Exclusive: Sequel Title Confirmed – ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Exclusive: Sequel Title Confirmed – ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ September 7, 2012

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

TrekMovie has an update on our earlier story regarding the title for the Star Trek sequel We can now confirm the title that has been chosen by JJ Abrams and Paramount for the 2013 movie. More details below.



Sequel title: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

TrekMovie has confirmed with multiple sources that "Star Trek Into Darkness" has been selected as the title for the 2013 sequel to JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movie. This is a title that comes out of a long process of discussion amongst the creative team. As reported earlier, Paramount tested a number of titles for the film over the summer, including at least one title that did not include "Star Trek." Also noted in our earlier article, the title (by design) does not include a colon, like were used for the past franchise films such “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” "Star Trek: First Contact," etc.

While Paramount will not officially confirm the news, multiple sources have told TrekMovie this is the title they are going with as of now. It has also been reported by ComingSoon that Paramount has secured the domain names to both www.startrekintodarkness.com and www.startrekintodarknessmovie.com, neither of which has any content.

As for the title itself, "Into Darkness" does not reveal anything specific about the plot. So for those who were hoping for "Star Trek Khan" or "The Revenge of Gary Mitchell" you are out of luck. However, "Into Darkness" certainly gives us a hint that this film could have a serious tone and perhaps darker theme than the 2009 Star Trek film. On the other hand the title is also evocative of Star Trek’s core mission of going into the “darkness” of space, to seek out new life and new civilizations. Of course the current Trek team often point to Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy as inspiration, with the second film in that series being titled "The Dark Knight" which itself had some very dark themes. Is this Trek sequel Star Trek’s "Dark Knight"? As that film grossed $1B world wide, I imagine Paramount is certainly hoping it is. 

According to sources, the creative team are still working on how they will officially roll out this new title. The first acknowledgement will likely be made with some kind of visual treatment, either a type treatment for the title or possibly even a teaser poster or image. Indications are that this official roll out should be coming soon.

What do you think?

Sound off below and in our new poll on the title.


What do you think of "Star Trek Into Darkness" title

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...




1. Ryan Thomas Riddle - September 7, 2012

Like it.

2. Son of Sarek - September 7, 2012

Not bad now for the trailer…

3. Paul B. - September 7, 2012

Works for me. Just make it a great movie! (And it will be).

4. Nick - September 7, 2012

Interesting… I like that Star Trek is still in the title.

5. section9 - September 7, 2012

And when Star Trek goes into Darkness, there you will find….


….and rich, Corinthian leather…..

6. NuTrek 13 - September 7, 2012

Star Trek Into Darkness? Really? REALLY? No offense but this sounds not at all like good marketing. Sends the message that if you go to see the movie, you’ll regret it.

7. LBF - September 7, 2012

That is an awesome title… mysterious and stark. Love it.

8. summoner2100 - September 7, 2012

So, basically, it doesn’t include a semi colon because they didn’t want to. Especially as that title should actually have a semi colon to make sense.


NB: I still like it though :)

9. Peter Venkman - September 7, 2012

so is it into darkness or into the darkness?

10. Mawazitus - September 7, 2012

That is a horrible title. Star Trek Into Darkness? What?

11. John Lewis, Jr - September 7, 2012

The lack of colon and the ambiguity leave me a bit cold. But seriously, who cares?

12. sean - September 7, 2012

Title is a bit odd, but I can get used to it. At least we finally have one!

13. summoner2100 - September 7, 2012

As I said, It should say, Star Trek: Into Darkness.

It does sound better that way.

14. George - September 7, 2012

I would rather have a colon. : ) See?

15. Mike - September 7, 2012

I have no doubt it’s going to be a great movie, but a gimmicky title is going to make it harder for the masses to take seriously.

16. Perronepower - September 7, 2012

I guess you can get away with no colon because it is like a “trek into darkness” Interesting title, I will wait for the teaser

17. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 7, 2012

Gosh, I just posted a comment about this as a possible title and I thought it was a horrible title. So disappointing.

Star Trek is meant to be hopeful, speaking to a better time and age, where most people are not dragged down by mean, dark thoughts and events. Why, in gods name, why?…:((

18. Valenti - September 7, 2012

It will grow on me.

19. James McDonald - September 7, 2012

I have a question. Is the title “Star Trek Into Darkness” or “STAR TREK: Into Darkness”?

20. Mawazitus - September 7, 2012

It’s space. It’s mostly dark. Sort of a given. Without a colon, that title just sounds silly. With a colon, it’s a bit better. Am I supposed to read it like ‘take a trek into darkness’? Ugh.

21. Khan was Framed! - September 7, 2012

Terrible Title.

Totally devoid of creativity.

The Dark Knight Rises was a horrible title for a film, but this is even worse.

22. KO - September 7, 2012

Star Trek to this movie is taking freaking forever. Don’t like it.

23. Khan was Framed! - September 7, 2012

PS- your poll is broken

24. Peter Venkman - September 7, 2012

not a bad title. i think Star Trek: Darkness would have sounded more intriguing.

25. Check the Circuit - September 7, 2012

So they like The Dark Knight movies as a template so much they worked “dark” into the title? Is the third movie called Star Trek Rises? :)

I’m struggling with this a bit. When the movie logo comes up on the screen, are all the words worked into it? Is Star Trek more prominent? Is this a Star Trek episode called “Into Darkness.”

They may not want a colon in the title…but it still “feels” like its there.

26. mhansen0207 - September 7, 2012

Seriously, if your breaking point with this movie is over the title, then you probably didn’t want to see it in the first place.

I for one am excited. I like dark Star Trek. It’s why I contend to this day that DS9 was the best Star Trek got on TV. Bring it on!

27. Vger6 - September 7, 2012

Again these guys are still wanting to do a Star Wars movie.


Star Trek the Dark Side!>!>!>!>

28. Jeffrey R. Plum - September 7, 2012


A sense of humor is a great thing! Your response made me laugh!

29. Admiral New - September 7, 2012

I just hope the movie justifies the title.

30. Casey - September 7, 2012

Love it, BUT…it really does need a colon. It’s kind of silly without it.

31. Rob A - September 7, 2012

Into darkness? As in, “We’re leaving the Galaxy, Mr. Mitchell”?

32. Check the Circuit - September 7, 2012

Will all future movies use Star Trek as the first part of a sentence?

Star Trek To The Edge of the Galaxy
Star Trek To The Center of the Galaxy
Star Trek To The Future
Star Trek Across The Universe
Star Trek To Find Spock
Star Trek Home
Star Trek Through The Final Frontier
Star Trek To New Worlds
Star Trek Where No One Has Gone Before
Star Trek Through The Looking Glass

33. Jason - September 7, 2012

Like how they’re using the literal meaning so the title basically mean “Space Adventure into Darkness” which is kinda cool. Also heard it may be a reference to “Heart of Darkness” – which I love (a bit of a Nick Meyer-like literary reference).

34. Valenti - September 7, 2012

I wonder if the title means that they ditched the lens flares? :P

35. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 7, 2012

If this title is the domain name, then perhaps they could change the word “into” to “from” or “out of” – as in Star Trek from Darkness or A Star Trek out of Darkness.

Hopefully, the movie is mostly positive and this change of wording may reflect that better without negating the more serious tone of the film showing the problem that is being faced by our heroes. Using the word “into” is really depressing.

36. Red Dead Ryan - September 7, 2012

Damn, I posted something on the other thread saying how I didn’t think this would be the title.

Don’t like the title. It’s awkward, and just seems a cop-out, as it seems Paramount and the Supreme Court are trying to ride on the success “The Dark Knight” trilogy.

The title just isn’t that imaginative, even though its clear they spent months coming up with it.

I don’t mind a little darkness in Trek–“Deep Space Nine” is my favorite of the Trek series, with TWOK and FC two of my favorite movies, and they balanced out the darkness with hopeful optimism–but not so much in the title.

Anyway, I’m sure its going to be a great movie.

37. Danya - September 7, 2012

I kinda like it. Glad they were able to keep “Star Trek” in there while avoiding the dreaded semi-colon.

38. Andy Patterson - September 7, 2012

Did they confer with the people who did the Spider-Man musical? Didn’t get that. Don’t get this.

39. rm10019 - September 7, 2012

Don’t instinctively love the title, but a great film can always change my mind!

I was sure it was going to be the title when RDR said it wouldn’t be :) I kid, I kid!

40. Ahmed - September 7, 2012

Don’t like the title at all, but by this point, all I care about is the movie itself.

41. MPMonroe88 - September 7, 2012

I’m going to go ahead and say the next movie will be “Star Trek to the Light.” or something to that sort. I like the play on words. It establishes a unique identity and system for the new era.

42. Red Dead Ryan - September 7, 2012

It would have been better if they used something like “Into The Final Frontier” or something to that effect.

43. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 7, 2012

I realise that space is dark, but I have the feeling that this is not the kind of dark the writers are probably referring to and it doesn’t feel quite right, not for the Star Trek TOS, even in the alternate universe. However, a simple word change and/or addition could easily rectify the tone and my misgivings.

44. H. Hill - September 7, 2012

…to seek out new life and new civilizations…to boldly go…into darkness

45. Red Dead Ryan - September 7, 2012

Maybe we’ll see Kirk get his back broken over the knee of the villain. :-)

46. Mawazitus - September 7, 2012

Sometimes it’s best not even to try being clever and hip and meta with your title. Maybe if I say it out loud over and over again it will start to sound good.

47. rm10019 - September 7, 2012

I was just watching Empire Strikes Back with commentary, and I think Ben Burt or Kirsh even says he didn’t think the title was very good or didn’t think it was the final title when working on it. I hope Into Darkness is just a setup for the logical conclusion in Part III, which leads us Into the Light, where Trek belongs.

48. The Late GS - September 7, 2012

So it’s a Trek Into Darkness, is it?

49. Astronut - September 7, 2012

Sounds dope to me. Like someone else stated, if you piss on the movie just because you dislike the title then man, you need to grow up.

The title seems to conflict with Chris Pine’s recent “This ain’t no Batman” comment, along with his statement about this film having a lot of humor and levity (if I remember correctly.)

I hope we get some evil, something sinister, some serious drama and most of all, some boldly going.


50. Valenti - September 7, 2012

45. RDR

Kirk is the next Pike, wheelchair bound as well. ;)

51. Chris Miles - September 7, 2012

NewSpeak Grammar for “Star Trek Into Darkness”

brought to you by the team that brought us…

“Think Different”

I just wish the Powers that be at Paramount /Bad Robot would…

Rethink Possible and Imagine Greater.

52. Mawazitus - September 7, 2012

Nope, still sounds clumsy. Damn.

53. Admiral New - September 7, 2012

@33 Jason

Interesting. Enterprise & crew is Marlow and friends, while Cumberbatch plays the Kurtz character. Looking forward to 60s rock & roll as part of the soundtrack.

54. Captain Dan - September 7, 2012

Not what I expected but I quite like it.

Will the third film then be Star Trek Out of Darkness, or perhaps Star Trek Into the Light or something like that? Getting way ahead of myself there but I’m excited :)

55. mario - September 7, 2012

Sounds like a THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK wanna be!!!! (for the STAR TREK franchise) Let’s be a little more original! (You have a supper team)

56. Bucky - September 7, 2012

boborci in an interview, like, 2 years ago talking about titles on a red carpet or something:

“Cold. Dark. Space.”

Huh. Guy gave it away back then. Basically.

57. Mawazitus - September 7, 2012

49. “Sounds dope to me. Like someone else stated, if you piss on the movie just because you dislike the title then man, you need to grow up.”

Is someone here pissing on the movie because of the title? If someone doesn’t like the title, then they don’t like the title. Jeebus, feels like a PR team trying to get ahead of the story around here sometimes.

58. kmart - September 7, 2012

They wanted to do that for TREK 9, but Berman was afraid of things being too serious. Read PIller’s unpublished MAKING OF book online, get an idea of how many bad calls went into making INS what it was (and wasn’t!)

If you’re right, the spoof version will be called FART OF DARKNESS.

59. Brett L. - September 7, 2012

A little weird. Why not just call it Star Trek Object of the Preposition.

60. govna - September 7, 2012

my initial thought is…i don’t like it.

I’m already choosing to say it with emphasis as if there were a colon.

I like saying “Star Trek (beat) Into Darkness”

Rather than emphasizing like a simple sentence “Star Trek Into Darkness.”

61. Red Dead Ryan - September 7, 2012

If these sources are the same ones as those that Anthony contacted with a few months ago, then its further proof that Khan is the villain. So, even though I’m no fan of the title, I’m closer to being vindicated over my insistence that Khan is indeed, the foe.


Yeah, but first, the villain, after breaking his back, would tell Kirk:

“First, I broke you. Now you’re going to watch me destroy your cherished Federation. Then you will have my permission to die in your wheelchair.”


62. govna - September 7, 2012

it seems like they were trying so hard to “avoid the colon” that they accidentally ended up with a kinda cheesy sounding title.

63. Harry Ballz - September 7, 2012

I can only assume this title was shortened from…..

Star Trek Into Darkness Before The Inner Light??

64. dmduncan - September 7, 2012

Into Darkness will work. When you see those words after a kickass trailer, you won’t be thinking it’s a funny title. You’ll be thinking WOW!

65. Star Trek Voyeur (colon deleted) - September 7, 2012

Old Kahn: “It is very COLD in space”
New Kahn: “It is very DARK in space”

Chris Pine: “We’re not making Batman”
Snarky response: No, you’re making “The Dark Night”


66. Jack - September 7, 2012

So not Star Trek: Into Darkness….


Star Trek
Into Darkness

67. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 7, 2012

Just took a quick look at other sites that have announced the most likely new Star Trek movie name and most people don’t like it! Too dark, heavy.

Mind you, if they are going into darkness, I believe that beagles can make good seeing-eye dogs. No captain should be without his seeing-eye beagle if he is heading “into Darkness”.

I like the “Fart of Darkness” – I wonder if dark matter/space does smell like a silent but deadly one.

On the subject of “Dark” – the fellas in my family have left me and our little girl here while they go see the Dark Knight Rises. I’m interested to hear what they think of it.

68. Mawazitus - September 7, 2012

Stellar Journey Toward the Absence of Light

69. Red Dead Ryan - September 7, 2012


Well, if the trailer is awesome, some of us may not change our opinion of the title, but we’ll be saying “WOW”! regardless.

It’ll be “I still don’t care for the title, but hot damn, the first clips ROCKED!”

