon and Jerry Goldsmiths theme music

154. Jeff O'Connor - January 19, 2012

Glad to hear it, Bob. Hope y’all are having fun. :D

155. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 19, 2012

I would have thought that any nuclear power plant would be a VERY secure facility… hardly a place they would want a film crew wandering around in, etc.

I also thought that the TOS Enterprise was almost a mile long and several decks deep. Some of the ocean going big cruise ships can be several storeys high and very long (not sure what the longest is). I think the newest and largest cruise liner as of 2012 can carry up to 6,000, or is it, 8,000 people. The crew is 2,000 strong. It was on our TV news a few days ago – sorry, only caught some of it though. Imagine the size of that engine, plus everything else a pleasure cruise ship that size would need in order to operate in the middle of an ocean hundreds of miles from anywhere.

The Enterprise can be light years from anywhere… I often thought that the TNG size Enterprise was just too big and carried too many people, given how far away it could be from anywhere at any given time.

156. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 19, 2012

Is Bob Orci about? How is it all going in Trek movie making land? Just so long as the lens caps are off and the sound men has pushed the on button on their sound recording gear…

Perhaps JJ Abrams is not ready to let him come up for air yet…:)

Bob – pop in and say Hi here when you’ve caught your breath. That’s the ticket. Good man!

157. MC1 Doug - January 19, 2012

#92: re: ST-TMP budget.

I read something a few years back (I don’t recall where) that said the first movie’s budget was approximately $22 million with the costs of the aborted TV show rolled into it making it the $42 million we’ve always heard.

#110: re: horizontal vs. vertical warp core.

ST-TMP had both. Don’t forget, our first look of engineering was when Kirk looked down the vertical intermix chamber before entering the main engineering room.

158. Red Dead Ryan - January 19, 2012

I think the main reason why a lot of folks don’t like the engine room is because it stands in too sharp of a contrast with the rest of the ship. Plus the room is square, while the secondary hull has a rounded exterior, and that the beer factory looks too big to fit inside it. The brewery was too obvious. Had they used physical set extensions or even cgi to make it a little more futuristic, it would have worked better.

I don’t mind the pipes. The original Enterprise, the refit, the E, and the Defiant all had pipes to varying degrees, and not just in engineering.

The spigots don’t work for me, and neither do the beer vats. And why was Uhura’s station in engineering? That made no sense to have a communications station next to a beer vat.

Anyway, I understand that it’s J.J. Abrams’ movies, and he has his style, so I won’t lose sleep over it.

But its interesting he chose the brewery for engineering to depict some realness, but then changed San Francisco into Coruscant. Ah, well. I guess Trek has always contradicted itself ever since it began, and the Abrams movies are just continuing the tradition!

159. originalTOSTOSFan - January 19, 2012

The Engineering set (beer plant I think) was one of the worst sets in the movie IMHO. It (along with the Kelvan Enginerring) looked completely out of place and the scale looked way off, especially on the enterprise. It looked like a large wharehouse, not the interior of an interstellar spacecraft. Engineering was always clean, even on the budget of TOS. Looked more like a high tech lab then heavy industry.

It looks especially bad when you think it is part of the same ship with the new I-bridge, the second worse set in the movie. At least the I-bredige can be forgiven as a way to attract the tech savy 14 year old.

160. originalTOSTOSFan - January 19, 2012

sorry for typose…. Kelvan Engineering…..large warehouse…. I-Bridge

161. originalTOSTOSFan - January 19, 2012

In response to No. 56: They changed the nacelles between STIX and STX. They could easily put up some sheet rock and shiny paint to clean up the engineering room (i.e., hide all the brewery stuff)… and say…. “oh yeah.. she was not quite finished yet..but we had to launch her then anyway”

IN STV the enterprise had to laucnh without a full crew cause she was the Only ship in the entire quadrant? And we are talking about the “quadrant” where SF and FED HQ is located.

162. saavik001 - January 19, 2012

its gonna be awesome!! can’t wait!

163. saavik001 - January 19, 2012

Bob – watching Trek 2009 again. Bang up job… Are gonna get more McCoy this time? Urban was so good in it…

164. Tom - January 19, 2012

Couldn’t we see the Shat with this big budget? Bob did you try the scene again or write another ?

