EXCLUSIVE: Lindelof On Star Trek Sequel’s Character Focus + 3D & IMAX + Team Already Talking 3rd Movie | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

EXCLUSIVE: Lindelof On Star Trek Sequel’s Character Focus + 3D & IMAX + Team Already Talking 3rd Movie June 6, 2012

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

In the second part of his exclusive TrekMovie.com interview, Star Trek sequel co-writer/producer Damon Lindelof discusses character dynamics of the Trek crew, how story trumps scale, the logistics of 3D (and IMAX), and more. And just in time for Wrath of Khan week, he explains how that film had a big impact on him. Damon even talks about how the team have already started talking about a third Star Trek movie. Check it all out below, and don’t worry there are no spoilers.

 

Exclusive Interview: Damon Lindelof on the Star Trek sequel (Part 2)

Here is the second part of my interview with Star Trek sequel co-writer/producer Damon Lindelof

TrekMovie.com: You talked about the characters, their relationships and conflict. The last film was all about this family coming together, especially with Kirk and Spock starting out hating each other and growing to, if not like each other, respect each other. This new film is four years later in real time, but not sure in movie time. Are we jumping in to a new spot on their character arcs? Or are we picking up where we left off?

Damon Lindelof: That is a very clever way of asking how much time has elapsed between the movies and that is not something we are commenting on at this point. What we can say is that the big difference with the fundamental crew dynamics as they existed in the first movie and as they roll into this one is the promise at the end of the first movie with James T. Kirk in his yellow shirt is now sitting in the captain’s chair. We have not seen Kirk as the captain of the Enterprise yet. We will see him be the captain in this movie and that changes the dynamic.


The "Star Trek" crew – Lindelof says Kirk as captain changes the relationship dynamics for the sequel

TrekMovie.com: Two years ago, before you even started scripting, [producer] Bryan Burk told me you guys were going for something larger in scope. Is it right to say this is a bigger movie?

Damon Lindelof: Sometimes I feel that bigger is not necessarily better. You are just saying "Oh my god this movie is just epic in scale and epic in scope and epic, epic, epic." But at the end of the day I feel that Trek is at its best when it is intimate and human and relatable. And when I say human, that can include aliens too. But all the things that we view as emotional touchstones: love, loss, and courage and all those themes that are the core of Trek. You sometimes when you want to make a movie too big for its own good, it loses some of those essential values. So we didn’t want that to happen. That being said, JJ’s decision to shoot a lot of the movie in IMAX, definitely makes the film seem a lot bigger and definitely the sequences he directed in IMAX I feel have tremendous scale and energy, without sacrificing any of things that I talked about on an emotional level.

TrekMovie.com: Another big difference this time is that the film is in 3D. So, did 3D make a difference in the writing or shooting? 

Damon Lindelof: It did not impact the writing of the script. We wanted to tell the story that we wanted to tell and we have already talked about the idea that all of us were a little bit cynical about doing the movie in 3D and then they set up a test at Bad Robot where they took footage from the first movie – the sequence when the Enterprise drops out of warp and they come upon all the federation vessels destroyed by the Narada and they are doing evasive maneuvers – and we just looked at each other after and said "that was kind of awesome." We are now – I wouldn’t say converts – but I don’t think this is going to hurt the movie. If people want to see it in 3D, they will get their money’s worth. And in terms of actual production, JJ shot the movie exactly the way he wanted to shoot it. And when you are doing this process, as opposed to a standard conversion, after every single set up – not just every scene but every angle – we had to do a 3D pass where you clear the set of the actors and the camera has to do the same moves so the guys doing the conversion can map accordingly and that will provide a much better 3D experience for the audience.

But again, our job was to just make an awesome movie and to care about the characters and again do service to this amazing baton that has been passed to us and that we take incredibly seriously and treat with a great deal of reverence. So the 3D decision was more along the lines of like "are we going to screw up Trek by doing this movie in 3D or is Trek ready for 3D?" Hopefully it is the latter. Based on the dailies that I have seen, I think JJ pulled it off.


A 3D test conversion of this scene in "Star Trek" helped convince the team the sequel could work in 3D

TrekMovie.com: When we talked about Prometheus  (see my Movies.com interview with Damon) you mentioned that moving forward you want to challenge yourself with doing original stories and away from more sequels, prequels and comic book adaptations. Does that preclude your working on a third Star Trek movie? 

Damon Lindelof: It would be very hard to not be involved in Trek moving forward. We certainly don’t feel that a third movie is a foregone conclusion. Hopefully the second movie turns out well and we are really happy about everything so far. So three movies, again not to do everything that Christopher Nolan does, but if you do it right it’s a good model. But that idea, whether you want to call it a trilogy or not, although I reserve the right to when we are talking four years from now to say "this is the third movie in our trilogy," but it does feel that three movies is the right responsibility for us to have the baton for before we then pass it off to the people who are take Trek to wherever they want to take it. So if this movie turns out well, would I be writing on the third movie? Who knows? But, we did talk a lot in the writing of this movie and during production about what the next movie might be and started getting excited about some of the ideas, so it would be hard to say no to that. This is a once in a lifetime experience.

I have probably told you this before, but my introduction to Trek was the movie the Wrath of Khan. It was the summer of ’82 and I was at Pinebrook Day Camp in New Jersey and it was pouring rain. They put all the campers on a bus and took us into town. At 9AM they showed us Wrath of Khan, and as soon as the credits started rolling the entire camp started chanting "again, again, again!" And so they showed it to us again from 11-1 and we stopped for lunch and then they showed it to us again. After that I needed to know everything about Star Trek and started watching syndicated reruns on Channel 11 and then my dad an I would watch Next Gen every Saturday afternoon  when it started running. So the idea that I’m actually getting to be a part of this profound cultural story that had a great impact on me, that is not something that I take lightly. Like the idea of saying "yeah, I’m done with this, I don’t need Trek anymore," I just cant ever picture myself ever getting to that point.

That being said, a huge part of this job is my interest in the collaboration that I have shared with JJ and Bryan and Bob and Alex and all these incredible actors and the crew who have now worked on two movies. It bears mentioning Jeffrey Chernov, Tommy Harper who were every bit producers as much as the rest of us just in terms of logistically creating this movie. Just making it has been a stunning achievement and we have only just begun the post-production process. Tommy Gormly, our first AD, is another one and Roger Guyett, the visual effects supervisor are others worth mentioning. Just getting to work with all of them again is a huge incentive to continue. So as long as the team is together, I’m not going to be the one who breaks up the Beatles.


The "Star Trek" producers Bryan Burk, Damon Lindelof, JJ Abrams, Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci – Lindelof says he is ready (if they are) for a third movie

And if you missed it, check out part 1 of my Star Trek sequel interview with Damon.

Read my new Damon Lindelof Prometheus Interview at Movies.com

I also talked to Damon about his new movie Prometheus, opening this Friday. Read – MOVIES.COM: Damon Lindelof, on How ‘Prometheus’ Ties to ‘Alien,’ Further Sequels and Why He Feels Like a Fraud.


Damon Lindelof with actor Michael Fassbender on the set of "Prometheus"
[Kerry Brown/20th Century Fox]

 

Comments

1. Anthony Pascale - June 6, 2012

Note: Today TrekMovie.com was migrated to a new server. Some comments from the last day were lost in the transition…sorry

2. Aurore - June 6, 2012

“But again, our job was to just make an awesome movie and to care about the characters and again do service to this amazing baton that has been passed to us and that we take incredibly seriously and treat with a great deal of reverence.”
___________

Merci, Damon.

3. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - June 6, 2012

Ok. I like what Damon stated in that he and Bob and the court wanted to make Trek on a larger scale and keep the the Story as true to Trek. I only hope that they can do this. If so. Would make a lot of Trek fans very happy as well as the general public.
As far as 3D. Will wait and see.