Of course, it could end up being

“Into The Darkness
Star Trek 2″

70. Sci-Fiddy - September 7, 2012

Count me in the silent majority of people that love the title.

…haters gonna hate…

Keep up the good work, Bob, Alex, JJ, …

71. cgrest - September 7, 2012

Also noted in our earlier article, the title (by design) does not include a colon, like were used for the Next Generation films such as “Star Trek: First Contact” or “Star Trek: Nemesis.”

Ummm you used a colon. LOL had to mention it.

72. Xai - September 7, 2012

I called it! September 8th! Trek’s Birthday.

73. Vultan - September 7, 2012

“Star Trek: Bring a Flashlight!”


“Into Darkness” sounds all right, I guess. A little clumsy, but I can live with it. I wonder if “Star Trek from Hell’s Heart I Stab at Thee” was considered.

Nah. Too wordy.

74. Red Dead Ryan - September 7, 2012


I could be wrong, but I don’t think odor would occur in a vaccum.

“In space, no one can smell your fart!”

75. James Seals - September 7, 2012

This title is two steps away from “Star Trek Turns Off the Dark.” Not impressed.


76. Dee - lvs moon' surface - September 7, 2012

Where’s CP? … OMG … I thought it wasn’t Batman … LOL

………….ummmm…………….the dark side of the moon………….unsure… ;-) :-)

77. Flim Flam - September 7, 2012


78. Gary S. - September 7, 2012

A mysterious title is better than a quizzical title like “The Dark Knight Rises”

79. CraigM - September 7, 2012

They’re in space! They’re always in darkness! Or should we be waiting for teaser footage of the crew running around darkened Enterprise corridors with flashlights?

80. NCM - September 7, 2012

Like it! I predict the layout won’t have all four words of the title on the same line, and “Into Darkness” will be emphasized, maybe appearing in larger font.

For all who are claiming this title’s too dark; not very Trek-like; what are your thoughts on this title:

“…The Wrath of Khan”? Now there was a bright, hopeful title.

81. onebuckfilms - September 7, 2012

Not sure about this one.

At least it’s not “Star Trek My Little Pony”. :)

82. Adolescent Nightmare - September 7, 2012

You’re supposed to say that you don’t trust Anthony’s shadowy and sinister sources, and it can’t possibly be the title.

83. FlyingWok - September 7, 2012

Hmm, not liking this one.

It sounds clunky and awkward when I hear it in my head.

Just doesn’t feel very Star Trek-ey somehow.

Oh well, it’s just a title that I don’t like saying out loud. Hopefully it’s no reflection on the film itself.

84. Bekah1218 - September 7, 2012

So, it’s going to be a “dark” film- like what was so freaking BRIGHT about the 2009 film??? Just asking…

85. Dunsel Report - September 7, 2012

I like it! It’s expansive and I like the literal use of the Trek. It doesn’t sound gothed out so much as adventurous.

86. Johnny - September 7, 2012

I like it. By avoiding the subtitle, they separate the new films from anything else that came before. And like all good Star Trek titles, it’s evocative and mysterious. What is the “darkness’? We’ll be asking that question until May. As far as I can recall, this is the first time that they’ve used a title to “Trek Into” something. Really though, it fits perfectly with the “exploratory” mission of the Enterprise.

87. Dunsel Report - September 7, 2012

I agree about the freshness of “Trek to.” Throughout the J.J. movies there has been this sense of getting back to the basic appeal of Captain Kirk on the bridge in that first episode, heading out into unknown places. Before Cardassian politics, before IDIC, before the writers had even decided on consistent concepts of a Federation and warp speed, there was the Trek. I think this literal Trekking is a great way to go.

88. SciFiJunky - September 7, 2012

As #33 (Jason) mentioned, Into Darkness has a very Conradian feel to it. I think it needs the colon not to sound silly, but the title gives me hope for the movie. Apocalypse now was inspired by Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, so perhaps we will get the Star Trek version of that story. Kind of gives me hope that Benedict Cumberbatch will be a rogue starfleet officer rather than Khan afterall.

I mean, I can hope, right?

89. ladymac111 - September 7, 2012

Take me out to the black, tell ’em I ain’t comin’ back…

90. Smike - September 7, 2012

It’s okay…But I would have prefered “Star Trek 2 Boldly Go”…It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity the’ve just missed :-)

Really, it’s an okay title…and much better than any colonized (?) title…

91. SciFiJunky - September 7, 2012

#89 Ladymac111,

If there was a Like button for posts yours would have my mouse click.

92. dmduncan - September 7, 2012

From here and now the title does not sound perfect, but “the perfect is the enemy of good enough,” and Into Darkness is good enough. The thing we’re going to remember about this movie is what we see and what we hear in it, and by the time it’s over, Into Darkness might seem like the perfect title.

And I hope we get a trailer like the second one for ST.09. No narration. Just amazing images and stirring music that leaves your heart thumping and your jaw hanging.

93. Gavin - September 7, 2012

They were going to call it “Star Trek vs The Space Hippies” but they didn’t want to ruin the surprise. ;-)

94. raddestnerd - September 7, 2012

Love the title!

Except it sounds like it needs a colon.
Otherwise I keep reading it as
“STAR trekintodarkness.”


59. Brett L. – September 7, 2012
A little weird. Why not just call it Star Trek Object of the Preposition.

95. cd - September 7, 2012

84. Really? ST09 was all glare and lens flares.
The title sounds really clunky, like they couldn’t come up with anything better and just wanted to be done with picking the title. Underwhelmed.

96. Gavin - September 7, 2012

And, let’s face it, “Star Trek Into Less Lense Flares” isn’t nearly as snappy.

97. logical_chaos - September 7, 2012

I am giving STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS a chance. It sounded like a journey into darkness.

98. AJ - September 7, 2012

“Star Trek Into Darkness?

They must really think we’re a bunch of idiots to toss out a title that sounds like a 5th grader made it up.

First off, by just eliminating a colon, it won’t go away

“Star Trek: Into Darkness” sounds and looks lots better than the colon-less version.

Secondly, I’ll think it’s a hoax until I see cash spent on it. The name is moronic, fair and square. As if someone in the Paramount mailroom came up with the title after the “Supreme Court” was too busy creating loads of cancelable crap network series rather than finishing the frigging film.

What a joke.

99. El Chup - September 7, 2012

God, what an awful title. No more or less can be said about it. Just plain awful.

100. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 7, 2012

” Is this Trek sequel Star Trek’s “Dark Knight”? ”
Except Pine has said they are not making a Batman movie

IN anycase I have to say that Title is rather umm underwhelming.
If not for the fact that paramount has the domain named registerd i would be thinking this is the latest bit of misdirection.
I mean Ive seen Star Trek fan stories written by 10 year olds with better titles that that.

But hey atleast it has Star Trek in the title

101. Aurore - September 7, 2012

“Star Trek Into Darkness”

It’s confirmed?

I wish it were a rumour.

‘REALLY hope the movie is good….

102. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 7, 2012

And Atleast it isnt Star Trek in 2 Darkness, or STA2 Trek into Darkness, or STAR T2EK Into Darkness.

To me this is points to something beyond involvement of Khan.
I am leaning towards Kang, Koloth, Korr, or Gary Mitchell or as someone else suggested the other day a big screen take on the Cage.
any of those lend more to this title than a rehash of Khan.

103. SciFiMetalGirl - September 7, 2012

I think it was nice that they gave us the title on the anniversary of TOS! :)

104. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 7, 2012

98 AJ, Paramount secured the domain name for the title

105. Boborci - September 7, 2012

Give me your first choice of titles!

106. Alf, in pog form - September 7, 2012

Is the bad guy in the new film going to be the Devil ??

107. n1701ncc - September 7, 2012

Think about this trek fans beyond the barrier is deep darkness of space. in Where no man has gone before we go into the barrier and of course we know what happens to Gary Mitchell. Therefore the villain is Mitchell and we take it from there

108. Chasco - September 7, 2012

Meaningless and ungrammatical. Ho hum.

109. njdss4 - September 7, 2012

Pretty dumb name, imo. If they wanted to go with Into Darkness, it should have a colon. Even just Trek Into Darkness feels better than Star Trek Into Darkness.

Still, as others have said, the biggest thing is whether or not the movie is any good, not what it’s called.

110. PromoBoy - September 7, 2012

Would love to hear Bob Orci’s take on this.
Bob- where are you when we need you?
Quick- somebody light up the big Bob Orci beacon!.

111. Elias Javalis - September 7, 2012

Sounds good, Feels great!!

112. SciFiMetalGirl - September 7, 2012

At least we have a title! I think it is fine as is, Bob!

113. shamelord - September 7, 2012

Darkness of space, darkness of the mind… good, good…

114. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 7, 2012

105 Well without having any sort of loose idea as to the plot , supporting characters? You wouldnt care to say who the villian is or what the story is about now would you lol I am sure youll get a ton of title suggestions then haha

I will say this thank you for including Star Trek in the Title

115. the_chief - September 7, 2012

Colon or no colon, its no big deal. In high school I had a history teacher that didn’t have a colon, but he was still an awesome teacher. He did have an unsightly bulge in his trousers but we just ignored it.

116. Kirk, James T. - September 7, 2012

Its very suggestive. I don’t think its meant to be read as Star Trek: Into Darkness but Star Trek Into Darkness because Star Trekking is what you do, Trekking the Stars. Obviously this movie our heroes are going on a Star Trek into darkness… It will warm to me but I would have prefered a title that sounded a bit more hopeful, dark and brooding blockbusters aren’t all that anymore as seen by Avengers success. I’d have prefered “The Continuing Mission: Star Trek”

117. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 8, 2012

107, I am inclined to agree with you, and its a idea that could also plausibly explain the Klingons being involved as well

118. Kirk, James T. - September 8, 2012

Also…. Its only going to end up being called “Star Trek” or Star Trek 12 or Star Trek 2013 or Star Trek 2 so since so much time has passed since the first move, did they really need to bother with adding anything to the title? Just call it Star Trek lol. I promise it will grow on me but I’m a little like meh… Its taken you nearly 4 years to come up with something that goes against the optimism of Star Trek

119. Pah Wraith - September 8, 2012

Isn’t Star Trek a POSITIVE vision of the future? How does ‘darkness’ fit into that? The last film using menacing title was ‘Nemesis’ and we all know how it ended up… OK, it’s just a title. ‘Let’s see what’s out there’

120. MagicDan - September 8, 2012

I am on the fence with the title. Of course it depends on what the movie is about.

Really though it’s growing on me. And, it doesn’t fit anything that I can think of that the movie would be about.

To me “Star Trek Into Darkness” means the movie is going to be like nothing I have ever seen in a Star Trek movie.

I like that Idea.

Good job on the title, now I’m thinking and wondering…….even more than before……

121. Jeremy - September 8, 2012

It makes no sense without a semi-colon?

It really bothers me to know that there are grown people otherwise competent enough to navigate the internet that don’t know “trek” can be (and–before this franchise existed–usually WAS) a intransitive verb.

122. Jeremy - September 8, 2012

Endless possibilities for future films using the word as a transitive verb… “Star Trek into the Unkown”, “Star Trek to Hell”, “Star Trek Up Your Ass” etc.

123. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 8, 2012

There is movie coming out next year with the Title “Into the Darkness” with Bo Duke himself , John Schneider staring, along with Toby Hemmingway from Black Swan and the Covenant

124. Oh No You Din't - September 8, 2012

Rejected titles:

“Captain’s log 2: My Photon Torpedo, Your Jeffries Tube”
“Suzie’s FIrst Warp Core Explosion”
“Lt. Debbie Does the Engineering Team”
“Ample Nacelles, Wide Deflector Dish”

The plot will be relatively unimportant ;)

125. Mustard Shirt - September 8, 2012

It does make sense without the semi colon.

126. trekmaster78 - September 8, 2012

This title has two meanings. You may read it as “Star Trek: Into darkness” or as a star trek into darkness. I understand why they thought of leaving star trek in the title.

127. Daniel Craig Is my Wookie Bitch - September 8, 2012

SO anthony anychance we can loose the Ghostbusters Trek II logo now?
I am sure someone can come up with a nice little avatar with the title in it.

128. MC1 Doug - September 8, 2012

Sounds rather Joseph Conrad-ish… not a bad thing at all.

129. Anthony Pascale - September 8, 2012

I’ve always said that Ghostbusters/Trek logo will stay until the official new thing. That new thing is coming soon. If we made one ourselves people would think that was the official thing from Paramount and only confuse people. There is no confusing the Ghostbusters/Trek thing for anything real.

And its tradition

130. Fan - September 8, 2012

I really like the title. It works for me

131. Bart - September 8, 2012

“Beyond the darkness, beyond the the human evolution… Is Khan.” that is how the original trailer for the Wrath of Khan starts. ‘Beyond the darkness”, “Into Darkness”… A reference? A hint? Let’s hope it’s not…


132. La Reyne d'Epee - September 8, 2012

First thing I thought of was Heart of Darkness. Definitely think they’re launching off from the (very successful) Dark Knight vibe. Is it a good title? Dunno.

Oh no! Is it a euphemism for No Moar Lens Flares? *wails*

133. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 8, 2012

129 Good point, lol I guess I am just tired of the Ghostbusters 2 Trek logo haha
Just a wee bit longer :)

134. paul - September 8, 2012

well it’s certainly better than “untitled star trek sequel”.

135. dilb - September 8, 2012

134 – No its not

136. Schultz - September 8, 2012

Why not “Star Trek: Tenebrae” or something? “Into Darkness” lacks style, class etc., and really doesn’t sound very intelligent. But okay, I don’t hate it. And in the end it’s just a title. As long as the film is great, I won’t mind.

137. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 8, 2012

131 I can see why you might connect the dots to that.
but i dont think so, and i definately hope not lol

138. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 8, 2012

STAR TREK Journey 2 a New World
lol there was just a commerical on tv for for Pocahontas + Pocahontas II Journey to A New World now on bluray

Or STAR TREK To a New World lol

Obviously i am joking

139. David B - September 8, 2012

Sounds only half complete
Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into The Darkness Of Space
Star Trek Into The Darkness Of The Galaxy
Star Trek Into The Darkness

Even “The” helps the title a bit.

140. CPelc - September 8, 2012

So I’m initially thinking a reinterpretation of Heart of Darkness ala Apocolypse Now instead this time the crew is forced to go deep into Klingon space to retrieve/kill Cumberbatch’s character who has gone rogue. Maybe Garth maybe Khan maybe Tracy.

141. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - September 8, 2012

They can call it Lucky Happy Puppy Space Ship Adventure for all I care. I just want a great movie.

142. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

Well, I would say that this title is consistent with the comments I made in the other thread, posted yesterday, in that it is rather Miltonesque (“Paradise Lost”).

Of all the Star Trek titles, “Star Trek Into Darkness” is the least inspirational and most foreboding, which, again, is also consistent with the idea that the middle third of this hoped-for trilogy introduces conflict that cannot be resolved until the putative third, and final, movie.

There is one thing that — not having read the comments in this thread — might be lodged against this title, and that is that it is too “cutesy.” That is, it uses “Star Trek” as a transitive sentence. I reserve judgment on that.

I do think that a stand-alone title without “Star Trek” in it at all would be less prone to such an accusation; however, it would, on the other hand, be prone to the accusation that the producers are implicitly hiding the franchise by omitting the name. Consideration of this possibility is also salient.

143. Anthony Pascale - September 8, 2012

Here is something for you all the chew on…what should the the shorthand version be? STID or just ID? or something else?

144. porthoses bitcch - September 8, 2012

Gotta admit when Anthony comes back to Trekmovie he comes back with Big stuff. Sorta like Grandma making the turkey on T
hanksgiving………..mmmmm turkey.

145. alex g - September 8, 2012

Ideally, it’d be STAR TREK INTO THE NIGHT- with Golblum/Pfieffer

146. hardeharhar - September 8, 2012

How about STD?

147. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

Anthony (143), I would say “STID,” since “ID” is universally understood to mean “identification.”

There is a stage play in my mind right now, and it comes from how an imaginary convo by the producers might have gone just before they agreed on STID. The dialogue goes something like this:

Producer A: Okay, so we’re agreed then: Star Trek Into Darkness, without the colon. Final answer?

Producer B: Yeah, okay.

Producer C: Yeah, well, umm… okay.

A: I sense tentativeness there…

C: Well, you know, I was just thinking. Remember Nemesis? That was kinda dark. And you know, “into darkness,” you know… doesn’t that remind you of Nemesis?

A: Remind you how?

B: — Not that there’s anything wrong with Nemesis.

C: No, no. Of course, not. But then, uh…

B: I mean, sure, Nemesis was not the best movie….

C: No, no, I think we all get that.

A: I still, you know, want to know…. What do you mean, like it’s gonna remind people of Nemesis?

C: Well, yeah, I guess so. I mean, I hope not.

A: Well, you know, it’s a completely different movie.

C: Sure, I know that.

B: And you have to admit, “Star Trek Into Darkness” is a sentence as well as a title. I thought it was kinda witty.

C: Okay, okay.

A: So we’re all agreed, then?

C: Yeah, sure. Sure. Star Trek Into Darkness.

148. Aurore - September 8, 2012

105. Boborci – September 7, 2012
“Give me your first choice of titles!”

T.R.EK. : Los Hijos De Kronos…..although I also think “T.R.E.K. : Les Fils De Kronos” does have a certain ring to it….a certain cachet.


Joking aside, “Star Trek Into Darkness”….yeah…. I don’t like the title, but, as you know, to me, it’s the content of the movie that really matters!

In other words, T.R.E.K. :”No remakes. No rehashes” sounds SOooo good, to me…..


149. David - September 8, 2012

Sounds stupid.

150. ironhyde - September 8, 2012

So, gave up on this site for a few days and the next thing I know titles are being rolled out and I’m missing it! :P haha

So my opinion? I like the way they chose to construct the title, without the colon and in a kind of short sentence– but I really abhor the content of the title. Sorry, “into darkness” does not sound like Star Trek at all to me. Sure, it may be about traveling into space or even into a giant dark thing-a-ma-bopper… but Star Trek and dark to not mix for me and I’m a little saddened to hear it. I hope it’s still about survival and success and humanity shining in every way it can.

151. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

Yeah, well…. For those who really don’t like the new title, I have it on “good” authority that the third movie will make amends.

It’s called: “Star Trek: The Return of the Colon.”

152. USS Enterprise B - September 8, 2012

Bob, I like how this title uses Star Trek in the form of a sentence instead of what we are familiar with “Star Trek” II or “Star Trek:”. It seems the title is intended to not give any plot info away and to imply that this film goes into darker territory. If these two interpretations are correct, then I could think of a few titles along the same lines such as The Dangerous Star Trek, Star Trek Eclipse, Star Trek of Shadows, Star Trek Blackout, Star Trek Deadlock, Star Trek of Death… but the more I think about it, the more I like the current title.

153. Shunnabunich - September 8, 2012

From the same team that brought you 2009’s “Star Trek”…”Star Trek Into Darkness”.

Says it all, really.

154. Shunnabunich - September 8, 2012

@151: Oh, I think the colon has been present and quite…active…all along. :)

155. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

154, you sly one, you. ;-)

Anyway, obsessive-compulsive as I am, I just researched whether my instinct that this new title, Star Trek Into Darkness, is actually, in fact, a sentence, and it turns out that my instinct is correct — but barely.

According to the Wikipedia, under the subject, “sentence,” phrases such as “Star Trek Into Darkness” would be considered a sentence if orthographically defined. By this I assume that it is a sentence if it has a subject and a verb.

So, nominally, it is a sentence.

However, the teacher in me would caution against the use of this definition for those who would take a grammar test. I think that the title would normally be considered a sentence fragment, rather than a full sentence.

Sorry to be so didactic. I can’t help it. Arghh….

156. Devon - September 8, 2012

I always thought that “Star Trek Generations” was in this format, where “Star Trek” is part of the full title, not a “colon” thing. I like it!

157. X - September 8, 2012

This sounds more like a video game title. If they want people to think the film is dark then, well, make it dark. You shouldn’t have to tell people so bluntly that it’s going to be a dark movie. They should be able to tell from the trailer and screen shots.

Oh wait…

158. CaptainRickover - September 8, 2012

So, Star Trek Into Darkness.


Star Trek The Dark Side comes to mind. Perhaps JJ should ask George Lucas if he let him make another Star Wars movie. That’s the franchise he really like to recreate. Stuipid, wrong studio. Bad eh? Nevertheless, let’s try to transform Star Trek to Star Wars. Brings lot of money and the kids like it.

So, jokes aside now.

I really don’t like that title and still hoping it will turn out as a false rumor. Into Darkness says nothing and is a very bad suggestion about exploring space, because darkness first suggest frightend people, terror, murder and all evil things. Exploring space might be exactly that thing but that’s not Star Trek’s very philosophy. Why not just a title like Star Trek Into The Unknown or something? But nothing with Darkness in it please.

159. Larry Lugnuts - September 8, 2012

Sounds like it was translated from the original Klingonese.


How about DARK TREK?

160. Denize - September 8, 2012

Why not “Star Trek: Darkness”? That would be a strong title. Star Trek Into Darkness sound like a corny b-movie from the fifties.

161. PatrickB - September 8, 2012

Oh I like it :)

It’s like… “Now we’re getting hope deep into the darkness and light it up” ^^

And I definitely like that they choose to make it a “complete” Sentence.

So yeah, I’m happy!

162. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 8, 2012

You don’t need a colon. Trek is a journey, movement, motion in any given direction. With a colon, the Star Trek is static. Without the colon, Star Trek signifies going…

As I said before, the problem is with the word “into”. For me, the star trek into feels they are stuck in darkness – no momentum. If they used words like “from”, “out of” or “through” they would signify movement from, out of or through darkness, ie positive progress and resolution…eventually.

I recall reading that each Trek movie would stand on its own, be a complete story. I don’t really want this movie or any other to end on a cliffhanger. I don’t think that is good for the franchise, especially given some of the problems and delay that this sequel has experienced. Imagine if this sequel ended on a cliffhanger and there were problems getting the third movie done. Just the whining would be heard in Alpha Centauri…:)

#146 – You realize that STD here in NZ, at least, stands for sexually transmitted disease. I assume the abbreviation means the same in the US and other countries…

163. Smike - September 8, 2012

The more I think about it,m the more I like the title and the “concept” behind it. It is something you can expand upon easily:

Star Trek Beyond Nightfall
Star Trek To Eternity
Star Trek Until Madness Strikes

You get the idea…
I like it that way, at least for this specific movie range…

164. Cygnus-X1 - September 8, 2012

It took a long process of discussion amongst the creative team to come up with a trite prepositional phrase?

165. Cygnus-X1 - September 8, 2012

I guess the real breakthrough amongst the five writers was coming up with the idea to omit the colon.

166. Cygnus-X1 - September 8, 2012

163. Smike – September 8, 2012

Your titles are a lot better.

167. Cygnus-X1 - September 8, 2012

90. Smike – September 7, 2012

—- I would have prefered “Star Trek 2 Boldly Go”…It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity the’ve just missed :-) —-

That is brilliant.

168. Khan is not the easy route - September 8, 2012

The fact that out of nearly 1000 votes, 60% dislike or are unsure of the title, makes me like it that much more.

169. PatrickB - September 8, 2012

Ooooh I like ‘Star Trek Beyond Nightfall”, it sounds epic (okay maybe because I immediately thought ot the Silmarillion… you know Tolkien, History of Middle Earth) I hope they consider something Epic like that for the 3rd Movie, something that lets you think “Woah” and you can’t help but turn your face upwards because you think this is grande :D

170. Kevin Glover - September 8, 2012

I like it. It sounds like it could be the title of an Arthur C. Clarke story or something.

171. Captain Gorn - September 8, 2012

Hmm, it’s not thrilling, but it could have been a lot worse. I guess I’m neutral towards it. But if it’s a great movie, then I’ll have no problem with the title. The content is more important than the name, after all.

172. Number 3 - September 8, 2012

Hey crew, thanks for finally giving up a title for the sequel. I was looking for something a little more imaginative but at least it’s original.Let’s hope the villian isn’t the black oil (dark) monster that killed Tasha Yar.

All my best

173. hardeharhar - September 8, 2012

#162, yes I do realise that STD means that. Hardeharhar

174. paul - September 8, 2012

so it kinda sounds like a “before and after” on wheel of fortune, but it’s difficult to say what would be a good title for a movie we know almost nothing about.

175. Douglas - September 8, 2012

At first the title Star Trek Into Darkness feels awkward. As if nobody would actually speak that phrase in a conversation. However, on repeating the title a few times it has more of an artistic flow of curiosity evoking a feeling of mystery in wondering what you will actually find in in the darkness.
I’m not sure if Gene Roddenberry would have approved the title, with his vision of hope for the future, but I’m sure he would understand the need for Star Trek to evolve and be seen as relevant. I personally like the title and the loss of the colon. I want Star Trek titles to be evocative so our imagination can feel a sense of wonder about this shared journey right from the start of each story.
As for the shorthand, I prefer STID. The ID sounds too much to me like the monsters from the ID in Forbidden Planet but I have a feeling ID is going to be seen as the shorthand in twitter, postings, etc.
Well, I’m excited now as the film finally has an identity and that makes it feel like it’s on its way.

176. Anti-Matter - September 8, 2012

Let me get this straight:

Shortly after Chris Pine emphatically denies the Star Trek sequel won’t be darker, the film’s title is confirmed to be “Into the Darkness.”

Cue laugh track :)

177. Alec - September 8, 2012

I’m reminded of the original trailer for TWOK:

‘Beyond the darkness, beyond the human evolution, is Khan.’

I quite like the title. But I think something like Star Trek: Genesis might have been better – assuming it’s about Khan (which it seems to be; and, if not, should be!)

178. Anti-Matter - September 8, 2012

Oops. Sorry for the double negative. That should read “…will be darker” :p

179. Alec - September 8, 2012

Having read many of the comments, I think some of my fellow posters are confused. There is a clear double-meaning into the title. First, the literal meaning. ‘Star Trek’ has become such a brand that people have forgotten that it ‘literally’ means ‘Space Adventure’. So Star trek into darkness means, literally, Space Adventure into darkness. This is quite a powerful title. There is also the metaphorical aspect. We know that Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence. So, the title alludes to the danger that awaits our heroes on their space adventure. It’s not just a copy of the batman titles. There’s a bit of thought gone into this title. Indeed, it’s growing on me….

180. Kirk, James T. - September 8, 2012

I dont think Star Trek Into Darkness remotely resembles The Dark Knight or The Dark Knight Rises.

Its growing on me but this is so early to be either liking or disliking, if the movie is about pink unicorns then obviously this isn’t the right title, if it’s about fighting an incredible force of evil then sure, seems like the right choice.

For instance Thor’s next movie is Thor: The Dark World(s).

There just seems to be a lot of “Dark” out there at the moment.

Star Trek Into Darkness seems a little like saying Our heroes will be plunged into their darkest chapter yet, to fight against an almost impossible foe which in Star Trek terms seems like Khan to me

Reminds me of the original series episode “Devil in the Dark”

hmm yeah it’s grown on me.

Star Trek into darkness…. May 17th 2013

181. Kirk - September 8, 2012

I like it! Ambiguity sparks the imagination. The more vague it is the more it’s open to interpretation.

182. Simon Jessey - September 8, 2012

“Star Trek Into Darkness” sounds like something Spinal Tap would’ve come up with.

183. paul - September 8, 2012

as #88 pointed out, i think the safer bet is that “into darkness” probably isn’t a reference to the dark knight as much as it is heart of darkness.

since we’ve seen the film’s villain (benedict cumberbatch) apparently dressed in a starfleet uniform, we might be getting a much closer parallel to conrad’s novel than insurrection ended up being. cumberbatch might be conrad’s kurtz.

184. CJS - September 8, 2012

Not a great title, but neither was The Wrath of Khan.

Genesis? No Genesis. Khan is not nailed to Genesis. That plot element may have no place in StarTrek Into Darkness.

STID. It kind of grows on you, and is easier to pronounce as a single word.

185. Scottlukaswilliams - September 8, 2012

May as well be Star Trek: Dark of the Moon!

Also, it will be abbreviated as STD all over the place. That’s not going to do the franchise any favors.

186. serene - September 8, 2012

Terrible l title for a Star Trek movie

187. John - September 8, 2012

I like it !!

188. The_Wolverine - September 8, 2012

They should have gone with: “To bodly go…”

And then “… where no man has gone before” for the thrid act.

A shame… Imagine the Trek Trilogy:

Star Trek (2009), To boldly go (2012), Where no man has gone before (2015).

189. Jeyl - September 8, 2012

I don’t like how it’s trying to be clever by sounding like a sentence. “Now go star trek into darkness!”. And Isn’t space generally pretty dark? The title sounds like it’s telling us to do something twice. Like “I’m chilly and cold” or “The water is wet”.