165. saavik001 - January 19, 2012

Can Kirk win a fight in the next one too please? :)

166. Jack - January 19, 2012

“But its interesting he chose the brewery for engineering to depict some realness, but then changed San Francisco into Coruscant.”


It’s neat that in the matte paintings for TMP, San Fran is almost entirely covered in green/trees.

The shipyards also had that industrial asthetic (as engineering, which is sort of hidden) — if I owned a farm in eyesight of it or of those giant farm tower things, I’d be on the comm harrasing my local federation constituency office.

“Ah, well. I guess Trek has always contradicted itself ever since it began, and the Abrams movies are just continuing the tradition!”

Agreed. The because-they’ve-always-done-it-this-way school just gets us more of the same.

167. captain_neill - January 20, 2012

The brewery was such a bad idea for an engine room that 60s set design holds up better than it.

168. Aurore - January 20, 2012

VulcanFilmCritic: I’m still mulling over the improvements to the engine room. What could those be? I mean visually.
boborci: You’ll see more of it.

Some time ago, it was said that the sequel would showcase new sections of the Enterprise.

However, from what I understood, engineering could still end up looking a lot like what we saw in 2009 (since “redesigning” did not seem anywhere near a sure thing).

Which is fine, as far as I’m concerned.


169. captain_neill - January 20, 2012


Will the new movie feature crew quarters and the briefing room?

170. Olivadoti - January 20, 2012

check this out?

171. Hugh Hoyland - January 20, 2012

I think Bob is having to much fun on set to check in at the moment. lol

172. Aurore - January 20, 2012



173. Aurore - January 20, 2012




174. mr homn - January 20, 2012

great opening scene, kirk walks into a proper engineering and says to scotty “glad to see they’ve finally finished engineering, it looked like a brewery before”.

175. Aurore - January 20, 2012

……..Still no major article on Mr. Cumberbatch as Khan Noonien Singh?

I’m SO disappointed in this lack of info…


176. Trekmaster - January 20, 2012


whatever you do don’t do that “Flashing a light in the Camera lens” Stuff again.

That drove me nuts and was totally not needed (unless you just wanted to piss off Fans).

177. RJM - January 20, 2012

Let me tell you don’t have too much faith that this movie is going to be better, Abrams has laid more than one rotten egg in the past couple of years. If this movie is a flop say good bye to Star Trek.

178. Jack - January 21, 2012

177. MI4 was good. Super 8 wasn’t bad (the first 3/4 were pretty good, despite the melodrama… it went downhill after the reveal, but it was still okay). Fringe is good TV. The list goes on.

179. Phil - January 21, 2012

I really don’t understand why we seem to continue to get people who post on here about JJ Abrams as though his level of work was in the same league as Uwe Boll. Rotton eggs? Name “more then one”……

180. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - January 21, 2012


Or perhaps, more subtly, Mr. Scott is seen at some point manually operating a control that looks somewhat reminiscent of a tap or spigot…

181. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - January 21, 2012

Maybe he’s operating the interface for the BND distributor

(Braw eNgine-room Draft)

Seriously, though – maybe naming a part of the Enterprise would be a good way to remember BND – Like the “Jeffries” Tubes. (named after Matt)


182. RJM - January 21, 2012

To all of you who worship at the feet of Abrams remember this, Star Trek 12 would be coming out this year if Abrams wasn’t trying to prop-up that dud, ‘Super 8′ over the past year!

183. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 21, 2012

Super 8 was not a dud and JJ Abrams wasn’t propping up anything. Doing a movie like Super 8 was one of the many items (no doubt) on his wish list that he has now managed to accomplished. Good for JJ Abrams!

Speaking for myself, I worship at no one’s feet.

184. Hugh Hoyland - January 22, 2012

While I think 4 years between films is simply to long I really enjoy Super 8 and Abrams did a fine job with it IMO.

I think these guys just had/have a ton of projects on tap, plain and simple. And theres no real way they could have just dropped em all and do the Trek sequel instead, it doesnt work like that from what I understand.