4. The Unknown Poster - June 6, 2012

Sort of makes me nervous when they talk about doing a trilogy and moving on. Maybe we’re just spoiled by having TOS crew for so many decades and then the TNG crew for so many years but the way they have re-invented Trek with these tremendous actors, I’d hate to see the franchise re-booted again in a couple of years…

5. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - June 6, 2012

One thing though.
Bob Orci and the Court.
DON”T MAKE US WAIT 4 YEARS FOR THE NEXT MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6. CaptainDonovin - June 6, 2012

Not sure if I will see this in 3D yet. I saw Phantom Menance in 3D & liked it but saw Avengers 3 times but not in 3D.

7. Daoud - June 6, 2012

Thank you Damon, for taking the time with Anthony.
.
It’s these kind of interviews and introspection we as fans have sorely been missing in the lead up to Star Trek: Dos Equis, and both of you did not disappoint with this.
.
What a way to begin a love of Trek.. .with Wrath of Khan. That’s much like having the best filet mignon for your first steak, or TOBLERONE bars for your first chocolate. The bar is set high!

8. Guy from Berlin - June 6, 2012

No one has interest in your opinion how you watched movies …

9. J.A.G.T. - June 6, 2012

“don’t worry there are no spoilers.”

Well, that’s what I’m LEAST worried about ;)
Anyway, thanks for bringing us this fine interview, Anthony!

10. THX-1138 - June 6, 2012

Here is my take on the longevity of this particular iteration of the franchise:

3 movies and out. Then no Trek for a while. And then another reboot, probably back in the prime universe.

Without any support in the marketing of this franchise it won’t last. They don’t do books, the toys were a flop, and and there has been nothing to indicate that they are going to appeal to kids. Aside from a theme park in Spain that MIGHT be completed in 2015 (more likely 2018-after the movies have run their course) there has been very little in terms of global marketing for Trek. Here at home Trek seems to prove more popular when it can be seen on TV, but so far no real plan to put it there has been made public.

It remains to be seen whether NuTrek will have the lasting impact of it’s predecessors. Although not a jab at the quality of the product being put on the screen, I don’t think that the “other stuff’ like marketing has been handled too well.

11. Lancelot Narayan - June 6, 2012

Couldn’t have these guys have worn something a little more smart for the group photo? Worrying.

12. CJS - June 6, 2012

Oh they will definitive reboot after three movies. I doubt the cast or crew will commit to more (unless Pine, Quinto and Saldana suddenly can’t find work outside of Trek). Of course Trek is an expansive franchise, so they’ll probably reboot with TNG characters.

13. Christopher Roberts - June 6, 2012

I’ll lay odds that there will never be a TNG reboot.

After a third Abramsverse film, there’ll be a somebodyelsesverse and ad infinitum.

14. rogerachong - June 6, 2012

Most important actual news from this article that all future posters should note:

And when you are doing this process, as opposed to a standard conversion, after every single set up – not just every scene but every angle – we had to do a 3D pass where you clear the set of the actors and the camera has to do the same moves so the guys doing the conversion can map accordingly and that will provide a much better 3D experience for the audience.

Like Prometheus this movie was shot originally in 3D and IMAX 3D so there should be no worries about 3D quality. I am definetly seeing this big boy in IMAX 3D.

15. Stephan - June 6, 2012

Wait, I understoot it that way that it is a better conversion than standard conversion but it is still a conversion and the film hasn’t been shot in 3D. Am I wrong?

Stephan

16. The Quickening - June 6, 2012

Lindelof said “…when we are talking four years from NOW (emphasis, mine) to say “this is the third movie in our trilogy….” That’s not saying a movie ever four years.

I’m sure if the remaining films created by these guys finally breaks through and makes TREK movies an international success–something they have never been–we’ll see more of them, if not from this group of producers, then another. Though I think this current regime are moderately talented, I’m not too impressed with their talents and feel Paramount can still do better.

17. Anthony Thompson - June 6, 2012

8. Guy from Berlin

Thanks for providing the non-sequitor of the day. : D

18. Captain Braxton - June 6, 2012

I recon three films then we will get a new TV series, I’d love it in the prime universe set a century or so after TNG but it is far more likely it would be a series from the Alternate universe. Anyway I just want Trek on TV please!

19. rogerachong - June 6, 2012

@15 Movies are either shot in 3D or post converted at a later date. Damon described the way Paramount technicians showed them a POST CONVERTED 3D scene of the Enterprise that helped them to decide to go the way of 3D for the new film. Note that post conversion works best when the scene described is purely CGI as in all those PIXAR cartoons etc.

Now onto the sequel there will be no post conversions as the process Damon described is the one used to shoot a movie in ‘organic’ 3D like Prometheus which has a great looking 3D by the way.

20. Drew - June 6, 2012

Anthony…wasn’t there an interview with Montalban and Shatner posted in the last 24hrs? I canna’ find et.

21. PEB - June 6, 2012

#10 nice pessimism. honestly i think we’ll see 3 films possibly an animated series but definitely a live-action series after the 3rd film is released and it’ll take place in jj’s universe. (expect to see AT THE VERY LEAST one person from the current team involved probably orci as exec producer) the reception that recieves will determine where paramount wants to go next with trek. these days, everything is about ratings and you either get them or you dont and you’re cancelled and thats that. i think (and this is just my oppinion) that they’re trying to create a hunger for trek again from more than just the core audience. these films are the launching point for that and if there’s a real hunger then they’ll probably want to go farther with their plans for the franchise. i consider all of this the test phase. between the new movies and especially the new game, and any other new merchandise it’s a test to see how well it’s all recieved. and honestly, i dont remember going over to kid’s houses and playing with their transporter set or tng action figures or toy starships so i mean trek toys have never been at the top of any kids list. that’s just an issue of what trek has been in the past and currently. it doesnt appeal to kids the way star wars does.

22. Basement Blogger - June 6, 2012

I must have seen twenty 3D movies. I cannot recommend any 3D conversion as the version you should see. I did recommend Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) but that movie was a hybrid in which part of it was shot in 3D and part was converted. Movies converted to 3D from 2D are inferior to those shot in 3D as far as 3D quality. The conversion process is like creating a cinematic pop up book Link. Light, shadows, nooks and crannies are not caught by 2D cameras for the conversion. Another problem with converted 3D movies is that they are too dark. That’s because most directors don’t deal with the polarization of the projection process and the fact the audience is wearing polarized lenses.

A good 3D movie is one shot in 3D. A great 3D movie is one where the director is thinking 3D when filming. That requires setting up shots to maximized the effect. The two best 3D movies came out last year. They were Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” and Wim Wenders’ dance film “Pina.” Wenders used the space between dancers and props to create a magnificent 3D experience. I literally thought objects and people on the screen were next to me. By the way, both Scorsese and Wenders want to shoot more movies in 3D.

I am encouraged that the next Star Trek movie was filmed with the conversion process in mind. Still, the same was said for Piranha 3D (2010) and the 3D there was nothing special. I do expect the CGI to look good since those are shot with a virtual camera. So, space scenes may look fantastic.

One last thing. I hope that J.J. Abrams curbed his apetitie for hand held camera shots and other camera gymnastics. Those things tend to give motion sickness in 3D movies.

1. How the conversion process is done.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/01/how_do_you_convert_a_flat_movie_into_3d.html

2. Trailer for the low budget “Pina.” Nominated for best documentary. If you get the chance to see this in 3D, do so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNuQVS7q7-A

23. Stephan - June 6, 2012

@19: I get what you are explaining but a certain time ago it has been stated on trekmovie.com that they would go with a conversion for Trek 12 and in the article above Damon talks about “the guys doing the conversion”. So it still sounds to me like Trek 12 will be converted.

Maybe Anthony could clear this up?

24. Basement Blogger - June 6, 2012

@ 23

Stephan,

Star Trek 2013 is a 3D conversion. Link. What Damon Lindelof is describing is that Star Trek will not be a “standard conversion.” Doing ’3D” passes without the actors will make the job easier for the artists who will convert the film to 3D. It’s a cinematic pop up book. See post 22, Slate article to see how it’s done.