But hey, if they think putting the word “dark” into the title will draw in a big crowd like all those other three “dark” movies that grossed a billion dollars, well, at least we know where the real effort in the movie lies. Chris Pine was right. They’re not making Batman. They’re making The Dark Knight Rises: Dark of the Moon.

Still, the best Star Trek title that perfectly represented the film will always be Star Trek Nemesis. Since the title doesn’t have a colon, it represents how the movie did in fact turn out to be a genuine nemesis to the Star Trek franchise in that the movie was a disaster and afterwards lowered interest in Star Trek as a whole that lead to Enterprise being canceled.

Trek09, meet STD. We’re going to have so much fun.

190. VulcanFilmCritic - September 8, 2012

I’m not impressed. As others (#38) have mentioned the title is evocative of the Batman franchise and the somewhat accident-prone Spider-man show on Broadway. Into darkness of course suggests the endless night of outer space but it also suggests dark times ahead. On a subconscious level it evokes obscurity or even death. And I hope that is not the way this franchise is going.
As Leonard Nimoy found out the hard way, negative titles don’t sell, and I’m sure the critics who are not necessarily Star Trek fans will have a field day making jokes and puns on that title.
I like # 163 Smike’s suggestion Star Trek Beyond Nightfall. It has more poetry in the words and imagery. it’s evocative of the old series, and it certainly is easier to say. More importantly, there is en element of hope in there.
@105 boborci Here are some more, feeble though they may be:
Endless Frontier
Beyond the Horizon

P.S. Has anyone translated Star Trek Into Darkness into Spanish, French, German, and Japanese, etc. to see how these words sound and to make sure it doesn’t sound like something weird?

191. Odradek - September 8, 2012

P.S. Has anyone translated Star Trek Into Darkness into Spanish, French, German, and Japanese, etc. to see how these words sound and to make sure it doesn’t sound like something weird?

Sternenzug in die Dunkelheit

“Welch erbärmlich Grauen faßt Übermenschen dich!”

192. trekmaster78 - September 8, 2012

@#188 good idea!!!!

193. rogerachong - September 8, 2012

Can someone be positive and do a fake wallpaper\poster with the new title already! Post a picture of the eterprise flyig into a dark space cloud, at the edges add floatig heads of the cast and Spock gettig his asskicked.

194. Odradek - September 8, 2012

… or rather “Finsternis” if it alludes to Conrad

“Lumpazivagabundus: Die Welt steht auf kein Fall mehr lang!”

195. CaptainRickover - September 8, 2012

# 190 VulcanFilmCritic

German: Star Trek in die Dunkelheit. Alternate: Star Trek in die Finsternis.
Sounds not very promising and as a German I could asure you it sounds even “darker” in my language. The title suggest a very dark travel to dark events, nothing what you would consider as part of the Star Trek universe.

Star Trek stays Star Trek because there is no good word for it (“Sternenzug” perhaps but Star Trek was never called that).

But perhaps it never will be translated, because it’s common in the past few years do adapt the original english title for movies in Germany. The Dark Knight Rises was The Dark Knight Rises and not “Aufstieg des Dunklen Ritters”.

196. A - September 8, 2012

WHY IS THE TITLE SO LAME? Ugh. Hope the movie rocks though.

197. rogerachong - September 8, 2012

Think “The Immunity Syndrome”.

198. trekmaster78 - September 8, 2012

No, in german “Star Trek Into Darkness” means: (Sternen-)Reise in die Dunkelheit. This would be a good translation.

199. Odradek - September 8, 2012

…or “Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen in die Finsternis” if you want to allude to Oberth and Conrad at the same time.

200. sanfordsardo - September 8, 2012

I guess we’ll all be looking forward to the next 2 films-

Star Trek With a Vengeance
Live Free and Star Trek

201. PatrickB - September 8, 2012


‘The Wrath of Khan’ isn’t exactly a positive Title either… so… what do you want to say other then the errorenous claim that “Dark” is now solemnly and forever linked to Batman?

202. James Picard - September 8, 2012

Honestly, I’m not excited for this movie. The last one was a mess that didn’t even feel like Star Trek. It felt like a run-of-the-mill sci-fi action movie. And that’s not Star Trek. And the title is not good. They already proved that the mature themes couldn’t be handled well in the last movie, why do they need to add more now? None of this bodes well, and I’m really worried about what will happen from here on.

203. Edwin - September 8, 2012

And here I was thinking Star Trek was about optimism, not darkness…..

204. Dom - September 8, 2012

It’s evocative of some of the early Trek novels such as Trek to the Madworld! Count me in as a ‘liker!’ Besides, the general public will simply refer to it as Star Trek or Star Trek 2, anyway.

205. Christopher Roberts - September 8, 2012

@105. Boborci – “Give me your first choice of titles!”

         STAR  TREK       
T O    B O L D L Y   G O



206. porthoses bitch - September 8, 2012

Ok……let us play a game.. instead of hating on a title of a movie we havent seen lets retitle the old treks…






or we could do it like friends….


207. CmdrR - September 8, 2012

Star Trek To Boldly *slam* D’Oh! — Shoulda brough a flashlight to boldly go into darkness.

208. Alex - September 8, 2012

@90 Star Trek 2 Boldly Go
Sounds like something I would say to my local Starbucks employee… :D

The Joseph Conrad vibe is definitely there, and – lets be honest here: could have been a lot worse (im looking at you, mr. Lucas). But i would also prefer the colon.

At least it’s not one of those unimaginative one-word titles. Shakespeare would have been cool, or melville or whatever else Trek likes to reference a lot. The undiscovered country is still my favorite title.

209. Kirk, James T. - September 8, 2012

105. Boborci – September 7, 2012
Give me your first choice of titles!


Doesn’t need to have Star Trek in it but if Paramount feel Star Trek needs to be in it then on the title card for posters and trailers they could have Star Trek in a smaller font underneath or flash up before the actual title of the movie in a trailer –

Everyone knows its Trek – you don’t need to extend the two words STAR TREK.

A Star Trek title needs to be hopeful, optimistic and Star Trek Into Darkness isn’t. Its actually quite a lame title. The thing is, Star Trek is the title, adding something to that title is pointless and silly.

If your going to come up with a different title it either doesn’t have Star Trek in It or it does… Can’t just expect people to add two more words to the words “STAR TREK”

210. porthoses bitch - September 8, 2012

What will be interesting next may to go back and realize how many crpytic hints were dropped here and to decipher them….

Back in tne spring Boborci had an interesting posting conversation about the liberation point surrounding a black hole (could that be the “darkness” of which we speak) ?

And while it might be a nice thought I doubt we were purposfully given a title the celebrate the TOS anniversary….but more so that when Jj is pushing his new series he has somerhing to call his latest Trek…esp as he has beenvehement about it not being St2.

211. Kirk, James T. - September 8, 2012

btw heres my poster for the sequel:


212. Insign Ricky - September 8, 2012

And there, hiding in the darkness….. The HORTA!!!!!!

213. La Reyne d'Epee - September 8, 2012

For some reason I keep thinking of the Voyager Year Of Hell episode, which was probably the bleakest story in all of Trek, but also very daring and very good indeed.

Just ignore me…

214. porthoses bitch - September 8, 2012

One more post…lol……enuff of these super heros Im jones’in for some Trek.

215. eclectrek - September 8, 2012

I see this with a double meaning, comparing the darkness of space to the darkness of a broken mind. Could I dare hope for:

Garth of Ishtar?

216. BulletInTheFace - September 8, 2012

Star Trek fans are like nymphomaniacs: They’re never satisfied.

217. No Khan - September 8, 2012

No colon, they just had to put their spin on this. Change for changes sake. I’m Not liking it!

218. Christopher Roberts - September 8, 2012

Insurrection patterned itself after Heart of Darkness, and look what happened there.

I’m unsure about it. Doesn’t sound very optimistic but then neither does the Wrath of Khan.

IF there’s an edgier direction to the sequel, I still don’t understand how To Boldly Go couldn’t still apply.

The point of going boldly is that it’s a risk, and not everyone comes back from such a mission into the unknown… but the rewards of exploration, both to see what’s over the horizon, challenges from outside or within us, are what make it all worthwhile.

219. Nony - September 8, 2012

I’m a positive person and all but honestly, my first reaction was ‘ROFL’. Trying to reflect on this some more and get a different reaction. *stares at screen, tilts head like a beagle*

Okay. It comes off on first glance as a weaker version of titles like ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘The Dark World’ (Thor sequel). The ‘into’ makes less immediate impact than a title made of just nouns. On the other hand, this differentiates it, makes it more literary-sounding and more of a creeping sort of menace, and it’s probably easy to translate into other languages.

I will go reflect some more.

220. Caaptain Hackett - September 8, 2012

I love this title because it sounds way cool! I think it will turn out to be one of the best Star Trek movie ever made! :)

221. Rico - September 8, 2012

Title seems ok right now. Have to see how it works with the film. I’m just relieved they kept ‘Star Trek’ in the title! Thanks guys for that!

222. Jonboc - September 8, 2012

Love it! Using “Trek” as a verb leading into the rest of the title is creative, will be distinctly unique to JJ’s Trek and is Easily adaptable to upcoming sequels. Also, the title is interesting without letting the cat out of the bag. On this day, the birthday of Star Trek, I couldn’t be happier that JJ, Bob and the rest are running the franchise! Great title!

223. Cygnus-X1 - September 8, 2012

64. dmduncan – September 7, 2012

—-Into Darkness will work. When you see those words after a kickass trailer, you won’t be thinking it’s a funny title. You’ll be thinking WOW!—-

That’s actually a good point. So long as the trailer is kickass. But I suppose if the trailer isn’t kickass, then the movie will probably be a stinker irrespective of the title.

224. Picard's Fish - September 8, 2012

now that we have a title, let’s stop talking about what we want the title to be

If Cumberbatch is playing a human, than Into Darkness could refer to his arc.. a star fleet officer who loses his humanity, who veers into darkness.. maybe he’s a friend to the crew, and they need to chase after him.. to bring him back from this place. I dunno..

225. Nony - September 8, 2012

Thought about it some more. It’s growing on me, I think.

But Bones would hate it, poor guy. I mean, the darkness is full of disease and danger!

226. Picard's Fish - September 8, 2012

222 – agreed.. I think it’s no accident the title is revealed on Trek’s anniversary. a deliberate nod to its legacy and future

227. Nony - September 8, 2012

– Into Darkness –

(lol don’t mind me, trying to work this out graphically)

228. StarFleetVeteran - September 8, 2012

Absolutely hate it. Would’ve been better off staying Star Trek II. Hell, even “Untitled Star Trek Project” would’ve been better. Screw you J.J.

229. NCC-73515 - September 8, 2012

Heyyy 64. captain spock was right the other day :D

230. Craiger - September 8, 2012

I thought it wasn’t going to be Batman and Batman is a dark movie.

231. Emperor Mike of the Empire - September 8, 2012

Star Trek. Into Darkness.
I like it. I just hope that when the Enterprise goes into Darkness they don’t find an Imeba. Lol.

232. Saiyan - September 8, 2012

The name has movie arc written all over it! Next one will be “star trek trial by fire” ending with “star trek breaking light”

233. Emperor Mike of the Empire - September 8, 2012

#228. Easy. Or the Agoniser for you.

234. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

Okay, friends — time to make up the narration for the trailer!

NARRATOR: “It is a time of adventure –”

[CLIP: Vid: Slomo of collected fleet above Earth from ST2009; soundclips “…main fleet in the Laurentian system…” “I thought you’d like that” “No, not really”]

“It is a time of friendship –”

[CLIPS (ST2009): Video of the two Spocks meeting each other for the first time; soundclip of Elder Spock explaining the reason he lied to the Younger Spock (to promote his friendship with Kirk)]

“It is time of hatred and destruction –”

[CLIP (ST2009): “I would rather die in agony” speech by Nero” coupled with new, spectacular footage from ST2013.]

“When an untested crew … forget a team … to boldly go…”

“Into the infinite depths of the universe…

“Into the twisted mind of a tyrant beyond comprehension…

“Into the stark unknown of a place …no one has gone before…

“Where a collection of heroes begin… their…

“Star Trek Into Darkness”

[CLIPS: Quick cuts, a dozen highlights of the movie, ending in a brilliant flash, and the words:






May 2013

235. Spockanella - September 8, 2012

98. Hear, hear.

236. Spockanella - September 8, 2012

105: That would be an easier task if we had the smallest notion what this film is supposed to be about.

237. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

^^ not forget a team, but forge a team.

238. Hugh Hoyland - September 8, 2012

I like it, kinda grows on you. Its clever (IMO) and unique, different from the others.

I’ll give it a thumbs up.

239. Rico - September 8, 2012

I just whipped up a little mock up poster for this title here:

240. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

Rico (239) — me likey!

Very nice! :-)

241. Planet Pandro - September 8, 2012

105. boborci:


242. elmachocombo - September 8, 2012

You’re onto something. It has to be title over sub-title. Otherwise it just sounds like a ride at Universal Studios.

243. Kirk, James T. - September 8, 2012

193. rogerachong – September 8, 2012
Can someone be positive and do a fake wallpaper\poster with the new title already! Post a picture of the eterprise flyig into a dark space cloud, at the edges add floatig heads of the cast and Spock gettig his asskicked.



not exactly what you asked for but I only had 30 minutes

244. VZX - September 8, 2012

WTF? Really? Wow that title is lame.

Ok, so no colon and no number, which is cool since it distinguishes it from the other films. But using “Trek” as part of a phrase….just lame. IMHO

245. BB43MAN - September 8, 2012

They discovered the title by someone sitting atop some deserted building sixteen miles away from the studio backlot with a telephoto lens taking a picture of JJ’s notebook as he walked to the toilet.

246. Craiger - September 8, 2012

Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. LOL.

247. BulletInTheFace - September 8, 2012

It’s always funny watching you people getting SO riled up over minor things. You think the world is ending, just because the title of a film about which you know nothing isn’t to your liking. You have no idea what the plot is or who the villain is, and yet you still feel qualified to say the title doesn’t work. You people are ridiculous. Why not save your fan-entitled mock outrage for something that actually matters, like the plot?

248. ME!! - September 8, 2012

Wow….how completely unexciting…

I was expecting something not so imaginative…they did not disappoint me.

Well, at least “Star Trek” is in the title.

I will give them this…they’re actually using the meaning of the word “trek” within the title, unlike Berman & Co. who simply used it as a proper name to identify their films.

249. BeyondtheTech - September 8, 2012

Sounds like they’re going to need more lens flare, or we’ll be squinting during the entire movie.