But its finally filming so thats what counts. And they have to start from scratch, but I have faith in these guys to pull it off.

185. Phil - January 22, 2012

@182. Hardly worshipping at anyones feet, except in service on Sunday morning. I don’t begrudge JJ making a living, striking while his iron is hot, and acknowledge that the Star Trek franchise does not own him. If you are all that hot to be cranking out a movie every 18 months, do you really want the franchise in the hands of Uwe Boll?

186. samrock83 - January 22, 2012

I’m reading all this critism of the engineering section. But the fact is we saw so little of it, I’m not sure we saw enough to even really know what their full vision of engineering really is. Until we seenmore I suggest we give them the bebfit if the doubt.

187. Spacecadet - January 22, 2012

,,,and i want to see robin williams as q2 :)

188. Rarehero - January 23, 2012

I’ve a well known brewery in my hometown, so if I want to see brewery, I’d rather visit the brewery in my hometone than watch another episode of “The adventures of the U.S.S. Budweiser”. They better invest their bigger budget in believable ship interiors that can compete with the “homes” of the former captains of the last 40+ years.

189. Daoud - January 23, 2012

@Super 8: Sure that and other duties took JJ away from jumping in sooner. There’s no denying it.
I wish the Court would pick up this idea: Go with a Team One, and a Team A. Let Team One continue with making Star Trek in the Alt Universe with the new cast. Let Team A develop anthologies of other stories from the Federation: A TNG movie in the prime universe. A DS9 followup movie, etc. Then there’d be Trek every other year, and JJ could regularly take a couple years off in between. This would get the production support crew some full time work, and not this long fallow period between productions.

Expanding the Universe sure is working wonders for Marvel! The X-men franchise, now Thor, now Avengers, etc.

Imagine if in 2014, an epic DS9/Titan film was in theaters back in the TNG universe… and while they prep the third Pine/Quinto/Urban Trek for 2016, a 2017 production is underway with one last trip with Jean Luc Picard–celebrating the 40th anniversary of TNG! (before it’s impossible for Patrick to do it!)… Sure would give everyone more to do, and stop a lot of the bellyachin’!

190. Jack - January 23, 2012

179 agreed!

And didn’t Super 8 make like a $200 million profit and get an 80-something favourable rating on Rotten Tomatoes?

That ain’t Avatar, but it ain’t bad for a $50 million movie.

188. I keep harping on this, but I found the engineering interiors (except for the security chase scene) pretty convincing, moreso than TNG’s and the TNG’s movies engine rooms, which felt like a set (and it felt like a recycled set for TNG).

I was digging through some old books in storage last night and found the Art of Star Trek. The sketch for Phase Two’s bridge reminded me (colors and flashiness) of the Trek ’09 bridge.

Also looked at the TNG 10th anniversary book (which was very excitedly peeking ahead at Insurrection as the production predicted it would be the best Trek yet!) and there was lots about Trek exploring the human condition — the choices of our characters and the ramifications of those choices. Not much about current-events allegories (I’m a little afraid, after the “Trek is about Allegory!” comments on here, that we’ll see the demagogue-filled Talerian Tea Party in this next one — although, that whole concept, the danger of deciding individual’s and group’s rights based on popular opinion, is an interesting one).

191. Avi Chapman - January 23, 2012

#10 – I don’t know what others have in mind with it. But what really irks me is the little things that they got wrong, with no discernible extra appeal to casual viewers.

For example, Captain Pike saying that the Federation is a ‘humanitarian armada’ is just wrong. If he had said that about Starfleet, it would have been correct and the casual viewers would have been none the wiser.

Another one that irks me is Kirk saying that Spock had ‘resigned commission’. He hadn’t. He’d just relieved himself of duty. Again, it would have been a very simple change to make that accurate and wouldn’t have made the film any less enjoyable for casual viewers.

I wonder if they members of the ‘supreme court’ had an argument about those lines of dialogue and the trekkie faction lost, or if they simply got past the Trekkie faction without comment?

192. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 23, 2012

@#17 – UMA Fan

“It would be cool if during the first movie right after Spock chokes Kirk towards the end, when Sarek and Spock are in the transporter room and you see Sarek look at Spock you see Sarek flash back to Spock’s birth and they could have injected that scene that was supposed to open the movie but they cut, right in there.