A movie shot in 3D or what we call native 3D is one shot with a two lense camera rig. Promethues was shot in 3D. The upcoming “The Amazing Spider-Man” was shot in 3D. You can only do so much in converting a movie. You’re not going to capture the nooks, crannies, angles, light and shadow in a conversion that a native 3D movie. will. You can consider converted movies to be 2.5D or worse.

I agree that Star Trek CGI scenes could look great. The best that the live action scenes can do is that they will come off as a big cinematic pop up book. The best 3D cinema came out last year. Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” and Wim Wenders’ “Pina.” Both directors set up shots to maximize the 3D.

List of movies in native or real 3D and those that are converted.
http://realorfake3d.com/

25. Ahmed - June 6, 2012

Until they make 3D movies that don’t require those bloody glasses, I will not watch any movie in 3D.

I will see Star Trek in 2D, same as with all the other 3D releases this year.

26. Johnny - June 6, 2012

Star Trek is way too culturally *important* a franchise to just do three movies and out. The original crew got three seasons and six movies. There are just SO MANY stories to tell with these characters… there is absolutely no reason for a reboot after the third movie. The original actors were tied to their characters for 40 years. Whether they like it or not, the new actors signed up to reprise beloved characters in an iconic, long-running franchise. It’s not like a lesser franchise such as Transformers, Spiderman, or even Batman, that are re-imagined every decade or so.

Personally, I just don’t think this is something the new cast and crew should take lightly and just “throw away” when they’ve had enough. It’s not the same as Nolan’s Batman films… because Star Trek has endless story possibilities… whereas you can only go so far with Batman before the villains and themes become repetitive. Star Trek has literally an entire GALAXY of stories and characters to explore. Three movies will only scratch the service… and will leave me slightly “empty” no matter how awesome those films are. For example… I do want to see Khan either in this film or the third one… but is that the *only* story I want to see? Absolutely not. If you’re going to go through the trouble of rebooting Star Trek… then you can’t just abandon it after a few films. If J.J. Abrams wants to move on, then fine. The original series movies were directed by a number of people. Bring in a new director, but the cast has to stay the same.

27. Johnny - June 6, 2012

Shorter version of my point @26 —- is that there is simply NO REASON to end and/or reboot the new franchise. Why would anyone want to stop making Star Trek? What could these guys possibly want to move on to that’s BETTER than Star Trek?

28. Daoud - June 6, 2012

Lindelof’s desires with Trek aren’t necessarily in line with K/O Paper Products. I really expect Boborci to pilot an animated series, probably continuing with the voices of Pine, Quinto, et al., but in the least with their likenesses. That would be the easy way to go.
.
And I’d expect them to exec produce someone else’s adaptation of a Trek midquel. I’d think a run of “limited series” could be done, “A Year In the Life of The…” Year 1: USS Columbia just after the Romulan War, Year 2: The USS Kelvin, the year before Nero, etc. Easier to get one-year actor commitments to something like this. That sort of series with interested parties could run with different producers for each season. Coto for Year 1, Orci for Year 2, etc. A multiverse Trek series… with midseason cliffhangers rather than season ending ones.

29. No Khan - June 6, 2012

If they would make them a little faster maybe they could do five before the cast splits. And I’m not saying rush them, but it seems Paramount isn’t worried about how long each movie gets made. I guess its up to J.J.

Plus, I’m sick everything having to be a trilogy. What rule says it has to be a trilogy.

30. Ahmed - June 6, 2012

@29. No Khan – June 6, 2012

Agree, we shouldn’t wait more than 3 years between each movie. Also, if Abrams & his team left after the third movie, Paramount should continue with the same cast but with new director & writes, not to reboot the whole thing and start all over again.

They should keep moving forward, not stuck in loop & keep rebooting.

31. gov - June 6, 2012

hmm…disappearing comments!

32. Daoud - June 6, 2012

@31 Well, gov, server migration happens.

33. LizardGirl - June 6, 2012

I’m seeing this in both 2D and 3D! As nice as it would be to have more than 3 JJ/Trek movies, consider the time required to create a movie. The actors may not want to be typecasted if more Trek movies come up in the future. Even if they’re interested, they may still be busier than they already are.

I’d like to hope that, if there is an animation in the works, that they could at least be free to do those. But seeing as it would evolve (most likely) around the new trek characters it would require most if not all the actors to voice their characters on a regular basis. Which may be a problem. I guess it would depend on how many episodes in a season there are, also how quickly a script can be handed to the actors.

At this point I will be satisfied with an animated series over a live series. It would be a critical step towards marketing the Star Trek name to the masses. Which is a good thing going by the success of Lucasfilm.

34. THX-1138 - June 6, 2012

#21

You are confusing pessimism with realism. But let’s just “bet” each other. I do note that you don’t dispute any of the marketing points I made, other than you don’t seem to recall going over to any kids’ house to play with their Trek toys. I will say that when TNG was first run Trek toys were wildly popular. The producers made a concerted effort to market Star Trek to kids, and whether you can recall what you did or not, one of the driving forces behind a science fiction/fantasy franchise from a marketing standpoint is children and young adults. They run the engine. I go with what I see: Too long between movies and not enough international marketing plus unsuccessful (thusfar) marketing towards kids = a limited run.

#26/27

One problem with what you are suggesting is that all of the talent involved in the new Star Trek movies (the actors, writers, producers and director) have careers that are now taking off. We have already seen how their schedules have come into conflict with the current movies production, and now that they are becoming even more in demand their availability for Star Trek will diminish. And it would be a rare thing indeed for the current Star Trek cast and crew to move FROM the big screen to TV. That just doesn’t happen.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, the prime universe is just more iconic in it’s images, characters, and yes, canon than the AU. The bulk of stories told in it are a factor. I just don’t see a compelling argument for NuTrek to be a lasting and iconic force in Star Trek lore. Fun, exciting, and entertaining, yes. Lasting and iconic, probably not.

35. LizardGirl - June 6, 2012

Correction for post 33: revolve around… (sorry)

36. trekkie77 - June 6, 2012

I hope that after an trek XII and trek XIII , that trek will be rebootet with tng this tine, set jja´s NUTREK, just in year 2358….with a enterprise D , and crew of tng, just other actors, and only character that should appears would be quinto´s spock, either quinto´s spock or another recast actor playing an much older spock.

And then make new tng stories in NU-Trek :-)

That I think would be the future :-)

37. El Chup - June 6, 2012

“Sometimes I feel that bigger is not necessarily better. You are just saying “Oh my god this movie is just epic in scale and epic in scope and epic, epic, epic.” But at the end of the day I feel that Trek is at its best when it is intimate and human and relatable. And when I say human, that can include aliens too. But all the things that we view as emotional touchstones: love, loss, and courage and all those themes that are the core of Trek. You sometimes when you want to make a movie too big for its own good, it loses some of those essential values. So we didn’t want that to happen. That being said, JJ’s decision to shoot a lot of the movie in IMAX, definitely makes the film seem a lot bigger and definitely the sequences he directed in IMAX I feel have tremendous scale and energy, without sacrificing any of things that I talked about on an emotional level. ”

- If this is true and they have kept the human element of Star Trek with, hopefully, some commentary on the human condition, then this is by far the best news I have read about the new movie.

I hate the idea of Khan, I hate some of what has been said about set designs, etc. But what I felt tthe first movie lacked the most was the old style commentary on the human condition. The comments above give me hope that the writers have taken this into consideration. For this reason my spirits are lifted a little.

38. Smike - June 6, 2012

I guess there will be a TNG reboot at some point, possibly happening after the third movie…let’s say 2018…I’ve already got some ideas who could be in it…

Picard = Tom Hardy (Quite logical choice! He’ll be in his fourties by then)

Data = Tom Hiddlestone (Can there be any doubt???)

Troy = Kirsten Stewart (she’s got the dreamy looks)

Worf = Tyrese Gibson

Crusher = Lauren Ambrose

Geordie = Lance Gross

Lillian T. Riker = Megan Fox :-)

39. Enough - June 6, 2012

Enough of the c*** teases. Anthyon this interview just plays into it. Nothing was said that we already didn’t know, of course it’s going to be bigger and grander. Why wouldn’t it? We the fans are the reason Star atrek still exists, give us a title a premise or Charcot. I am excited for this movie and enjoy the work this new team does, but they way they are handling themselves are just reply childish and rude.