250. Timofnine - September 8, 2012

Unfortunate Title short hand of ‘ STID’ – Sexually Transmitted Infectious Disease’ lol

251. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

I just realized that, unlike Star Trek, you can’t really use Star Wars as part of a sentence-like phrase.

I mean, who would buy into “Star Wars Into Darkness”?

Or “Star Wars Revenge”? (“Wars” in this title sounds possessive)


“Star Wars” doesn’t lend itself to use in a quasi-sentence, because the word “wars” as a verb is not commonly encountered, despite the fact that “war” is as much a verb as “trek.” (E.g., the sentence, “The tribes warred against one another” makes grammatical sentence, but sounds better as “The tribes made war against one another.”)

In any event, lest we forget: We should make love, not war.

P.S.: Merriam-Webster defines “trek,” in one variation, as an intransitive verb, whereas I stated in an earlier post that the title used “trek” transitively. We can’t both be right. So, obviously, MW must be totally wrong about that; who knew? ;-)

252. Emperor Mike of the Empire - September 8, 2012

Could be.
Star Tre. 2.0

253. Emperor Mike of the Empire - September 8, 2012

I meant.
Star Trek. 2.0

254. "Check the Circuit!" - September 8, 2012


Since you asked, here’s what would get my little Trek fan’s heart all a flutter:

A roughly 10 minute opening teaser that leads into a fairly classic reinterpretation of TOS opening credits….including Chris Pine/Kirk voice-over. Then the credits sequence dissolves into Act 1 and the title of your “episode” appears on screen. And the title is a Shakespearian or other classic literature reference to the plot of the movie, a la Conscience of the King, By Any Other Name, Is There In Truth No Beauty.

In effect, your new movies are simply a new Star Trek series set in the new universe timeline.

The new meets the old! Kind of like me. (Not sure what that means exactly.)

255. Vulcan Soul - September 8, 2012

I suppose “STD” is a fitting sequel to the rape of my childhood that was “Star Trek 2009″ ;-)

256. John Whorfin - September 8, 2012

Star Trek Into Lens Flares

257. BitterTrekkie - September 8, 2012


258. Sunfell - September 8, 2012

The titles of the previous movies made it difficult for Abrams and co. to break out of the colon rut, but I’m glad they did, even if the colon is transparent.

Maybe for the final movie, they’ll lose the “Star Trek” altogether, like Batman did. The fans will still fill the seats.

259. Masshuu il Thulcandra - September 8, 2012

Well hey now that’s different. I like it.

260. Optimistic Doodle - September 8, 2012

Into darkness there is strength! ;-)

261. itstrue - September 8, 2012

David Hasselhoff is in the new movie! ! ! ! ! !

262. Enterprisingguy - September 8, 2012

If Star Trek is kept on a separate line from Into Darkness I’m fine with it. Not the best title….but far from the worst. Putting it into a single title is awful.

Having the whole thing strung together sounds goofy. I can almost hear Buzz Lightyear saying “Star Trek Into Darkness! And BEYOND!!”

Star Trek has become known more for being a franchise than the literal words. Who even uses the word trek anymore in normal speech? When Cochrane said “You’re all on some sort of a star trek” in First Contact half the audience groaned because it was so obviously forced. Using the literal meaning as part of the title doesn’t work for me.

Keep Star Trek as a brand and the rest of the title separated by a colon or another line.

263. Sebastian S. - September 8, 2012

Hmmm….. “Into Darkness.”

Sounds about where we fans are right now regarding information on this movie.


Seriously, though? Not a bad title. Not as poetic as “Undiscovered Country” and not cheesy like “The Search for Spock.” Kind of right in the middle; like “First Contact” or “The Voyage Home.”

Not bad at all…

264. Dirty Harry - September 8, 2012

This just proves what we’ve all suspected… that BC is playing a Horta!

265. Matthew McNutt - September 8, 2012

It’s feel awkward to me without a colon, but maybe I’ll get used to it.

266. denny cranium - September 8, 2012

It seems like the suits at the studio made this decision.
They aren’t worried about us here going to see it.
They want a bigger international box office gross.
Or is it just “Bad Reboot” at it? I don’t know
Title doesn’t do anything for me.

267. Joel - September 8, 2012

Screw it, I’m still calling it “Star Trek”.

I’m also hopeful that much like an episode, we’ll just have “Star Trek” in the opening credits and then “Into The Darkness” as an episode title after the opening credits roll.

The title “Into The Darkness” does sound an awful lot like an episode title to me. Far more so than the one word titled “Insurrection” or “Nemesis”.

Just ready for some more official info!

268. Javi Trujillo - September 8, 2012

262-LOL! I was thinking the same thing! It reads as an awkward sentence and sounds like a bad fan film! The colon makes it seem more respectable somehow and legit. It isn’t the phrase “Into Darkness” that I dislike, but to see it placed against Star Trek in the title without punctuation.

269. Joel - September 8, 2012

Excuse me, remove the “the” to correct my post. Decided to slip an article in there unnecessarily!

270. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

105. Boborci – September 7, 2012

Give me your first choice of titles!


Give us a list of options to choose from!

271. CAPTAIN SCARLET - September 8, 2012

Hey Bob Orci……Tell me what the story is all about and i’ll find you a great title!!!

272. Legate Damar - September 8, 2012

Meh, not the best title I’ve ever heard, but it’s fine. I hope we get a trailer soon.

273. Jimbro - September 8, 2012

I’m going to go radical on you guys and say the title needs a semicolon.

274. Chris - September 8, 2012

Don’t like the title. How about this? Star Trek the edge of time

275. IlSisko - September 8, 2012

Talking about “exploration” I’ve found a trailer of a short movie called “Into Darkness”… not related to Star Trek, maybe… but I wish the sequel were as inspiring. :)


276. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

Hey, supply your own damned colons!

If you put Star Trek on a poster in a smaller font just as an identifier while INTO DARKNESS is the headline, then you don’t need no freakin colon.

Consider it implied. If you want to refer to it in a line of text while commenting about it, THEN you can add a colon, but the movie poster or commercial doesn’t necessarily need one because there are other ways to achieve the introductory effect a colon has in an illustration without using a grammatical device. Just a change of font and/or a change in font size can do it.

277. VZX - September 8, 2012

Meh, I knew a perfect title for thIs movie would be impossible. It just can’t be done. That’s why I think it should just be simply ” Star Trek 2″ and let the movie sell itself.

278. Peter N - September 8, 2012

So Star Trek: The Franchise is undergoing a colon cleansing…. Interestingly, none of the TV series or movies that were identified as Star Trek: Something actually used a colon in their logos or visual marketing campaigns – not sure if the colon was part of the print-only marketing campaign or was added later simply to make a grammatical distinction (which placement of “Star Trek” above “Something” accomplishes visually). Curious to see the visual treatment of this title.

279. vva - September 8, 2012

Star Trek In 2 Darkness

280. Christopher Roberts - September 8, 2012

I don’t think a perfect title is all that impossible actually.

281. Peter N - September 8, 2012

Excuse the double pun post, but curiosity got the better of me….

282. Driver - September 8, 2012

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS with Star trek type fonts could work.

283. Captain Gorn - September 8, 2012

@243: Nice poster!

@255: Not funny. At all.

284. No Khan - September 8, 2012

I still say this series of movie needs an ID. Like A.U.Alternate Universe or New Timeline. Something that differentiates it from the other timeline. Just copying the Dark Knight franchise is lame. 30 years from now those Batman films will all be retitled,

Batman; Begins
Batman; The Dark Knight
Batman; The Dark Knight Rises

So people in the future will know what they are, and that they are related. Even Lucas realized it when he renamed Raiders to Indiana Jones & the Raiders of the Lost Ark. These studio’s are over thinking this stuff. If they think the Batman movies made extra money because of the lack of Batman in the title and not the story they are nuts.

285. Remington Steele - September 8, 2012

It’s a name….

Accept it, get on with it.

286. SemperExploro - September 8, 2012

Star Trek Into (the Heart of) Darkness?

In search of Capt. Kurtz “The Enterprise…I can’t beleive I’m still on the Enterprise.”

287. Michael Hall - September 8, 2012

Headline: “World-famous TV/movie franchise gets STD on its 46th birthday.”


288. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

It’s hard enough to come up with titles when you DO know what the story is about. Trying to do it when you don’t know is more than a little screwballish. Which means I’m going to try it.

Dark Sun Rising
A Dark Son Rises

But maybe a generic astronomical term (it IS a SF movie that partially takes place in SPACE) that also functions as a METAPHOR and sort of reflects the “into darkneess” idea:


From my desktop dictionary:

“• Astronomy the shadow cast by the earth or moon over an area experiencing a partial eclipse.”
“• Astronomy the less dark outer part of a sunspot, surrounding the dark core.”

289. 750Mang - September 8, 2012

Wow. That’s on bad title.

290. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

It’s like trying to hit a target in the dark.

291. Lee - September 8, 2012


I’m take it or leave it with regard to whether “Star Trek” is in the title. But if the word Darkness it going to be in the title, just use “In Darkness” – based on the phrasing of McCoy’s line from the 2009 film: “Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence.”

292. Thorny - September 8, 2012

I hope this doesn’t mean we’re getting a movie as bleak and hopeless as the recent Batman movies. Star Trek was supposed to be about an optimistic future, it seems to me. The first movie destroyed both Vulcan and Romulus and the next one now broadly suggests another oh-so-gloomy depress-a-thon.

293. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

Actually, TOS canon DOES have it’s version of Colonel Kurtz — Garth of Izar. Colonel Green was just a psychopath, so he wouldn’t be very Kurtz-like. But Garth would.

294. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

it’s = its

295. Perplex - September 8, 2012

Star Trek into Darkness? Really folks? Oh jesus christ…this sounds like a comic hero adaption.

296. AJ - September 8, 2012

I guess, after having slept on it, it’s just anti-climactic.

It IS a shitty name, for sure, and it sounds like it’s right off a napkin from a late-night diner, or a boardroom filled with accountants.

To be fair, there is not a lot of latitude for titling films like this. “Star Trek” is the brand. If the villain is ‘Trelayne’ or “Frank,” you can say “Star Trek: Trelayne’s Revenge,” or “Star Trek: The Wrath of Frank.” One makes 78 fans squee, and the other is just as bad as the current one, because it’s boring and unimaginative. “Star Trek: Dreadnaught” sounds great, but Bob and his pals haven’t written it/adapted the book.

The “Star Trek” brand was allowed to lie fallow for several years between “ENT” and JJ’s first film. Internationally, outside of UK, Germany & Austria, it needs a full re-launch. Anthony mentioned international audiences were an issue with this title, and let’s face it, “Battleship” and “John Carter” actually made some coin overseas. Trek needs that as well to make some real numbers.

This title sounds like a last-minute boardroom compromise. I hope the film itself is much better.

297. Vultan - September 8, 2012


Batman bleak and hopeless? Did you miss the third one? The ending seemed pretty hopeful to me. Or as hopeful as a town called “Gotham” can get.

Still, Trek isn’t Batman.

298. Bored to tears - September 8, 2012

All this time.. and all we get is a freaking title?… still bored with this movie already.. sorry, JJ and company

299. Craiger - September 8, 2012

I was thinking Star Trek becoming dark and its not the optimistic future that Trek depicts but DS9 was dark with the Dominion War.

300. Thorny - September 8, 2012

295… Yes, it was the bleakest movie I’ve seen since “Leaving Las Vegas” or maybe “Children of Men”. There’s a place for that kind of movie, I just don’t want that hopelessness in Trek.

301. Captain Peabody - September 8, 2012

It’s fine. The “Trek into” thing is creative, at least, even if the rest is rather generic. Honestly, though, titles mean very little, and it’s certainly not going to affect what I think of the film (unless, you know, the title was “Star Trek into A Hellish Planet of Vicious Tribbles Oh SHI–” or something like that).

302. Locke for President - September 8, 2012

@ Bob Orci:

There was a groundswell of support for:

“Kirk and Spock’s Excellent Adventure”

. . . . . with the third movie being:

“Kirk and Spock’s Fascinating Journey”

303. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

When you have the right title you KNOW it and nobody can talk you out of it and you don’t need to test reactions anywhere.

That being said, it is also possible to obsess over the title and to make it a bigger issue than it is. I truly think that Into Darkness will work if the movie is good. And if the movie isn’t good, it won’t be because it had that title.

2001: A Space Odyssey is hardly a tearjerking title, nor do I ever gape in wonder when I hear it. It’s actually kind of clumsy. But it’s good enough.

The MOVIE is the thing.

304. PaulB - September 8, 2012

Dear God, you people astound me! You whine and complain that there’s no news, begging for at least the title–why can’t you just tell us the title, wahhh wahhh wahhh!!–and then you get the title and whine that it’s not ENOUGH news, and that you hate the title, and that you want “the” in the title because that’ll REALLY fix it, or you think using “To Boldly Go” will pack the theaters, and…frelling, frakking heckfire, people! To quote from another film series, ‘Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?’

@boborci–You folks just keep doing whatever the heck you want with Trek. You did great with the first movie, and it’s clear that Trek fans (at least those who use this site) are NOT equipped for tasks like writing, naming, and marketing a major motion picture. Stick to your phasers, ignore the yammering Trekoids (because fans have mutated into something far less savory than “Trekkies” or “Trekkers”), and the mature & rational among us will reserve judgment for the actual movie next year. Peace, namaste, and LLAP!

305. sean - September 8, 2012


Nemesis was indeed terrible, but let’s not use it as a universal scapegoat. Enterprise was canceled on its own [lack of] merit.

306. Adrian - September 8, 2012

How about: “Trek 2 the Stars”?

307. Vultan - September 8, 2012


Okay. I came away with a different impression, but I guess like Alfred, people see what they want to see.

And yeah, I don’t want a dark and bleak Trek either.

308. Johan Albrechtsen - September 8, 2012

Here’s the story: Starfleet (an unknown ship, not The Enterprise) locates The Bottany Bay adrift in space with a frozen Khan (and entourage) on board. Following the attack of the Narada on Earth, Starfleet’s gotten paranoid and fearful of being technologically inferior. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and recognizing that Khan is an amazing intellect, he’s secretly given an influential post in Starfleet, where he’s helping to make key strategic decisions while secretly plotting his own schemes.

This is the reason why Khan’s wearing a Starfleet emblem in the pictures from the set, and this also explains why Pike is being ordered to get Kirk in line in the comic book series leading up to “Star Trek Into Darkness”. Khan is, amazingly, calling the shots, and so the movie will not only feature a showdown between Kirk and Khan, but also between The Enterprise and Starfleet itself.