Or, if that couldn’t have worked for some reason, it would have been nice to see it in the deleted scenes part of the DVD. Unless they were planning to add that footage in with the next film, then I think it would have been nice to get the cut-out material because it’s not like fans would not want to see it. I know I do. :-)

Even though I loved Trek 09 upon deep reflection it was everything going on with the characters before the Enterprise that I loved the most. Kirk at the bar, Spock at school, The Academy etc.

Same here. I loved Kirk and his moments with Uhura, Pike, and “Cupcake” (heh, heh) at the bar, and his moments with Spock and Prime Spock were great too. I loved – LOVED (obviously) all of the Spock and Uhura moments, and I thought it was great to see people with other people that they normally aren’t associated with, like Kirk and Sulu saving the day (and of course I love Spock with everybody :-)). It was the character moments, and everyone contributing to a common goal (even if they didn’t always agree on how to get there) that made the movie to me, and not so much the science behind singularities and things like that and whether or not it was perfect. I can respect that this might be what some other people care more about, but for me, I’d turn to NOVA or NASA updates or science journals for perfect science, so for me it’s not a big deal, although I get the point that those people are making. I know that a lot of people who went into scientific fields were inspired (at least in part) by TOS, but that was a television series, not one movie. And even when they made movies, they had the series as the basis. With these new movies, I think the goal is different. I like the fact that the essence of TOS is there, but also that it’s not TOS. What I want from movies is mainly to be able to connect to what the film is doing. And for me, with ST09, I was able to do that. I hope they stick with that.

It also highlighted a problem with Trek movies in general where they feel like they’re episodes in the sense that the status quo for the characters is always retained by the end of the films so they can just continue another adventure. What’s cool and what I personally believe is the most important part of Trek 09 is that the characters from the beginning of the film have evolved to different people by the end of the film. This is rare in Trek movies and trek in general because of its episodic nature and I hope the Trek sequel delivers on this.”

And what I like about this is that these characters are young enough (starting out) to not have fully become who they are going to be. They are ‘becoming.’ I think that some expect them to become exact replicas of their TOS selves, but I hope that doesn’t happen. Frankly, with the different set of circumstances and events in the last movie, I don’t think it’s plausible.

This is a nice segue into answering Michael Hall’s question to me on another comment’s section here:

Also @ Michael

” I’m still looking forward to reading your thoughts about exactly what it is that S/U brings to the table.”

Okay, here goes. :-) I’ve had some time to think about this, so I should manage to be somewhat concise.

Everyone gets something a bit different out of their viewing experience, so I don’t expect anyone else to get the same things as me or vice versa. Personally, I thought that the Spock/Uhura love story made both characters more relatable for me. Some people seem to think that Spock should not be a relatable character because he is supposed to represent “cold logic,” but I don’t agree with that. I think that the character is logical, and that logic is his foundation because he was raised in the Vulcan way, but he is also human. He loves his mother, and I also think that he loves what she represents (or at least what I think she seems to represent): The uninhibited ability to express one’s self without shame or remorse. I love the part of the movie when Spock is talking to his father and his father tells him what he believes his mother would say to him as advice: Don’t try to control/suppress how you feel – just feel it.

This goes to the inner struggle that I think Spock has: Human versus Vulcan, emotion versus logic, heart versus head – how ever you want to say it. This is why I think people saying that McCoy represents the “emotion” in their beloved triumvirate reduces the other 2 characters, who both possess their own emotions. Also, McCoy has (or should have) his own handle on logic and action. Before anyone reading this prepares to fire torpedoes through their keyboard at me – this is just how I see it. I am not asking anyone else to see things the way that I do, and please don’t ask me to see “the triumvirate” the way you who love it see it because I won’t.