40. Enough - June 6, 2012

Enough of the c teases. Anthyon this interview just plays into it. Nothing was said that we already didn’t know, of course it’s going to be bigger and grander. Why wouldn’t it? We the fans are the reason Star atrek still exists, give us a title a premise or Charcot. I am excited for this movie and enjoy the work this new team does, but they way they are handling themselves are just reply childish and rude.

41. PEB - June 6, 2012

@34 I was a kid when TNG first came on the scene and my point was that while there were toys I remember (because I was wildly into Trek as I still am) it wasnt as popular as you’re tying to say it was with kids. I will agree that it was the age of models and that was extremely popular with young adults and some kids. I couldnt walk in a hobby or craft shop without seeing MANY Star Trek models on the shelf next to Star Wars model kits. I loved that and I miss it. So I agree with you totally on the marketing BUT I also will say that I’m seeing a shift. Between the types of books that are being released and the upcoming game and the ongoing Trek comic (which is really good) there is merchandise that’s being released but it’s just a different type in a different time. To be very honest, Parmaount probably needs to see some indication of rabid Trek interest like there was during TNG and DS9′s era. And lets be honest, that type of interest was gone way before JJ and crew were even thought about so the base should stop and think about how they are going to play an active part in Trek’s future. People cant complain on one hand and then not understand why Trek fades if it ever does (not saying you’re one of those people, but you see my point I hope).

42. Smike - June 6, 2012

They need to speed up production of these movies if they want to prevent NuTrek (or Trek in general) from fading into oblivion. An interval of four years between those movies simply is too long.
Look what Marvel has accomplished in four years: six blockbuster movies within such a short period of time! Or Harry Potter: eight movies in ten years!

Despite what some people may believe: long intervals between franchise movies do NOT serve the purpose of increasing interest in the series. A new movie every other year is simply required if you want to keep up the brand name. No one needs 52 hours of TV screentime plus an additional two-hour movie as in the good ol`days. But two hours of Trek ever four years simply is not good enough…

43. T'Cal - June 6, 2012

As to the marketing posts, I wish TPTB could be half as successful at marketing Star Trek as those who handle Star Wars. The latter franchise sells toys at virtually every toy store, convenience store, CVS, Walgreens, etc. all year round. We’re lucky if Trek stuff is sold around when the movie is released. Besides toys, there are party favors, balloons, T-shirts, beach towels, sunglasses…you name it. I think part of it is that SW has always targeted kids as part of their audience. Five of the six films were rated PG. Star Trek 2009 was clearly a PG-13 film that didn’t have to be. They could’ve started by leaving out unnecessary lines like, “sex with farm animals…” and a few others. I’m just sayin’…

44. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 6, 2012

Frankly, I couldn’t give a damn about the merchandise – the toys and stuff. Although the Star Trek movies may have a rating of PG-13, the premise is simply more adult. The topics and themes discussed should also be more adult, even controversial and thought provoking, so quotes like “sex with farm animals…” and similar could be part of a Star Trek script if deemed appropriate to the story being told. Star Trek is not a Disney production, never was.

I would not like to see Star Trek movies become R-rated because, for one thing, it would lose a significant audience and more likely be far more obscenely violent that is really warranted or healthy.

Star Trek can be enjoyed by children – I did, but essentially it is (young) adult entertainment.

45. Bucky - June 6, 2012

Trek was only PG-13 in the States. It was PG in Canada! Same deal for Prometheus (being R-rated down there, 14A here). Your rating system is just wacky.

After reading this (fun interview, I always like hearing from Lindelof) I’m basically resigned to the fact we’re probably only going to get 3 movies out of this crew in front & behind the camera. I just hope / pray Bad Robot & Company would be involved in the new series, wherever or whenever it pops up.

46. Bucky - June 6, 2012

Oh and also the first time I see this flick it’ll be plain old 2D but them shooting in IMAX does throw a monkey wrench into viewing plans. Probably for the 2nd viewing. I wouldn’t bother if it was post-conversion 3D + post-conversion IMAX but since it was actually shot in IMAX I do want to check it out.

47. Johnny - June 6, 2012

@34

But what I’m saying is that why would the cast and crew choose to make other movies over Star Trek ones? They all talk about how doing Star Trek is such an incredible experience… so why would they want to “walk away” at any time soon? Like I said… the original actors never did walk away. If they want to do other projects in between, then fine. That’s what Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale did with Batman. The only difference is that Nolan and Bale are stopping after the third movie, because they envisioned the series as a trilogy with a conclusive ending right from the beginning. But why would the cast/crew of new Trek stop after the third one? There is no reason to just end it. There are endless amounts of stories to be told.

48. Smike - June 6, 2012

I really don’t know where the urban myth of long intervals serving a franchise’s popularity and financial success comes from. There is plenty of evidence for the contrary! Most franchises with long intervals within its sequels slowly faded while those with very short intervals (new stuff every other year or even annually) proved economically viable…

Let’s see:

Short intervals (1-2 years or less): Harry Potter, Twilight, Avengers, Paranormal Activity, Transformers, the LOTR trilogy, the first three POTC movies, the 60s Bond movies, you name it…

Long intervals (4 years or more): Alien, Terminator, Men in Black, Jurassic Park, Mummy, Scream

It’s incredible… Remember what happened to NEM after a four-year hiatus??? Taking four years off to “increase popularity and hunger” isn’t just a waste of time…it is harmful to the franchise!

49. Shilliam Watner (Click name for Trek Ships poster) - June 6, 2012

When they can’t even say how much time has elapsed between films, I think they’re taking secrecy a bit too far. Not sure how that would be some kind of spoiler.

Personally, I’d like it if some time had elapsed, because these people were just kids in the last film. They’re four years older now and I think that would be a good thing in the movie. It would give them some maturity. At least say a few years have passed. It just seems a bit improbably that Starfleet would give their newest, coolest ship to a bunch of fairly untested kids.

Oh well, not a big deal. If they make a good movie it won’t matter to me. I loved the first one.

50. porthos's bitch - June 6, 2012

@48 NEM ?
I think three years is about right….BTTF was 6 months between 2 and 3. I dont mind the wait but please no cliff hangers ! Back in the days of vhs I remember waiting months to buy part 1 of BOBW’s so I was able to buy part 2 at the same time.

51. MJ - June 6, 2012

Disappointed here in Orci that he specifically told us all just a few days ago that the were not talking about the 3rd movie yet. I get being secretive, but lying seems unnecessary?

52. rm10019 - June 6, 2012

51 – Oy, my finger didn’t scroll past your nasty comment fast enough not to read it. Why do you bother… He isn’t lying, and said that he was open to hearing ideas that people had for fun on the 3rd film.

I will now continue to ignore you, as you deserve.

53. VulcanFilmCritic - June 6, 2012

I guess this is a little bit off topic, but the possibility of an animated series has come up from time to time. I assume it will be located in the Nu-Trek universe, but doesn’t that create some problems for Bad Robot?
It’s hard enough to come up with lots of story ideas for the Nu-Trek franchise and it’s associated comics, as it is. We are talking already about re-cycling villains and scenarios, and we haven’t even gotten to the second movie yet.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to go back to the classic TOS universe or even the TNG, DS9, VOY AND ENT universes for the animated series? There are hours and hours of TV time and movies and lots and lots of loose ends.
For the studio, this keeps these old properties in the public eye and allows for continued sales of old material. Also the cost of hiring the now very expensive Mr. Pines, Quinto, Urban, et al for voiceover would be very costly, wouldn’t it? Don’t get me wrong, I’d love a weekly series or even monthly animated special with voiceovers by the actors from ST09, but how can TV afford such a project? And would we get writers outside of Bad Robot?