At least, that’s my theory :-)

309. Thorny - September 8, 2012

305… Don’t get me wrong, I liked Dark Knight Rises. But I disagree that five minutes of happy ending make up for the preceding 2 1/2 hours or relentless doom and gloom. (And even the happy ending is somewhat ambiguous… were Bruce and Serena really there, or was Alfred just seeing what he wanted to see?)

And I refuse to judge Trek 2013 by its title. The title doesn’t do much for me, but its the movie I care about.

Bring on the movie poster!

310. Craiger - September 8, 2012

Didn’t Pine say they aren’t doing Batman?

311. Kev - September 8, 2012

Then they are doing the Dark Knight? Who knows. Title kind of sets it up for parody, though. This might go the way of “Revenge of Khan.” Honesty, my expectations are not high, but I am willing to be surprised. The “Hellraiser Trek” Nemesis poster, with Shinzon’s back, didn’t seem to work well, but who knows?

312. AJ - September 8, 2012


All of us Trekkies and Trekkers who are ‘NOT equipped for tasks like writing, naming and marketing a major motion picture’ are doing just fine, thanks, and you can just go back to bed and read about why Trek is still around in 2013.

313. Kev-1 - September 8, 2012

WIll that work on toys?

314. Thorny - September 8, 2012

105. Bob… how about “Star Trek: Perdition’s Flames”? If it is a Khan movie, that one would have gotten my vote.

315. Xplodin_Nacelle - September 8, 2012

#5. I agree w/ you

Into darkness = ………………………………………….possible.spoiler………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..”To Rule In Hell”, ………………….perhaps?????

Re: the Cordoba reference – lol

316. Craiger - September 8, 2012

Collider seems to think we could get a trailer with Paramount’s Flight in November or Jack Reacher in December.


317. D-Rock - September 8, 2012

Love the title. Glad it doesn’t have a colon. It reads as a sentence or a statement.

Some of these fan titles (To Boldly Go, Continuing Missions, etc..) are truly cringe-worthy. Exploration is fine for the tv shows, the movies need bigger stakes.

318. Gary Neumann - September 8, 2012

Sounds fine and reminds me of Conrad’s heart of darkness, which I found magnificent and could very well be translated to trek.


319. Vultan - September 8, 2012


I think that ambiguity makes the ending even happier, asking those sort of questions of its audience: do you want him to live or die? What’s a hero to you? Would you make that sacrifice?

Maybe it’s because you rarely see something like that in a big, mainstream summer movie. And that makes me very happy.

320. WillH85 - September 8, 2012

Yeah sounds pretty fail to me. Sounds like they were having a hard time finding a title to they just settled on this.

321. PaulB - September 8, 2012

#310 – AJ, you think that “Dreadnaught” sounds great as a title, so I don’t really value your opinion on titles. (That book was mediocrity defined.) Abrams, Orci, et al are thinking about more than just a few slavering fans who think THEIR personal title ideas are good. “Star Trek Into Darkness” has far more marquee value than “Star Trek: Dreadnaught” would (assuming the book was being adapted–dreadful idea).

Is it a great title? Maybe not, but then again, “The Search for Spock” isn’t a brilliant title (rather on-the-nose and spoilery), “The Voyage Home” is bland, and “Generations” sounds more like a cross-generational night club than a Trek film. The one Trek film that had a title along the lines of what Trekmovie comments are suggesting was Trek V, “The Final Frontier.” Yeah, THAT really packed in the audiences!

I stand by what I said in my previous post: Orci & crew should keep on ignoring the inanity being posted by Trekoids on sites such as this one. And you, of course, may continue to disagree with me and continue to sneer at the filmmakers’ decisions. Meanwhile, I’ll go about my life like a mature, rational fan with a sense of perspective and a sense of humor.

322. Pat Payne - September 8, 2012

I’m wondering if they let on a bit more than we think: Given the storyline in the comics that’s going on (lately there’s been hints of a shadowy person or group that is trying to Keep Kirk from boldly blundering into what no Starfleet captain has blundered into before), and the title of “Into Darkness” if Orci et. al are not going to try to go literary

PerhapsCumberbatch ISN’T Khan, but instead Garth of Izar (because they did toss us the bone that his character is an established Trek character), who in this timeline is not in a Federation insane asylum, but is instead a “Colonel Kurtz” kind of figure whom some in Starfleet (posibly including the men who are controlling Pike in the comics) are protecting for their own benefit. Kirk gets clued into the situation and perhaps people in Starfleet who still believe in Starfleet’s ideals convince the Enterprise to investigate and take whatever actions need to be taken to stop Garth — probably short of Martin Sheen’s orders in “Apocalypse Now,” but still….

323. SoonerDave - September 8, 2012

Title: Awkward and suckish.

Just thinking about how they integrate this into marketing, posters, trailers, and no matter how you slice it, that title is awkward, clumsy, and leaves you thinking, “huh?”

Methinks this one where they’ve “overthought the plumbin’, and clogged up the drain.” Really bad.

Just my opinion.

324. Christopher Roberts - September 8, 2012

Ah, yes. Impuning the intellect of others. The real hallmarks of maturity and rationality.

325. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

Oh my goodness. Someone has spoiled Dark Knight Rises for me — a movie I haven’t seen.

Drat! :-)

That’s what I get for reading threads about science fiction movies, I guess.

326. Curious Cadet - September 8, 2012

@ 301

Agreed. There are some terrible titles out there with successful movies attached to them.

However, I get a real TNG movie vibe with this one. It feels like the movie title that should have come between Insurrection and Nemisis.

On the other hand, it does have a nice departure from previous Trek film titles.

327. Pat Payne - September 8, 2012

eep… didn;t finish my sentence… I’d meant for that final sentence in the first graf to end with “by borrowing a page from Joseph Conrad’s novel “Heart of Darkness”, as alluded to by other posters noting the similarity of the name.”

328. Caesar - September 8, 2012

Like all terrible titles, it’ll sound better as time passes.

329. Red Dead Ryan - September 8, 2012


“I stand by what I said in my previous post: Orci & crew should keep on ignoring the inanity being posted by Trekoids on sites such as this one. And you, of course, may continue to disagree with me and continue to sneer at the filmmakers’ decisions. Meanwhile, I’ll go about my life like a mature, rational fan with a sense of perspective and a sense of humor.”

Oh, get off your high horse, man! Look, everyone here is entitled to their own opinion. I think the majority of us have been pretty civil about it for the most apart (minus #255, whose post is totally obnoxious). Yeah, so despite your careful choice of words, your condescention is clear, and no, you have no perspective or sense of humor. Mature you are not.

Also, I must point out the irony of you telling Orci to ignore the posts on this site, as Bob has already posted because he enjoys reading our posts. So in reality, he has actually ignored YOUR advice. :-)

330. Anthony Lewis - September 8, 2012

Until you see the movie it is absolutely nutters to opine over the name. I mean I guess you can opine over it but you are doing so out of context.

The name is just a name, and the punny nature of it kind of fits in with JJ and company.

Remember this name is coming from the guys who brought episodes of Lost entitled “….and found”, and “in translation”

331. Rhett Coates - September 8, 2012

Well, BOB ORCI, why not a movie poster slogan for this second STAR TREK film (12th in the franchise) along the lines of “The Darkness of Space Never Looked So Bright.” That’s at least partially optimistic, ala Gene Roddenberry. That’s a phrase I coined back in 2005 when so many were hyping up the proposed renewal of ST: Enterprise – and my take on a “What If” – if SyFy Channel took ST:ENT under its wing for a 5th Season. Anyway, I’m certain we’re all breathlessly awaiting a teaster trailer, or ANY trailer, showing SOMETHING for this coming film. May 2013 is still a long ways off….

332. SoonerDave - September 8, 2012

I guess what bothers me is how hard TBTP are trying to, at least in some fashion, “de-Trek” Trek. I’m all for the general sprucing up the franchise, I get that, so I try not to be some hard-nose “has to be this way” kind of person, but this title, plus all the nuances I’ve read about how JJ and crew are really SW fans, is starting to bug me a little. And the more I think about the title, the less I like it.

Not hating, but a little concerned. I think of Kirk in a TOS episode (maybe “Ultimate Computer”?) where he says something like “I feel a yellow alert in the back of my head..”

And I also fully realize none of TPTB care about my concern, so I’ll just press on and hope for the best.

333. Jason - September 8, 2012

Worst title EVER! Good old JJ, taking more dumps in Gene’s backyard.

334. CarlG - September 8, 2012

@328: “Until you see the movie it is absolutely nutters to opine over the name. I mean I guess you can opine over it but you are doing so out of context.”

Welcome to the internet, you must be new here. :P

“Star Trek Into Darkness” needs a : to sound right.

335. PaulB - September 8, 2012

#322 – What is “impuning” exactly? (It’s not a real word.) Did you mean “impugning,” as in doubting someone’s honesty or ability? Okay, sorry, I shouldn’t be impugning the intellect of others–even those who can’t spell the big words they try to use.

But I’ll keep denigrating the TASTES of others and the needless whining of others and the incessant sneering of others and….

336. Red Dead Ryan - September 8, 2012


Yeah, I guess you think you’re pretty clever with your toilet humor just because you happened to recently graduate from grade 2 elementary class?

337. chrisfawkes.com - September 8, 2012

Looks like a few trekkies have a problem with their colon’s.

To be honest i think the title won’t have a negative impact in terms of marketing no matter how you look at it but if there is a strong congruent emotion evoked that ties that title together with the posters and the trailer it could have a very strong impact in getting the crowds in.

I’m hoping for the latter of course.

338. DeShonn Steinblatt - September 8, 2012

The industry reported that fan whining gave a boost to Star Trek 09 at the box office. Looking at the poll results here, I am now concerned there may not be enough fan whining to motivate the general public to see the sequel.

But I remain hopeful that Khan will generate enough whining to get the public into theaters next May.

339. PaulB - September 8, 2012

#327 – Thanks for your deeply valuable comment, RDR! I enjoy the genius of every post you make, and I thank you for showering us with your deep, warm, witty commentary. As always, your words are like manna from heaven.

340. Red Dead Ryan - September 8, 2012


I find it interesting (as in hypocritical) how you continue to post comments lamenting and condemning other people’s comments while pretending to be more “mature” than the rest of us.

341. Red Dead Ryan - September 8, 2012


Good to see you finally seeing the light, and acknowledging the truth! I really appreciate that! :-)

342. Vultan - September 8, 2012

“Star Trek Into Darkness” sounds to me like one of those Before & After answers/questions in the game show Jeopardy, where you join two phrases or names with a common verb or noun. And the results often sound funny or awkward or both.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It just sounds… eh, different in a movie title. But it’ll probably grow on me over time… or not. ;)

343. DeShonn Steinblatt - September 8, 2012


I don’t trust Anthony’s shadowy sources! This is not the title!

344. dub - September 8, 2012

Good thing they didn’t call it “Star Trek Darkness.”

“Wow, I can’t wait for STD!”

“STD at midnight! Who’s with me?”

“2 for STD.”

345. PaulB - September 8, 2012

#338 – Yes, RDR, you are right, as always. Such brilliance and eloquence…you are truly inspirational. Thank you, yet again, for your wise and witty commentary. You have made the world a better place with your contributions to this forum. Thank you, thank you, a million times, thank you!

346. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

It would be wise to heed a lesson from history on the matter of movie titling.

April, 1957. Legendary screenwriter Howard T. Hirsch checks into an oceanfront hotel outside Los Angeles vowing either to find a title for MGM’s Untitled Salamander Brown Detective Movie, already in the can — or die trying.

3 weeks later, in front of at least 50 witnesses, a disheveled Hirsch appears on the beach wearing only boxer shorts and a bow tie, dragging a chrome toaster by the cord. He is heard muttering incoherently about leaving “no clam unopened” until he “finds it,” right before he walks into the ocean.

His body is never found. The movie is never released.

DON’T let that happen to Star Trek. Or Bob Orci. Please.

347. Travis - September 8, 2012

Star Trek: Into Darkness…. This subtitle tells me one thing! The Botany Bay! Think about it… What lies in the Mutara Sector is Into Darkness and that is KHAN!

Also i would like to pint out that Gary Mitchell fans who want to see Gary Mitchell are out of luck! If you want to see Gary Mitchell then you can see him in the first Star Trek: Ongoing Comic Book… That should be your hint that Gary isnt in the sequel and keep in mind that Khan WILL NOT be in the comic series which points out that Khan will be in the Sequel!

348. Red Dead Ryan - September 8, 2012



Even if the shorthand version is STID, there are inevitably going to be typos. Typos generally occur in the middle, so sometimes its going to read “STI”, which will seem more like “Star Trek 1″, or “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, and then of course, there will be “STD”, in which a correction will be made with the statement “DAMN TYPOS!!!” :-)

349. Christopher Roberts - September 8, 2012

@333. That’s funny. Looking up and down the thread… You’re the only one doing any sneering.

350. Red Dead Ryan - September 8, 2012


You’re welcome!

351. Buzz Cagney - September 8, 2012

Like it.

352. Charla - September 8, 2012

#105 Bob I feel for you and yours- I really do. ;)

I love the titles # 188 The Wolverine gave… really cool idea with the play on the words like that, and take care of the next movie as well! Also if there are only going to be 3 movies by JJ and crew, it would make the task of naming the movie after these 3 are complete that much harder for the next torch bearer/film maker for Star Trek movies. lol.

#141 Shilliam Watner- hahaha! I agree! I don’t care what it’s called really, as long as I get to see my movie! I mean the movie! :D

#180 Kirk, James T. Yes it is true there are several movies with the word “dark” in the title. It has to be hard to be original these days I believe, because how many stories can you tell before they all have similarities or the like?

We’ve seen the rash of Vampires and Werewolves then all the comic book stories. “Cowboys & Aliens” and “Inception” are examples to me of original material that whether you liked the movies or not, they were at least original. I loved the concept Bob, Alex and Damon presented with the latest Star Trek movie.

It was original not that the concept of telling a story from it’s beginning after we have seen the middle, but that it was original in that no one had considered Spock or Kirk as infants and later as children who would grow up and later “boldy go where no one has went before.” At least not on film anyway.

I guess in a long way of saying it, I think it would be difficult to assign a name to a movie that has had so many episodes filmed of it (both on the small screen and big) I am just glad to feel a little forward movement towards 2013 and what the next movie will reveal. :-)

353. chain of command - September 8, 2012

Good. Sounds like it’s going to be serious. I want a serious Star Trek movie.