Spock has his own emotions, and plenty of them. I want to see how he deals with the struggle within as he grows and evolves as the Spock we will come to know in this timeline. Uhura is a part of that, and I think that she can help him find the balance that he’s looking for. And in that balance, I think he will find a kind of peace that relying on pure logic doesn’t provide. I know that his father said that logic provides for a certain serenity that humans never know, but that “serenity” comes at a price, and that price is what it’s like to truly feel something – something good like love, which, oddly enough both Sarek (who loved Spock’s mother and didn’t want to admit that he betrayed pure logic until he could never tell her that) and Spock Prime (who obviously came to have a kind of love for at least Kirk in the Prime timeline) pursued lieu of being perfect, emotionless, Vulcans.

Seeing Uhura in a well-developed relationship will help to flesh-out the character and make her a bit more 3 dimensional for me. This is another reason why I liked seeing her with Spock in ST09, because we got to see her softer side with him in contrast to the smart and sassy xenolinguistics expert deciphering and intercepting messages. I’d also like to see a bit of the gracefulness that Ms. Nichols’ Uhura so well possessed come into play a bit as our young Uhura ages over time, but I’d also like to see the new Uhura doing more in this timeline than the Prime Uhura did.

I don’t think that any of the crew should just be there acting as extensions of the ship, meaning that they are only seen operating within their job functions. That’s why I said I’d like to see a bit of development for everyone outside of their job duties. Some of it can happen in conversations while working, and some can happen during their off time. It doesn’t have to take up a huge part of the film, but little moments here and there will do the trick.

Let me know if this is enough for you, Michael. If not, then I can keep going. I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.


Aaand @Michael again,

There’s also a question I have for you that I didn’t have the time to ask when I read it, but it’s from #536 (here: http://trekmovie.com/2012/01/12/star-trek-sequel-begins-shooting-exclusive-production-update/#comments ). And please don’t take it the wrong way:

“Keachick – “So Kirk having the opportunity to actually get to know someone for a bit more than a week (City on the Edge of Forever), fall in love with her and time enough to find out that she was pregnant, was “piffle”? Seriously? Whaaat?!”
Michael Hall – Yeah, seriously. Kirk and Edith Keeler were drawn together across the centuries, with her literally pulling this odd, out-of-place interloper and his “Chinese” sidekick off the street during one of the greatest times of crisis America ever faced. He eventually fell in love with her kindness and essential decency in what was to him a barbaric era; she with him because, subconsciously, he represented the hopeful future she wants so desperately to believe in. It was as classic a love story as has been told on American television during the last half-century, with the plaudits from viewers and critics alike to prove it.
Kirk and Miramanee’s relationship, by comparson, was a schlocky retelling of a cliche: Great White Hunter falls in with native tribe and hooks up with Beautiful Princess. It’s her duty to love him as the “god” who will save her people, and so she does. Whether her feelings would have been the same for him had he been marketed as a regular paleface none can say,
because their relationship isn’t one of equals. That Sabrina Scharf (who, interestingly enough, went on to become a California Assemblywoman) is lovely to look at and becomes pregnant with Kirk’s child doesn’t change this; neither does the fine musical score and better-than-average production values. (As I said, it’s a guilty pleasure.) I mean, sheesh! If this is the feminist defense of Spock/Uhura then I think feminism may be in a passel of trouble–and I say this as someone, a straight Caucasian guy, who considers himself a feminist.”

What makes them unequal in your eyes?

I ask because I’ve heard this said by posters who supported a certain view (about other characters/pairings…) on other sites, and it’s become sort of a possible red flag for me. Don’t worry, I’m not judging or anything like that. Right now, I’m just curious because I don’t know what you mean by this statement. I’d like to know if you don’t mind explaining.

I was going to respond to your Spock/Uhura comments (and honestly, Uhura’s skirt or the fact that they probably have somethings in common was never *the* reason for me liking her pairing with Spock), but I want to get your answer to my question above beforehand. That way, I will know if the conversation is worth the bother. I am saying this in the most respectful way that I can, and I hope you take it that way.

And just so you know, I am completely unbiased here. I don’t know anything about Kirk/Edith or Kirk/Sabrina (aside from what was said in the comments), and I don’t have a preference. What I am interested in is getting to know more about how you think and perhaps a bit about why. That’s why I asked my question.

Thanks again.

193. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 23, 2012

Oh, and as a follow up on Spock, I think that Spock Prime knew what young Spock was feeling when he could see that his younger self was obviously torn between being a good Vulcan, giving up what he really wanted in life (Uhura) to be with his Vulcan people to rebuild a colony as his duty, and being who he really wanted to be, a starfleet officer who is in love with a nice young lady who loves him back and understands him.

I wonder if Prime Spock ever wanted love and just never said anything because he wasn’t supposed to desire it…

Anyway, I think that’s why Prime Spock let him off of the hook by saying that he could be in two places at once, and also I think that Prime Spock felt guilty for being the reason behind the destruction of his home world in this timeline.

Oh, well, you know I could keep going on with this subject because Spock/Uhura are what I liked best from the last film. Once again, let me know if you have any more questions. I’d be happy to talk. :-)

194. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 23, 2012

Michael Hall – “That Sabrina Scharf (who, interestingly enough, went on to become a California Assemblywoman) is lovely to look at and becomes pregnant with Kirk’s child doesn’t change this”

Who the hell is Sabrina? Kirk had a relationship with Miramanee, a CHARACTER that someone called Sabrina Scharf (and what’s the actress’s later career got to do with anything?). Stop creating confusion.

“Kirk and Edith Keeler were drawn together across the centuries, with her literally pulling this odd, out-of-place interloper off the street…”

There is no more reason to think that Kirk and Edith were “drawn together…” than for Kirk and Miramanee. Given that Kirk was with Miramanee long enough to get her pregnant and know about it, this could just as easily be interpreted as Kirk and Miramanee being drawn together across the centuries, across star systems etc. That notion/interpretation of the Kirk/Edith relationship is pure fantasy on your part, Michael. Edith Keeler didn’t pull Kirk or Spock off the street. Kirk and Spock were running from cops and found their way into her basement. As we find out later, Edith has one or two good instincts when it comes to assessing people, which is why she offered the two of them a “flop for the night…”

On further reflection, it was not even Kirk or Spock who were necessarily “drawn across the centuries”, as you put it, it was Dr McCoy. Kirk and Spock were drawn to whatever McCoy was “drawn towards” when he stepped through the Guardian of Forever. It was Dr McCoy who changed everything by saving Edith Keeler’s life…so, you might well ask, what was that all about? Kirk was simply being James Kirk, whenever he sees and hears feminine beauty and intelligence…(not that I am objecting to James Kirk being like this).

Anyway, we all know how it ended for both women… now that’s what become something of a cliche, and a cruel one at that.

Frankly, I do not see what makes one relationship “less equal” than the other. Miramanee may have been infatuated with this Kirok, in the same way that Kirk was infatuated with Edith.

On further reflection, it was not even Kirk or Spock who were “drawn

195. trek techie - January 24, 2012

I’ll wait after the film is released to see what’s been done with the engine room…if it’s still a brewery, then I’ll save my $$ and not bother to watch it, rent it or buy it. It really DOES detract greatly from the whole Trek look and feel. It’s like seeing a Trek skit done on Saturday Night Live. To those who say it doesn’t matter if the engineering room is a brewery or not, then it would probably be OK for you to also have the bridge changed to the set of the Titanic or maybe add a wooden desk there, no? One of the main reasons Trek is Trek to me is because there is the consistency of canon. If you have breweries for engine rooms and plastic curtains for shuttle entry/exit, and Titanic-like (or Gotham city like) huge girders and 1920s style valves for pipes, then it is no longer Star Trek but a parody of same. i will pay money to see Start Trek but not a parody of it.

196. Samuel Kirk - January 24, 2012

I’m a 1st generation Trekker, so there a few things that I would like to say. If there are going to be improvements to Engineering, here’s an idea for a big improvement…DON’T FILM IT IN BREWERY!!!! Build a damn set. With the CGI technology we have today, there was no excuse for using a damn brewery. C’mon guys, You made the bridge look like Admiral Ackbar’s bridge from Star Wars with Rave nightclub lighting, and engineering looked like the engine room on the Queen Mary. You can explain it as repairs and refitting after the damage sustained battling Nero. That was a shakedown cruise of sorts, now time to work out the bugs of Star Fleets New Flagship, as Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) said before leaving for Vulcan.