54. MJ - June 6, 2012

@52. Your emotional and overly-dramatic cortical post notwithdstanding, here is the actual quotes:

“Seb: Bob, do u have any ideas for Star Trek 3 ?
boborci: No, so good time to weigh in;)”

He said they have no ideas! But Lindelof says here that:

“we did talk a lot in the writing of this movie and during production about what the next movie might be and started getting excited about some of the ideas.’

I get that you don’t like me — fine, whatever — but this is pretty cut and dry.

55. Shilliam Watner (Click name for Trek Ships poster) - June 6, 2012

50. porthos’s bitch – two years is the most I want between films, but I’m a surly bastard. I agree about cliff hangers, though. A movie without a conclusion is not a whole movie. I will really be angry if this new film ends with a cliff hanger. I think that’s just cheap.

56. MJ - June 6, 2012

@55. I could live with cliffhangers in the special case where they filmed two movies back to back, with release dates a year of less apart.

57. MJ - June 6, 2012

Anthony, whatever you did with the new server is great, as the response time in loading the web pages seems to be at least twice as fast now on my end. Thanks for the IT upgrade, if that is what you are doing?

58. LizardGirl - June 6, 2012

@44
Star Trek can, arguably, be a show for children as well. Not like Barney or Teletubbies but something that makes them really think and dream. They may not understand ALL of its facets at once but they will go back to it again and again throughout their years. An animated series that’s marketed right will help a younger generation embrace ST. They will have warm fuzzy memories of playing with Star Trek action dolls and barbies, or running around with phasers on stun.

Hopefully this will be something of a positive experience in their lives, especially if shared with family. Of course as an adult (questionable in the geek world) toys are meaningless, but don’t write that stuff off. Not if you expect the franchise to stay alive long after the “old schoolers” are gone.

I for one, despite being in my 20s, wouldn’t mind buying a toy or an accessory from the new Star Trek franchise myself. If there was a decent supply out there.

59. dmduncan - June 6, 2012

54. MJ – June 6, 2012

I remember a thread a while ago — no idea at this point which one or when it was, they are all such a blur to me now — but in it Bob had also mentioned that they were throwing around ideas for the sequel to THIS movie, but from Bob’s most recent comment it sounds like nothing is set in stone.

60. Shilliam Watner (Click name for Trek Ships poster) - June 6, 2012

Anthony, my name, email and url aren’t being “remembered” when I come back to comment.

Just so you know.

61. dmduncan - June 6, 2012

58. LizardGirl – June 6, 2012

I agree with you.

62. MJ - June 6, 2012

@59. Yea, I remember that too. Bob, like everyone on the crew/cast seems to be under a lot of pressure from JJ to keep the lid on things, so I can somewhat understand I guess the fib he made here on this site about not having any ideas for the sequel. Damon just threw Bob under the bus here though by contradicting completely what Bob had said on that topic though.

Oh well, these guys are under a lot of pressure — I get that.

63. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 6, 2012

WOW… I’m crazy to see the movie… great interview..

;-) :-)

64. LizardGirl - June 6, 2012

@53
I get your point. I was making a similar one earlier, about the availability of the new franchise actors for an animated series. I’m thinking that the only solution for this would be to find voice actors who sound similar to the movie actors. It’ll be cheaper and easier. Bad Robot may have to join forces with other writers/companies in order to keep from burning out creatively.

It’s an intriguing idea, to do an animated series for TNG, VOY, or DS9. But would it be fair? While they may not have animated series, they were thoroughly explored with seven seasons each plus movies, while the new franchise has hardly been explored at all. Even TOS has an animated series to go along with the 3 seasons as well as 6 movies in its franchise. Side Note: if you can get a hold of that animated series I STRONGLY suggest you watch it. See if your local library has it or and interlibrary loan system.

Like it or not, we’re living in the time of The Next Generation star trek fans. If someone has recently become a Trek fan chances are they became one due to JJ Abrams. These ones are more likely to be more receptive to the new franchise than the older ones. Hence an animated series in JJ’s Trek makes the most logic.

An idea: every once in a while there’s an animated throwback episode. They do a stand alone story from one of the past franchises as a special treat for fans.

65. Pensive's Wetness - June 6, 2012

#28: You know, i wish Macross (the entire IP) was reanimated in that fashion, seasonal series. obviously though that becomes a barrel of worms when you think about how to dish royalities (the one thing nobody thinks about when people cry for more Trek-on-TV…)

66. The Observer - June 6, 2012

I can see a third Trek universe appearing, but never a return to the first one. They aren’t looking for a demographic that old. Especially that many years from now.

67. Captain Karl - June 6, 2012

Maybe the third one will deal with the resurrection of Spock.

68. Adolescent Nightmare - June 6, 2012

I will see it in 3D first. Then Imax.

69. NCM - June 6, 2012

Love what he says about the emotional angles. Don’t care for smarm, but battle scenes, physical conflict can only hold the imagination for so long. Without interesting characters, relationships, dialog, and a beating heart, a film reels off like a slide show (unfortunately, that’s how I remember Cowboys and Aliens; so I’m hoping that was the result of too many cooks and not the boys on this court).

Anthony, when is Mr. Orci gonna do an interview?

70. MJ - June 6, 2012

@68. Very funny! It is going to be in IMAX 3D.

71. Tom - June 6, 2012

Hopefully not another 4 year wait. Considering how busy both the team and the actors are I guess it cant be ruled out.

It will be interesting to see what happens after the third movie. It looks like a foregone conclusion that 3 will be it. Maybe they will change at some point. We really havent heard anyone say that they will keep doing them as long as they’ll let them.

72. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 6, 2012

#58 – Yes, I agree. I was only seven years old when I saw TOS for the first time in the 1960s and I loved and love it.

I meant personally I don’t care about the merchandise. It is probably because I never saw much to begin with and never missed it. My focus has been and is now – seeing Star Trek (especially this alternate universe with this wonderful new cast of actors) done beautifully within an audio-visual live actors/action medium and secondly, an animated version, if done well. The rest – not so much.

Also I do get tired of so much merchandise being shoved at children. As a parent of three, it can be a nightmare and most of the products are expensive for what they are. My kids never really wanted a Bumblebee model (Transformers) or a model starship or whatever anyway. When my daughter wants to see Bumblebee she puts on one of the two Transformer DVDs we have and is quite happy…:) (I don’t care what anyone thinks here, but the Transformers I and II movies can be fun to watch sometimes, especially the first one).

I do think that Star Trek should be a film series where parental guidance is sometimes needed and necessary. Producers and writers should not feel that they constantly need to censor themselves when it comes to dealing with topics like sexuality in particular. This does mean that parents and/or guardian will have to step up sometimes. Is that such a bad thing?

#64 – I never thought about checking if the local library has the TOS DVD series that I could take out on loan a couple at a time perhaps. Good idea. I’ll give it a go.

73. James - June 6, 2012

@52. rm10019 “I will now continue to ignore you, as you deserve.” LOL I am sure many feel the same towards the blowhard mj. I wish there was an ignore feature here like on Facebook, reading his posts in error can kill the pleasure of coming here.

74. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 6, 2012

#64 – That goes for TAS as well. I have never seen that series and I don’t think it was ever screened on NZ television.

#54 – “Seb: Bob, do u have any ideas for Star Trek 3 ?
boborci: No, so good time to weigh in;)”
He said they have no ideas! But Lindelof says here that:
“we did talk a lot in the writing of this movie and during production about what the next movie might be and started getting excited about some of the ideas.’”

MJ – Read the question to Bob again and his answer. The poster asked Bob Orci if HE had any ideas and HE (alone) said no. Bob Orci was not the only person writing the screenplay; Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof were also involved. No doubt, JJ Abrams had some verbal input, but did not do any of the actual writing. They might be excited by some of the ideas put forward, but whether these ever make it into an actual story outline for the third movie (which Paramount will definitely want before it says OK to anything like a budget) is another issue. This is the reason why Bob asked for input, which is how I interpreted his comment “no, so good time to weigh in;)”

My impression is that Bob Orci is more concerned about getting this current movie right/done well than thinking about any future Trek stories. Certainly makes sense to me.