354. crazydaystrom - September 8, 2012


But that dislike does not preclude this film from being great! Hopefully when all is said and done the one with my least favorite title wil turn out to be my favorite Trek film.

That title may grow on me.

And I’m glad to finally have one! :-)

355. PaulB - September 8, 2012

#347 – Wow, you’re really obsessing over my comments, aren’t you? And you apparently don’t know the word “sneering” any better than you know “impugning.” To sneer, as in “to speak [or write] in a scornful, contemptuous, or derisive manner.” (Or did you think “sneer” only means the facial expression? Tsk tsk.)

In just the first 100 posts, at least four are sneering at the title and/or the filmmakers: 75, 75, 98, and 99. Calling it stupid, lame, etc. There are others I could include in that first batch, but those four are the most obvious sneers.

Feel free to keep obsessing over little ol’ me and my comments. It’s amusing, really, and a bit flattering. Mostly amusing.

356. JMalley - September 8, 2012

I don’t love the title, but I could accept it, especially if it turned out to be a Heart of Darkness sort of story. The problem for me is not that it reminds me of Batman, but that it reminds me of the Die Hard movies, which rapidly became self-parody in their attempts to cobble together a working sentence using the eponymous phrase. What I would rather see is a short, evocative title using something from the opening credits of the show, such as:

Star Trek Voyages (my favorite, though admittedly that might be a bit too close to Voyager)
Star Trek: New Life
Star Trek: Life and Civilization
Star Trek Where None Have Gone Before (the last two maybe aren’t short enough)

Of course, those are generic and might not work given the story. If, for example, the story ends up being Klingon-centric, there could be a myriad of awesome titles that sound extra badass and Klingon-y. At this point, it’s too early to really put forward a good title without all of the info.

357. Boborci - September 8, 2012

336 lol

358. Mumblix Grumph - September 8, 2012

The title is OK, but it’s pretty vague. It doesn’t really tell me anything about the plot line. All I can be sure of is that it doesn’t involve Planet Care Bear.

359. steve - September 8, 2012

It just doesn’t “read” well, or sound right as you say it out loud. You sort of want to insert the colon where it belongs, and read it as “Star Trek, Into Darkness”. But then you realize it’s not supposed to read that way, so you read it as a phrase, intuitively coupling the word “trek” with the following two words, making it into it’s own little sentence. Which means it ends up reading as “Star, TREK INTO DARKNESS”. Which just sounds strange, as it breaks up the familiar cadence of the title “Star Trek”.

I’m not saying I have any better options, to what I think was a completely intractable problem all along. Especially since I have no idea what the movie is about, making it pretty tough to come up with good title.

But I’m WAY more interested in how good the movie is, versus how good the title is. My only fear is that a clunky title keeps some of the masses away.

360. Harry Ballz - September 8, 2012

What do we think of the title?

Hey, when one doesn’t have a colon, it’s hard for one to give a crap!

Oh, and if the story is about a renegade Starfleet captain gone bad, I don’t see how that has more “drama” to it than a guy going around blowing up inhabited planets. But, hey, that’s just me.

361. Dee - lvs moon' surface - September 8, 2012

Well, what I can say for now is that it’s weird to say that … “I’ve been waiting for Star Trek into Darkness” … looks like “Star Trek needs a Psychotherapist” … yeah, me too … but I can get used to it I’m sure …

…………………….OK… just kidding… ;-) :-)

362. The Original Spock's Brain - September 8, 2012

“Star Trek Into Darkness” makes gramatical sense. It may have a double meaning, such as a trek into the vast darkness of space and into the dark side of the human psyche.

363. Doug Haffner - September 8, 2012

We live in a time where the goal of major studio suits is to get the name as short as possible. The title “Star Trek” already has one more word than they”d prefer. They prefer to make movies based on what seems to be selling at any given moment, so they probably asked if JJ could put Kirk in a cape. Big words are also out, so don’t expect to ever see Star Trek Serendipity or Star Trek Omnivore or Star Trek Pusillanimous. Ok, ok…I had to look up Pusillanimous too.
Names are tough. Star Wars The Phantom Menace had so much promise before I saw it…
Star Trek Providence has a nice ring to it.

364. crazydaystrom - September 8, 2012

358. Harry Ballz –

“…when one doesn’t have a colon, it’s hard for one to give a crap!”


Very nice Harry! Further proof of my theory – ‘The only good pun is a bad pun.’


365. Chris Roberts - September 8, 2012

@353. I clearly look forward to you patronizing both me and this thread! ;)

366. Montreal_Paul - September 8, 2012

55. mario –
” Sounds like a THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK wanna be!!!! (for the STAR TREK franchise) Let’s be a little more original! (You have a supper team)”

What?? How so? Doesn’t even SOUND like it. Star Trek Into Darkness… The Empire Strikes Back. Ummm. Nope… not even reading it out loud.

By the way… I like the title… very different from previous Trek titles. And I think it’s original.

367. Craiger - September 8, 2012

Harry, what if based on that one TNG episode with the renegade Captain wanting to start a war with Cardissians but this story has the Klingons instead?

368. The Sky's The Limit - September 8, 2012

I hope the Enterprise has high beams . . .

369. Larry - September 8, 2012

I think not using the colon is great. The title itself is great. I do not agree with TrekMovie.com that it could mean into the darkness of space explaining their core mission, but, I do believe it describes on how the plot of the movie will be. All the main stars of the movie described it with adjectives like: relentless, engaging, etc. This does appear that this could be a villain driven plot like no other Star Trek has had before. Putting the crew into a difficult spot to defeat him.

370. china - September 8, 2012

Really hope there’s a lot of Cumberbatch screen time

371. HwkII - September 8, 2012

Star Trek the Musical
featuring the hit songs:
“You Beamed into my Heart”
“The Tribble with Love is”
“Kahn you see”
“Stun the One You’re With”

372. Ralph Pinheiro - September 8, 2012

Mr. Orci,
This title is very interesting. It reminds me what McCoy said: “Space is disease and danger, wrapped in darkness and silence”. In my opinion, this means that the Enterprise is now within the space in darkness and silence and will face something really disconcerting. Am I right?

373. Veteran Fan - September 8, 2012

As a veteran of the original series I just have to say that if this is whats in store for the future of ST, I’ll have few associations with it from now on. Darker themes? OH yes, we all need Star Trek to promote and add to the darkness in things nowadays! Gene Roddenberry would roll over in his grave at this…

374. Newman - September 8, 2012

lol I’m not sure I like the title…..

375. jeannieSpock - September 8, 2012

The title doesn’t give anything away. Don’t really care about the title as long as Spock is centered in it and they don’t waste time on minor characters such as Gary Mitchell or Christopher Pike. I hated the look of the pilot and ‘WNMHGB’ and especially the way Spock’s character (and makeup) had not been developed. And those uniforms….ugh.
For me, Star Trek started with ‘The Man Trap’. Let’s start from there. The great interaction between Kirk/Spock/Bones. As for the villain, well who cares really. Whether is a new ‘baddy’ or an updated version of an old one.
As long as the script and story are good and not just relying on SFX and battle scenes. I live in hope this will be better than the first one which was lacking a good script and substance. Oh, it would be nice to get another glimpse of Nimoy too. Just to keep us reminded of just how it should be.

376. Themanle1 - September 8, 2012

Star trek into THE darkness sounds a little better. But I would put the colon in the title still.

Star Trek: Into The Darkness

377. Skidalgo - September 8, 2012

I think it sounds odd because “Star Trek” by itself tends to make “Trek” sound like a noun, where “Star Trek Into Darkness” makes “Trek” sound more like a verb. That’s how I read it on first glance; it almost sounded like the title was trying to break through the fourth wall by commanding me to trek into the darkness. If I read it with Trek as a noun (it’s easier by adding “A” at the beginning), it’s less weird.

378. Sterj - September 8, 2012

@375. I was just going to say the same thing!

379. D-Rock - September 8, 2012

Trek is a verb.

380. Doug Haffner - September 8, 2012

Hey, you’ve got your gerund in my participle…and I kind of like it.

381. tom - September 8, 2012

Please stay with this flow of consciousness…..

Treating “Trek” like a verb, let’s look at the whole string:

Star Trek into Darkness

That means that a “star” is trekking into darkness, which makes no sense.

Then again, if “Trek” were intended as a verb for 46 years — the grammatical structure of the whole “star trek” combo would be wrong. It should either be:

Stars Trek (as though the thing trekking were the stars)


Star Treks (as though the thing trekking was a single star)

No, “trek” was never intended to be a verb in “Star Trek.” It’s a noun. Like “ocean voyage.”

Therefore, “Star Trek into Darkness” probably makes sense, just like “Ocean Voyage into Darkness” or “Ocean Voyage into Rain” would make sense.

Am I missing something here? (I’m tired and my eyes are crossing at this point.)

382. Matt Wright - September 8, 2012

Blech! The title sounds like some overly dramatic fanfic…

You can tell this was tested by focus groups again and again and in multiple languages since the title seems like it will translate easily (which isn’t a bad thing in-and-of-itself)…

383. Star Trek Into Darkness - September 8, 2012

Terrible. Terrible. Horrible title. What are they thinking?

Star Trek Into Darkness —- it sounds goofy to me. It has no “ring” to it. It’s sounds and reads awkward.

384. CmdrR - September 8, 2012

Congratulations on getting the exclusive, Anthony.

385. Star Trek Into Darkness - September 8, 2012

I can’t even take a movie seriously that calls itself Star Trek Into Darkness

386. Dr. Cheis - September 8, 2012


It does sound very much like a movie title out of this decade. I also like how they are actually using “Trek” as a verb instead of just a thing, and how the entire title is an action phrase.

On the other hand, it reminds me of “Revenge of the Fallen” and “Dark of the Moon” in its tone, which is probably not something I want to be reminded of. :-P

I’m sure once I see the first logo/promotional artwork I’ll be sold on it though.

387. tom - September 8, 2012

I know they don’t want to include numerals… but they can surely still use a colon.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

is better than

Star Trek into Darkness

388. D-Rock - September 8, 2012


Yeah, Trek is a verb. No matter the context, star or otherwise, it is, always has and shall be.

389. Kirk, James T. - September 8, 2012

The way I’ve always seen the meaning of the words Star and Trek is that humanity has stepped out into space on a Star Trek, a five year or continuing mission on a Trek through the Stars…. Going boldly.

like Zephram Cochran said in Star Trek Colon First Contact

“And you people, your all astronauts on some kind of Star Trek?”

So breaking down and getting entirely too geeky with Star Trek Into Darkness….

Suggests to me that humanity, our heroes Trekking through the Stars are taking a Star Trek Into Darkness.

390. Montreal_Paul - September 8, 2012

Who cares if there is a colon or not… it is likely to be stacked anyway…………..

Star Trek
Into Darkness

391. Thomas - September 8, 2012

218. Christopher Roberts
“Insurrection patterned itself after Heart of Darkness…”

Really? If that’s true, then no wonder INS was so subpar. If you’re going for Heart of Darkness, you have to go all in, like Apocalypse Now. You can’t do it tame, or you’ve got nothing.

392. Phil - September 8, 2012

Hopefully it doesn’t reference the nebula in star trek 2 when Khan and Kirk have to battle without their instruments…

393. Spock - September 8, 2012

Don’t care for the title, but can live with it if the movie is really really good.

As to insurrection, the problem with it, they didn’t go all in and the comedy was lame. DS9 went all in with Pale Moonlight, and that is one of its best episodes.

394. Phil - September 8, 2012

I guess you could say “Star Trekking into darkness” so the title could work with or without the “star trek”

395. Steve - September 8, 2012

I’m guessing the colon got lost in committee? (Since this obviously came out of room full of too many marketers, thereby spoiling the verbal broth.)

But seriously: it’s indecisive/run-on and shamelessly derivative of the Batman movies specifically and the faux-dark aesthetic that seems to predominate in recent pop culture generally. I’d thought that Chris Pine was going around emphasizing that this movie “wasn’t Batman”; maybe he knew the title and was independently (or not) trying to preempt criticisms? (It would have been fine if they wanted to evoke something generically related to exploration, in my book – e.g. “Star Trek: To Boldly Go”. That would have at least been tonally consistent)

Between the lame title and the desperate attempt to preserve mystery around the movie, I’m losing interest in seeing it. It’d better have a damn good trailer if it wants me seeing it in theaters.

396. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 8, 2012

When I first saw the title, I didn’t think of other movie titles with “Dark…” in them, even though there was discussion about whether some of us could go see The Dark Knight Rises at the very moment when I read here what the title was. I concentrated on the meanings of the word “darkness”. Why this need to compare with something else?

Chris Pine did not help by mentioning the Batman films, but then again it is likely that the media were hounding him, asking if Star Trek was anything like the Batman/Dark Knight movies. Also there have been lots of films without “dark” in the title which have very dark themes. Another dark film coming up is Dredd with Karl Urban. The Matrix movies were dark in theme.

The title does not need a colon, for reasons I explained earlier. It is all in the way you say the phrase. On reflection, I don’t mind the words, Star, Trek, Darkness all in one phrase, but I am still not so sure about the use of “into”. In my head, I call the movie “Star Trek through Darkness” or “A Star Trek through (the) Darkness” but that second title is bit long. Four words sound more concise.

397. ruue - September 8, 2012

Like it
Grows on me
Sound promising
Now bring on the good stuff!
Teaser, teaser poster, pics, viral campaign etc….

398. Kirk, James T. - September 8, 2012

Lets be honest here, If Star Trek Into Darkness is anything like The Dark Knight, it’s not a bad film to have comparisons made with. Star Trek Into Darkness has grown on me. I like it. I was a little be undecided about it at first since it’s such a departure on how we’ve usually seen the words Star Trek appear to us.

This is certainly a bold new approach and I hope the movie is just as bold as its title. If the movie tanks then the title wont do anything to help it however, if it’s a huge success then it’s going to be the greatest Star Trek movie title to date.

Bring it on…. May 17th, we go on a Star Trek Into Darkness!

399. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 8, 2012

On another site, somebody asked if we were going to be watching a black screen?…:)

400. Will - September 8, 2012

Star Trek Into Savings only at your Federation Starship Dealer and get zero down on a certified pre-owned Constitution Class Starship!

Yeah, I’m not a fan of that title… it feels a little… cheesball? Yeah. Cheeseball.