Can we please not have any of the flashlight flares hitting the camera anymore? NO MORE LENS FLARES!!!!! They weren’t dramatic, artistic or add anything what so ever to the film, the flares were plain and simply annoying, and actually took away from the film. I know, JJ loves them and thinks they are cool, but really???

Most Importantly Gene Roddenberry said it numerous times, Harve Bennett has said it frequently, and Rick Berman before he dropped the ball said it, One major star of Star Trek is the ENTERPRISE herself. The flyby’s in the 2009 film sucked, especially at warp. the warp effect sucked. And what is with them travelling blind at warp??? On the way to Vulcan all they could see was a tunnel of fog? Seriously?? The best warp effect was in ST-TMP. Using some of the same effects from earlier films does not ruin the new projects. Learn from ST-TMP, STII -WOK, and STIII-TSFS. Give the ENTERPRISE her deserved on screen time. She is an Integral member of the cast. Oh yea, the phaser and photon topedo sound effects need work……This is the era of ST-TOS, those era sound effects were great, Effects and sounds were changed thru-out the Original Series and the Original cast films, it can be done here, and I believe these things would be well received. Now some real nit-picking…lol. Why is the bridge on deck 2, not deck 1? Hello! I’m not crazy about the warp nacelle design either. 1st they are too close together. 2nd The nacelles on the TOS ENTERPRISE were always a bit phalic, but GEEEZ, these look like they are on viagra. I always loved the TOS ENTERPRISE, but I must admit my favorite design was the TMP ENTERPRISE, and the ENTERPRISE A, I know, same model with the letter “A” added, but that was the best incarnation of our beloved ENTERPRISE.

P.S. If you all feel you must eventually do something with the episode Space Seed and Star Trek II like the Coen Bros attempted and failed with TRUE GRIT, consider the only actor that I believe would make KHAN credible…..Dwayne Johnson, Just put him in his Scorpion King Costume with the hair extensions, and you have KHAN. LOL However, in my humble opinion, you don’t make remakes of Films such as TRUE GRIT, or ST-II, John Wayne Turned over in his grave. Don’t make Ricardo Montalban do the same thing.

197. Samuel Kirk - January 24, 2012

Locations Hollywood tweeted this weekend regarding the forthcoming filming for Star Trek 2. “Star Trek filming will be on location @Budweiser Brewery, Sony Studios, Dodger Stadium, Long Beach City Hall, MCAS Tustin [Marine Corps Air Station Tustin] & the Vasquez Rocks.”

back at the Budweiser Brewery again

Fans of the original series are very familiar with Vasquez Rocks, which were used in several episodes including Arena, Shore Leave, Friday’s Child and The Alternative Factor. The Vasquez Rocks were used in other Trek series and movies, including Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and more recently Star Trek XI.

198. trek techie - January 25, 2012

Looks like the Trek i knew growing up is dead (at least in new movies) since they evidently are ignoring the most loyal Trek fans with the Budweiser Engine Room (BeER). So for the new “trek 2″, i will not even bother going or renting or buying. It’s pointless because i know i will be disappointed and i’m not giving them my heard-earned money to insult me one more time. i think one parody (Trek 2009) is more than enough insult for me, thank you.

i haven’t really been a Star Wars fan but i guess i’ll learn to get into that franchise instead or any other new SciFi franchise, plus i’ll keep my old Star Trek movies and TV show DVDs and just keep revisiting them every once in a while.

Pity, i remember that prior to the Trek 2009 movie, on these Trekmovie pages, that Abrams et al. professed to be such die-hard and true-blue Trekkies in their interviews – what a bunch of lying BS! As usual in such cases, they become “instant die-hard fans” of the series when PR requires them to promote it and spew forth BS to the loyal fan base.

OK, now i know what the MO of Abrams & Co. is, and i won’t be trusting their word for any future project (movie or TV show) at all. i’ve learned my lesson.

199. Filiberto Stuhr - May 21, 2012

I’m sure this if off topic but Im evaluating starting my very own weblog and wanted to ask what all is necessary to get set up? Im assuming creating a blog like yours would cost you a lot of money? Im not too web savvy so Im not 100% certain. Any recommendations or advice is greatly appreciated. Kudos

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