75. DeShonn Steinblatt - June 6, 2012

Money, and money alone, will determine what Star Trek 4 looks like.

But here’s a hint…

Star Trek Nemesis $43,254,409
Star Trek (2009) $257,730,019

Of course, that’s if 2 & 3 do well enough to justify 4. I’m not one of these people who thinks Star Trek is a permanent thing.

76. Vultan - June 6, 2012

#72

Sexuality is one thing. Bestiality is another. The “sex with farm animals” joke should’ve been cut.

Hopefully, stereotypes (in this case the backward rural person) will be gone by the 23rd century.

77. Newman - June 6, 2012

Good interview, Anthony.

78. Shilliam Watner (Click name for Trek Ships poster) - June 6, 2012

Focusing on character is essential to the next film, but not everybody focuses the same. I hope they do some nicely resonant emotional scenes. We need to see this crew bonded, or at least bonding during the next movie.

I have no doubt they can handle the action scenes. The first movie proved that, but there could have been a bit more emotion in the film. I was actually most moved by Chris Hemsworth’s scenes in the beginning of the film. The rest didn’t quite live up to that emotional promise, but there were still great moments.

79. MJ - June 6, 2012

@74 “MJ – Read the question to Bob again and his answer. The poster asked Bob Orci if HE had any ideas and HE (alone) said no. Bob Orci was not the only person writing the screenplay; Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof were also involved. No doubt, JJ Abrams had some verbal input, but did not do any of the actual writing. They might be excited by some of the ideas put forward, but whether these ever make it into an actual story outline for the third movie (which Paramount will definitely want before it says OK to anything like a budget) is another issue. This is the reason why Bob asked for input, which is how I interpreted his comment “no, so good time to weigh in;)””

You’ve got to be kidding me? LOL

Bob told a minor fib. It was unfortunate for him that Damon through him under the bus and exposed it a couple days afterwards, but we all move on here. No big deal, but certainly there is no need for you to make really long arguments to try to explain it away. It is what it is, and now we move on.

80. MJ - June 6, 2012

@73. You have a nice day too, dude.

81. LizardGirl - June 6, 2012

@74
Yeah, I think the animated series is probably the most mysterious of all Trek series. In fact, if I didn’t work at a library, I’d probably never would’ve known about it myself. If you Wiki it, you’ll see that it was the “first Star Trek series to receive an Emmy”. Which is quite sad considering how well it’s predecessor did. Networks and companies never really understood or appreciated good Star Trek back then (not that I know that firsthand but accounts from the original writers and actors said as much).

I can pretty much find anything at my library, but when I can’t I use the inter-library loan system. It allows for libraries to borrow items they don’t have from other libraries that may be out of the state/province/ or even country. I had to do this for the animated series. It’s a treat I think most–if not all Trekkers will enjoy. I enjoyed it myself. Well worth it and completely free!

82. Daniel_Craig's_my_wookie_bitch_now - June 6, 2012

If Boborci is around, here is a question perhaps you can answer.
Will Trek XII, will the movie be scope or flat?

Also can i just add, I know we are even further out for a home video release of Trek XII than seeing it theatrically.
But I hope that JJ gives us the option of watching the movie with shifting aspect ratios ala dark knight and Transformers 2 blur ray releases(in Transformers case it was available on the wal mart exclusive release)

As the proud owner of a DLP HD projector and a giant 11 ft wide screen, I was very disapointed that MI GP didnt offer the option for watching with shifiting aspect ratios. Hopefully a future re release of MI GP will finally give us that option but for now sheer disapointment in that aspect.

83. Daniel_Craig's_my_wookie_bitch_now - June 6, 2012

oh and one more thing bob anychance you can ask Damon the following?, After seeing Promethus Is it correct to assume that based on the events we have seen in the movie, that the Alien Vs Predator series is officially retconed?

One of things i have notice that in the days following since i saw prometheus is that i am finding myself thinking about it quite a bit and new questions poping up in my mind about the story.

really hope that we will see a follow up to Prometheus, as its a universe that really is well worth exploring more.

One thing I also need to say going into the audience is best served blocking ALIEN out of your mind while watching the movie, not only will you appreciate Prometheus more while watching, you will also find yourself appreciating Prometheus if you revist ALIEN AFTER watching Prometheus.

I just wish that a large number of the audience I was with didnt snicker and chuckle through out the entire final scene.

84. Daniel_Craig's_my_wookie_bitch_now - June 6, 2012

Yeah Definately Appreciated Prometheus more AFTER watching ALIEN again a few hours after watching Prometheus.

oh and i want to say if you revist alien AFTER watching Prometheus, revist the theatrical cut not the 2004 directors cut version

85. MJ - June 6, 2012

@81 Some of the stories in the animated series are really good, but the animation and the music are average at best. Since they have the voices done, I would like to see CBO “reanminate” those episodes using the original voices, and using better music. That would be a great project for the Cartoon Network, and I doubt it would be that expensive. They could go widescreen as well.

86. MJ - June 6, 2012

@84. Thanks. Would you recommend I watch my Alien Blu-Ray BEFORE I go see Prometheus on Saturday? Also, did you see Prometheus in 3D? I understand that this is one of the few movies that is worth it to see in 3D, right?

87. Daniel_Craig's_my_wookie_bitch_now - June 6, 2012

MJ
Watch ALIEN AFTER Prometheus, in fact you should try to block ALIEN from your mind before and durring Prometheus.

Prometheus IS NOT AN ALIEN film, and i think alot of the dislike that people might have will be from people going in expecting this to be Alien 5.

having said that I gaurentee if you revist the theatrical cut of ALIEN after no matter what you think of the movie durring your watching of it you will have a much greater appreciation for Prometheus.

88. Anthony Pascale - June 6, 2012

bear in mind Bob has been doing a lot of work on Enders Game and so he may not have been present for every chat related to the third Star Trek movie. To immediately jump to “bob is lying’ is yet another knee-jerk negative absurdity, especially after Bob has been so open and gracious to the visitors of this site. It is just downright rude

89. Daniel_Craig's_my_wookie_bitch_now - June 6, 2012

MJ (cont)
Yes I did see Prometheus in 3D,
I was at a BAFTA screening held on the fox studio lot.T
The 3D is excellent, however keep in mind like Avatar 3D, Prometheus’s 3D is more about depth, than comin at ya 3D

90. MJ - June 6, 2012

@89 “The 3D is excellent, however keep in mind like Avatar 3D, Prometheus’s 3D is more about depth, than comin at ya 3D”

That is exactly what I want out of 3D. Sounds great — and thanks for the other advice as well — I was about ready to load up Alien based on your earlier post.

@88. I apologize for being rude to Bob. Bob knows I love him! Yes, I do have a funny way of showing it. :-)

91. LizardGirl - June 7, 2012

@85
You’re right. The story arcs were great. The Animated Series was done pretty well, I think, considering that it came out in the 70′s. Compared to the cartoons on tv now would definitely put the animation and music in the “average” category. If CBS does nothing but put it back on TV with barely anything changed I would still be happy. Glad to know someone else has seen it.

92. Jack - June 7, 2012

76. Huh? It was a joke. A really old, lame joke. Lamer than it’s old and older than it’s lame, but i’ve heard others angry about it here, i don’t get the anger.

93. Tiberius Subprime - June 7, 2012

Just saw Prometheus.
I have to say I was very disappointed.

The motivation for David was not there enough to justify his actions, nor was the story interesting enough.

There wasn’t enough character development if the other people and I felt like I didn’t really care about them. It was a waste of good characters.

There were good ideas there, but I felt nothing was really extraordinary.

94. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 7, 2012

Curiously, I was one of the first people to feel somewhat disgusted about the having sex with farm animals joke and I mentioned this on the IMDb Star Trek 09 message board. Well – boy, did I get *shouted down* by people who claimed that I was being too uptight and that this young Kirk deserved the remark made by Uhura and more. Kirk did not.

Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY posting to that board then, and there was a LOT of people, thought that this comment about having sex with farm animals could be seen as a putdown of farmers everywhere and was a below the belt and unnecessary slight made against the young James Kirk’s sexuality.

It’s only taken three years for some people (maybe) to realise that this comment was very rude. The best part of that scene was how Kirk handled the slight – with good humour! I always thought the purpose of writing that comment into the script was to show the basic good nature of the Kirk character.

Whether the writers themselves had that in mind – well, only he/they will be able to say…

95. Orb of Wisdom - June 7, 2012

#10– unless Michael Dorn’s approaching SyFy over a Worf TV-movie is successful, you mean. That might reopen the wormhole on new Prime Trek, and SyFy certainly needs now, after it axed Eureks and Sanctuary -_-

#13– I actually think there might be one. With an older Tom Hardy playing Picard LOL… Star Trek: The Next Generation, a Joss Whedon/Mutant Enemy Production. LOL OR, Star Trek: The Next Generation, a Steven Moffat Production. OR, Star Trek: The Next Generation, an Eric Kripke (from CW’s ‘Supernatural’) Production. LOL. LOL being the operative thing here.

96. Rocketman - June 7, 2012

Hey, I just watched Prometheus… I don’t want this Lindelof character anywhere near my Star Trek movie…what a nonsensical load of tripe!!! This guy wouldn’t know character development if it bit him on the buttocks!

97. MJ - June 7, 2012

@92 “76. Huh? It was a joke. A really old, lame joke. Lamer than it’s old and older than it’s lame, but i’ve heard others angry about it here, i don’t get the anger.”

I don’t have a big problem with the joke itself, but why do that type of joke at all in a Trek movie?

Trek has been able to largely avoid the common “fart, belch and sex jokes” that we see so much of everywhere else. I’d like it to stay that way.

98. FarStrider - June 7, 2012

@97 Ummmm. . . didn’t they did a joke about Worf’s zits and Deanna and Beverly’s tits in Insurrection?. . . realistically, a young who has already shot down a drunk guy in a bar hitting on her is not necessarily going to be sweetness and light to him. . .as a matter of fact, the more annoying that he is to her, the snarkier she probably will be. . . Young men and women are cruel, and it doesn’t matter where or “when” they are from. . .one of the major knocks against Trek is that humans don’t act like any human beings that anyone knows. . .One of the things that ST09 got right is that human nature really hasn’t changed, they have to make an effort at it. . .

~FS

99. MJ - June 7, 2012

That was in “Insurrection” — exactly — “Insurrection”

Thanks for confirming my point. ;-)

100. Red Dead Ryan - June 7, 2012

Yeah, I don’t want any of the “raunchy comedy/bathroom humor/sexual inuendos” in my Trek. It’s a big distraction. Its fine in a Will Farrell comedy like “Step Brothers”, because that is what its about, but “Star Trek” is not about that.

I didn’t like the oversized hands and numb tongue thing last time either. It was cringe-worthy.

101. Vultan - June 7, 2012

#94

I wasn’t disgusted by the joke. I’ve heard far worse. I just thought it was dumb. Made Uhura look worse than Kirk, really.

Like the fan dance in Final Frontier. Ugh.

102. Danpaine - June 7, 2012

I believe things like the farm animal joke (which didn’t resonate with me either way), the numb tongue and oversized hands in Trek 09′ were all aimed at the bubblegum crowd….which is the Target Audience…..$$$$$$.

C’mon now. I didn’t like all that stuff either – it’s not Trek – but it seems crap like that is here to stay in “blockbuster”-type films.

103. K-7 - June 7, 2012

A few points here regarding the firestorm here of why Mr. Orci and Mr Lindelof recently had contradictory statements about whether they were discussing ideas for Trek 3 yet:

(1) Accusing Mr. Orci, who we kind of know pretty well as a good guy, of “lying,” is rude, and we should have a zero-tolerance policy for that sort of comment. Mr. Orci has earned the right to be treated better than that on this site.

(2) It is clear to me that Mr. Orci was not being fully forthcoming with his comment about having no ideas on Trek 3. Based on Mr. Lindelof’s comments, it is obvious to me that the Supreme Court has been kicking around ideas for Trek 3. And no, I am not buying into the well-meaning excuses offered by some here that Mr. Orci either “missed those discussions because of ‘Ender’s Game’ commitments”, or that “he himself did not have any ideas on Trek 3.” These are very weak rationalizations, at best.

(3) So why then the contradiction between Mr. Orci and Mr. Lindelof? Well, “my opinion” here is that the culture of secrecy demanded by Mr. Abrams on this project is bound to cause situations like this to occur, and I doubt that this is going to the last time that issues like this emerge. Mr. Abrams “culture of secrecy” puts the crew and cast in very difficult positions where they have to provide some intelligent answers to questions from the media, without giving much of anything real away. And this means we are going to end up with situations like this where Mr. Orci tried to abide by this policy, whereas Mr. Lindelof “screwed the pooch” by unintentionally exposing Mr. Orci as not being fully forthcoming. It may also be that Simon Pegg may have recently fell into this same trap when he said that Mr. Cumberbatch was not Khan. On that one, we will probably find out in the trailer later this year if this is true, or if he kind of wilted under the pressure of Mr. Abrams culture of secrecy and blabbed something that he might wish he hadn’t said?

104. Bucky - June 7, 2012

Geez, people. Boborci was making a joke. “Nope, got any ideas?” It’s a throwaway line. Meant to make you laugh. Little wacky wordplay. Because a writer is supposed to have ideas.

Claiming lying is … ludicrous and blatant flamebait. There is ZERO other way to rationalize saying that he’s lying unless you’re intentionally being ludicrous & flame-baiting. Because there’s no way in high-heaven you can’t figure out that his “Nope, got any ideas” line was simply just a joke.

That’s it. Zero. Stop debating it. Everybody. You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here. Game over. Done.

105. Bugs nixon - June 7, 2012

Don’t stop at three guys… don’t stop at three!

106. MJ - June 7, 2012

@104. Dude, I apologized for my remarks on Bob, But to claim you have A priori knowledge of Bob cracking a joke here does not match the context of the interview — I don’t see a joke there. And why the need to pressure others here to sweep any discussion of this under the rug? I think most of us are adults here, as is Bob, so why the drama?

For my part, I have nothing more to say on this manner. But if others keep ‘piling on” me here, I reserve the right respond. Yes, I made a mistake that I regret, and I should not have been rude to Bob. But, beyond my regrettable rudeness, what is the big deal with just intelligently discussing the big difference in statements on Trek 3 here? I am not getting your angst?

107. MJ - June 7, 2012

argh, meant to say, “I have nothing more to say on this matter.” (i.e. not “manner”)

108. VZX - June 7, 2012

Damon Lindelof is my hero.

Really, I think he, more than anyone else, will keep Star Trek grounded in TOS lore and continuity. This interview has given me more hope for a great Star Trek movie.

I really like how he described his personal history with Star Trek since it sounds almost the same as mine. Dude, he’s got this.

109. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 7, 2012

“And no, I am not buying into the well-meaning excuses offered by some here that Mr. Orci either “missed those discussions because of ‘Ender’s Game’ commitments”, or that “he himself did not have any ideas on Trek 3.” These are very weak rationalizations, at best.”

I, for one, don’t need to rationalise anything. The way I comprehended Orci’s comments was that he did not have any ideas he felt he could use for the next movie and was happy to hear from us as to what ideas we may have kicking around. People have ideas/thoughts all the time – but good ones, usable ones – not always. Sheesh already!

To more edifying comment now – personally I think it is difficult to come up with good, useful ideas as we don’t know anything about the story or plot of this upcoming sequel. Any ideas someone could have may not work once this story being brought to life now is known etc etc.

So, Bob Orci, *dear, you will have to throw us a bone as to basic plot of this movie before anyone can present ideas that might just work in the third movie…

*I’m not being smarmy or anything, just a term of endearment. I hope Bob is not offended or embarrassed. I don’t know. If you are offended, embarrassed, please, just say so.

110. Bucky - June 7, 2012

There is absolutely zero intelligence in discussing the difference of statements when jumping out of the gate accusing someone of being a liar when the statement they made on a throwaway fan Q & A was clearly intended to be humours.

When somebody says, “No, got any ideas.” It’s a joke. This is not a deep, dark psychic look into someone’s mindset nor is anyone claiming to. It. Is. A. Joke.

Because he’s a writer, he obviously has ideas, because that’s his job. Saying to a bunch of fans “Got any ideas” is a joke because the joke is that he’s fishing for ideas from Trekmovie fans. And that’s the joke. Calling him a liar and suggesting some sort of large conspiracy is absolutely ludicrous, just flamebait, and plain ole goofy.

There’s nothing to read into the two different statements. It doesn’t mean a damn thing. Everybody stop. Just stop. Now.

111. MJ - June 7, 2012

@110. Did you not hear me, Bucky — I said I was sorry for being rude to to Bob and using the term, “Liar.” What is with you? Why don’t you “Just START now” to read my fracking multiple posts where I apologized? Sheesh, you need to “just stop now” yourself. Now.

@109. Keachick, you provide a reasoned and thoughtful contrary opinion, even if I don’t agree with it 100%. Thank for using your intellect and keeping the discussion on an intelligent level instead of some others approach of going “Stop the Zombie Virus Outbreak” on me. Sheesh! :-)

112. Red Dead Ryan - June 7, 2012

MJ apologized for his comment. Time to move on, Bucky.

113. dmduncan - June 7, 2012

Off topic, but has anyone bothered to watch Mercury Men on SyFy? Episodes are short, so I’m assuming it is a web show only, but really cool! Shot stylishly in black and white, the first ep had like two lines of dialogue and some cool effects.

114. Vultan - June 7, 2012

#113

Yes! I caught an episode awhile back. Stylishly done, like you said.
Wouldn’t mind seeing a full series made of it. Or something like it. Hello, Rod Serling…

115. Azrael - June 7, 2012

@76. You ever been to the Midwest? There are a selection of bestiality jokes for every state, used by residents of the other states. Uhura’s line to Kirk would be completely normal in any part of this area. I’m not debating the morality of it, but you can’t ignore reality , and in reality any woman in any bar throughout Iowa or the other states in the area, could be expected to respond in the same way under the right circumstances. Humans being humans, I don’t have any expectation of that changing in the next few centuries, most people have far worse manners, and no sense of personal responsibility. I have also heard far, far more reprehensible jokes that I was the only person who objected to.

116. Vultan - June 7, 2012

#115

I already know that, because I live in the Midwest!

No, I wasn’t offended by it that much. Just came off as juvenile and stupid—things I don’t normally associate with Star Trek. And I don’t care if it’s realistic. If I wanted gritty realism with people behaving crudely in barrooms, I would watch something else (reality TV for instance).

But it’s good to hear Trek’s optimism is catching on.
Yeesh…

117. MJ - June 7, 2012

I grew up in Nebraska, and was very familiar with those sorts of jokes. They were no big deal. I don’t think I needed to hear it in a Star Trek movie though — was not a proud moment for Trek, but also it wasn’t that big of a deal either.

118. Azrael - June 7, 2012

K, then I misunderstood the points you were making, no big deal to me.

119. Mateo - June 7, 2012

man..damon is HOT!

120. L4YERCAKE - June 8, 2012

So… The Guardians Of Forever are gonna be in this one, right?

121. Aurore - June 8, 2012

“Because he’s a writer, he obviously has ideas, because that’s his job. Saying to a bunch of fans “Got any ideas” is a joke because the joke is that he’s fishing for ideas from Trekmovie fans.”
______________

Mr. Orci,

Come here, and, say it to my face!!!

You don’t need any of my BRILLIANT ideas !?

Then, why did you say… I was…….excuse me….we were your consultants, sometime ago?

How could you do this to me!? I BELIEVED you!!!

YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!

:))

122. Trekker5 - June 8, 2012

Awesome,I plan on seeing the movie in both 3D and 2D and if I can swing it maybe even IMAX. I’m a hoper that there will be more than 3 movies! :)

123. Azrael - June 8, 2012

@116. With respect Vultan, I am not an optimist, its just not my personality makeup. According to the personality profile tests I have taken I am a Cynical Idealist (don’t ask me to explain, it confused the hell out of the guy administering the test too). The experiences of my life have shaped who I am just as the experiences of your life have shaped you, and thats great really, I wouldn’t want everyone to be the same, that would be boring. The closest I come to optimism is connected to Star Trek though, and that is the thought that if I had been born in the ST universe I would be a completely different, and probably better, person, and that is good enough for me.

But since we aren’t really arguing lets just leave it at that ok?

124. MJ - June 8, 2012

@121. Good post. Yea Aurore, its kind of funny when you think about it in that way. Bucky is so hell-bent that Orci would not tell a fib on this, but then if you take Bucky’s view that this was a joke, then wouldn’t you have to conclude that Orci is just going through the motions and kind of mocking the whole idea of fan participation with us on this site?

At least if Orci was telling a harmless fib about not having any ideas for Trek 3, he would have a sound motivation for doing that — which would be JJ’s super-secrecy policy on the movie.

But if one were to believe that when Bob asks for ideas from the fans is just a big joke as Bucky suggests, and that he really doesn’t need to hear from us, well the only motivation for that would be that Bob is consistently mocking us for his own amusement — and I wouldn’t ever think that was the case. I am not that cynical.

125. dmduncan - June 8, 2012

In a matter of hours I will be standing in line for a matter of hours to see Prometheus. The wait for the arrival is over, and the wait to be seated has almost begun!

126. MJ - June 8, 2012

@125. DM, please post some thoughts tonight without spoilers. I am seeing it tomorrow at Noon here, and would like to hear your general impressions in advance, without giving anything away…if that is possible. :-) Thanks dude!

127. Aurore - June 8, 2012

As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Orci was joking.
(So was I.)

Which, in my opinion, does not mean that he is mocking the whole idea of fan participation with us, on this site, at all.

I believe he listens to us. To some extent.
However, I am also of the opinion that he must ultimately, along with his colleagues, tell the story they want to tell, not the one we, as fans, could be tempted to order, as though he were a waiter of some kind.

128. dmduncan - June 8, 2012

126. MJ – June 8, 2012

No spoilers! Will do!

127. Aurore – June 8, 2012

Bob listens! If he does not always take our advice, yet like a good captain he listens. And perhaps not even he can say precisely in every way how the Star Trek we are going to get next has been changed by his interactions here with us, and how it otherwise would have been had those interactions not occurred.

However the other members of the supreme court may be “fans” of Star Trek, I believe that NONE of them is — as each of us is too — quite the fan that Bob is.

129. MJ - June 8, 2012

@127. Well Aurore, meeting you and Bucky halfway, perhaps he is both being humorous while also trying to stay within the JJ veil of secrecy guidelines by not giving away that they have been talking some on Trek 3.

130. Vultan - June 8, 2012

Turns out “Prometheus” was made before—in 1962! And by the Soviets!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w-_1YBPtnU

131. 790 - June 8, 2012

Its funny how comments are way down, the Hilton rides are history, the huge Pasadena Star Trek conventions are gone and yet some still kling to the belief that Abrams has rescued Star Trek.

Please,,, this franchise is dead compaired to Twilght and Hunger Games.

That’s your bar,,,
Enjoy your Rath of Con Abrams style.

132. MJ - June 9, 2012

@131 The Hunger Games? LOL

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

133. Jason - June 9, 2012

Hope that the end of “JJ-Trek” could be on the horizon. Smartest thing Paramount could do: after that third film, hand the franchise back to people who actually care about Star Trek and erase JJ-Trek from cannon.

134. MJ - June 9, 2012

@133. You and 790 should “get a room”

135. Phil - June 11, 2012

Troll alert…still a few people clinging to the idea that Abrams has not been good for Trek.

136. chrisfawkes.com - June 12, 2012

Fassbender would be good in a future trek movie.

For now i’m hoping to see a Star Trek trailer with Batman.

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