401. Ahmed - September 8, 2012

@ 397. Rose by any other name is Keachick – September 8, 2012

“On another site, somebody asked if we were going to be watching a black screen?…:)”


But seriously, what kind of movie title is that, “Star Trek Into Darkness” ?

Just show us the trailer please & lets hope it will be an amazing trailer.

402. Khan Noonien Singh - September 8, 2012

We’ve heard the “darkness” reference before!

The first 3 words of the trailer for Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan were …

“Beyond the darkness, …”


The next words are …

… beyond the human evolution, is Khan.

403. Doug Haffner - September 8, 2012

2 hours of watching a black screen might be a better time than watching “The Green Lantern” a second time….or watching “Eyes Wide Shut” once. The titles on those were nice, though.

404. Phil - September 8, 2012

Well, a nod to Keachick, who did suggest there might be news on Sept. 8…

Well, this might very well be an exploration story. Anyone exploring space would, in fact, be heading into darkness because space is…well, dark. They could just as easily named it “Zero G”, I suppose.

405. The Observer - September 8, 2012

395. ruue – September 8, 2012
Now bring on the good stuff!
Teaser, teaser poster, pics, viral campaign etc….

399. Ahmed – September 8, 2012
Just show us the trailer please

I knew it would take fans all of five minutes to be satisfied with the title. Always “more, more, More!”. Which is why they’re so secretive.

406. Thorny - September 8, 2012

400… Reminds me more of Babylon 5, “a shining beacon in space, all alone in the night.”

407. Thorny - September 8, 2012

Anyone remember the prelude to ST:TMP, the theatrical one where we sat staring at a blank screen for three minutes while “Ilia’s Theme” played? “Into darkness”? It’s been done. :-)

408. g_trek - September 8, 2012

It just doesn’t “feel” like Trek. Hopefully the movie will be good enough to overlook a weird title.

409. xai - September 8, 2012

105. Boborci – September 7, 2012
“Give me your first choice of titles!”

— Ok Bob… I like Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

410. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - September 8, 2012

Somehow, making “trek” a verb instead of a merely a word in a title seems cheesy and weird. Nobody uses “trek” as a verb.

411. The Sky's The Limit - September 8, 2012

The title generated some cool dialogue, but my money is on the title changing before all is said and done. In fact, my wager is that the final title won’t even have “Star Trek” in it.

412. Jonathan - September 8, 2012

McCoy himself said:

“Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence. “

413. tom - September 8, 2012

386….with all due respect, “Trek” is also a noun.

“Star Trek” should be seen in the following manner.

Trek as a noun.
Star as a noun modifier.

For “Trek” to be a verb, that would imply that a Star was doing the trekking.

414. P Technobabble - September 8, 2012

First, I think the title does everything a good title is supposed to do — and you can’t please people who are never pleased with anything anyway.
Second, boborci doesn’t usually use CAPS in his moniker, so I’d need some sort of evidence that it’s really him.

415. tom - September 8, 2012

PS to 411

Other noun/noun modifier sets:

tomato soup
cargo ship
school teacher
leather goods
police dog
farm buildings
hospital bed
university laboratory
summer home

416. VZX - September 8, 2012

STD…heh heh. STD!

Everytime I see STID or STiD it looks like STD!!!

So, if I go see this movie should I see a doctor afterwards?


417. VZX - September 8, 2012

410: I was thinking that. Maybe McCoy gave away the theme to the next movie in that very line!

418. general zod - September 8, 2012

The word Trek, according to the dictionary, is both a noun and a verb, not one or the other. Also the word arduous (which means challenging/dangerous) is part of the definition of Trek, in both forms.

Otherwise I like the title enough that I think it is possibly a partial quote, or an unfinished sequence that will need a third movie to complete as others have suggested.

419. The Last Vulcan - September 8, 2012

So much has already been said, so I’ll save bandwidth and not justify the fact that I DESPISE THIS TITLE. Not only the grammar but the intent. A dark Trek is not Trek: It’s the trendy panacea of this miserable decade of brooding violence-craving movie trash.

420. La Reyne d'Epee - September 8, 2012

It’s not your father’s Batman.

421. Montreal_Paul - September 8, 2012

417. The Last Vulcan

You assume a lot about the title. You assume that the movie will be darker. And who the *beep* cares about the grammar of the title?!? You know… the “colons” probably got lost in the shuffle and the nitpickers will pick apart every little nuance. Like I wrote earlier.. It will probably be a stacked title like all the other movies. TWOK is NOT Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.. it is…

Star Trek II
The Wrath of Khan

There is also

Star Trek
First Contact

not, Star Trek: First Contact.

So this one will also be…

Star Trek
Into Darkness.

Holy crap, Batman. Lighten up people. IT’S A MOVIE!!

422. crazydaystrom - September 8, 2012

She’s my daughter. She’s my sister.
She’s my daughter…AND my sister! :-0

It’s a noun. It’s a verb…

It’s about space. It’s about time…

It’s about time we got a title. Though I still don’t like it, particularly.

But to paraphrase a SMITHS song – ‘My faith in Trek is still devout!’

Waiting to be wowed.

423. Oz - September 8, 2012

Wow, what a thread. My two cents:

-Dropping colon is good.

-Using Trek In Title as a verb is good.

-Dropping the “Star” would make the phrase much less awkward. “Trek Into Darkness”. I suppose Paramount marketing dept. would have a fit though.

-Most poetic alternative title I’ve seen in this thread is #163 Smike’s “Star Trek Beyond Nighfall” (But still, how about dropping the “star”?)

-Agree with other posters that this has a Conrad ‘Heart of Darkness Vibe’. A rogue Captain Garth makes a lot of sense.

424. Nony - September 8, 2012

I don’t think the title necessarily means that Star Trek is descending into grungy misanthropy. There was ‘darkness’ in the previous film, after all, and I found that one a good balance between lightness and drama. I’m guessing there will be emotionally trying times in store for our heroes, but that’s what makes the interesting stories, right.

Actually the more I think on the name, particularly when the titles are stacked so it’s not ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ all in a line, the more I’m good with it.

Boborci, if you’re still reading, it would be lovely if you could one day take us through the name selection process, and how you guys made the final decision? :)

425. VulcanFilmCritic - September 8, 2012

@194,194 Odradek and 195CaptainRickover Thank you for the German translations. The title really does not fall trippingly off the tongue, does it?
Now, are there any other foreign language experts out there?

426. Thorny - September 8, 2012

421… But “Trek Into Darkness” sounds a lot more like a tagline than it does a the movie’s title.

427. izmunuti - September 8, 2012

Awful. Seems designed for a third grade reading level and brain.

428. Montreal_Paul - September 8, 2012

425. izmunuti

So enlighten us… what would be something above a third grade reading level be? Would love to hear your ideas.

429. Basement Blogger - September 8, 2012

@ 400

Hey Khan. As Spock would say, “Fascinating.”

430. Peter Loader - September 8, 2012

So we are in for something akin to a Mirror, Darkly. Alternate timeline with some bad versions of the good guys… all to be explained away with probably cause by RED MATTER…

431. Trekker5 - September 8, 2012

Star Trek:Into Darkness….I wasn’t thinking about anything of the sort. But I like it! #105,Bob,could you please talk JJ into letting us see the first trailer this Fall?!

432. Basement Blogger - September 8, 2012

Okay, I like the title with one caveat. It has to do something with the story. If the tone is “darker” then it makes sense. Remember the Supreme Court has been saying they will go deeper. Hooray. Could this be a Star Trek packed with action but with something serious to say? This Trekker can only hope.

433. Nony - September 8, 2012

423. French could be something like ‘Star Trek vers les ténèbres’. (Which is technically ‘into THE darkness’.) ‘La ténèbre’ doesn’t just refer to darkness or the colour black, it also kind of evokes death, a total absence of something, a cessation of being, mystery, the unknown…

434. singularity87 - September 8, 2012

“Where No One Has Gone Before”

That seems a far more obvious title to me. Also, whatever the title is needs to reflect the plot which that might not- though in the first film it really only reflected the brand. “Star Trek Begins” might have been better for that one than “Star Trek” though probably would have been too derivative.

435. Bob Tompkins - September 8, 2012

Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, does it?

436. Harry Ballz - September 8, 2012

I figured the next movie had a theme of James Kirk justifying to one and all that he deserved the captaincy of the Enterprise. Especially, since some of the actors have stated, the crew go through great peril and come together as a more unified team. Proving, once again, that though they’re young, and it is an alternate reality, they are still the finest crew in Starfleet.

With that in mind, a good title would have been……

Star Trek: Redemption

437. xai - September 8, 2012

A “darK” Trek was likely one of the best movies, so don’t give me that “a dark Trek is not Trek BS”

438. Dadio - September 8, 2012

Star Trek into Darkness sounds like Broken English Mr. Orci

If you had picked one of these three titles, I wouldn’t have be rolling my eyes when I first heard the title.

Star Trek – into the Darkness
Star Trek – A Voyage into Darkness
Star Trek – A Journey into Darkness

Regards :)

439. CJS - September 8, 2012

Khan was always a throwback to a darker era in human history, so his presence may merit this title. And TOS did deal with some dark issues, even in it’s kitschy 60’s way. Patterns of Force explored fascism and racism as did Let That Be Your Last Battlefield. ATaste of Armageddon featured a planet where the population willingly committed suicide to account for the casualties of a virtual war. And DS9 was chock full o’darkness. So it isn’t unprecedented in the Star Trek Universe.

440. PaulB - September 8, 2012

Of all the titles I have encountered in my reading of this forum, Orci’s is the most…palatable. Seriously, it’s not a great title, but it’s better than EVERYTHING ELSE that’s been suggested in over 400 comments here so far.

#416 Thank you, general zod, for pointing out what I was going to point out–that “trek” is BOTH a noun AND a verb. Too many people around here like to build their opinions on faulty information such as Trek being a verb OR a noun.

Geesh, when people can’t even look up a word in the dictionary before posting their opinions, they should probably think twice about their own suggestions for titles since titles are made of, ya know, WORDS. Just sayin’.

There you go, Christopher Roberts–some patronizing to meet your expectations of me! :)

441. Khan was Framed! - September 8, 2012

At the end of the day, the title doesn’t matter, as long as they respect the cano…


442. PaulB - September 8, 2012

#434 – Harry, although your “without a colon, who can give a crap” line is probably the best comment Trekmovie will get this year, your title suggestion is…well, not good. “Redemption” makes no sense in the situation you described. Proving that you are as good as your reputation isn’t redemption, but it’s what young Kirk is facing. “Star Trek: Proving Grounds” would make more sense along the lines you discussed, but “Redemption” is just out of place and terribly generic.

Still, you get “best comment” for the colon line.

443. Patrick - September 8, 2012

“Into Darkness” certainly gives us a hint that this film could have a serious tone and perhaps darker theme than the 2009 Star Trek film. ”

Why does everything have to be dark? Star Trek is not supposed to be dark. Its supposed to be about a positive view of the future where mankind works together to overcome our differences. I know you need drama to draw audiences but not everything needs to be dark. Dark works just fine for Batman. Look at the Next Gen movies. They had success with First Contact – a relatively dark film & then decided the movies had to dark, edgy, “war films” & they got progressively worse.

444. Harry Ballz - September 8, 2012


Uh, thanks, PaulB. I think…..:>)

445. Kirk, James T. - September 8, 2012

Guys all these titles like Star Trek: Redemption, Star Trek: who gives a fuck…. Its all been done before. Its BORING and just so 90’s sounding plus completely irrelevant to anyone but a hard-core Star Trek fan…

Star Trek Into Darkness is something completely new for Star Trek – I doubt this title will be stacked – like The Dark Knight Rises it’ll probably be a one line title as it makes more sense:

“Star Trek Into Darkness”

I like it, heard it a lot today, seen it and Its definitely grown on me, cant wait to see the trailer and to see it up there in lights on the posters and stuff.

My biggest excitement for this title is that it is totally different it’s not Star Trek: Something Something it’s or just Something Something. It uses Star Trek in a sentence that makes up a title which is interesting.

446. Gary Makin - September 8, 2012

Star Trek: Into Colon.

The real title is slowly growing on me.

447. Thorny - September 8, 2012

441… “Darker theme” than killing Kirk’s father and Spock’s mother and blowing up both Vulcan and Romulus? Jeez, what’s going to happen in THIS movie?

448. Phil - September 8, 2012

@421… oooooohhhh, maybe Spock dies in this retelling of Wrath of Khan, too. Sucks to be ZQ. Or the sap who has to reconfigure The Search for Spock….

449. Kirk, James T. - September 8, 2012

Also, this is the first Star Trek title that uses the words Star and Trek properly. The Trek through the Stars, The Star Trek – A Star Trek. Its not just the name of the franchise colon Nemesis or First Contact, It intergrates Star Trek into the actual title and perhaps plot of the movie.

I’m onboard Orci… lets do it!

450. LtMiles - September 8, 2012

Thank you Paramount, et al. So we’ve jettisoned every last bit that makes Trek, Trek?

My expectations are suitably lowered.
I’m probably going to watch it on cable and buy a used DVD.

451. Phil - September 8, 2012

Still thinking that ‘Star Trek’ will be a backgroung graphic to “Into Darkness’, like OO7 is on the Bond titles. Hpoing the flick isn’t too moody, though.

452. D-Rock - September 8, 2012

Colon be damned. It’s a great title, something unforeseen but totally fits (not talking about the content of the movie, but movie past numerals and colons)

Star Trek is growing! Although some don’t seem to want that and want it to keep circling back to same.

BTW, just because PaulB doesn’t have three posts in every ten and is not opining on finepineguy every two posts doesn’t make him less valid.

453. Radioactive Spock - September 8, 2012

Mr. Orci

Title is great, but I think the question on everyone’s mind is whether you have written in roles for Paul Glover and Ted Raimi to play yourself and Alex, perhaps living in a closet somewhere on the Enterprise?

Rewatched those recently and laughed so hard at those eps.

454. PaulB - September 8, 2012

#447 – What did they jettison that makes Trek Trek? All they got rid of was the colon in the title. Is Star Trek really only Trek with that piece of punctuation involved?

455. Frank - September 8, 2012

Really, let’s face it. No matter what the title is, all of us are going up to the ticket window and saying, “Hi, one adult for Star Trek.”

456. Vultan - September 8, 2012


Obviously, another supernova threatens to—DESTROY THE GALAXY!
And Emperor Ming is behind it!

“Klytus, I’m bored…”

457. Dadio - September 8, 2012

Star Trek – A Veil of Darkness

458. Planet Pandro - September 8, 2012

Well, whatever they call it, I’m sure I’ll just get my movie tickets the same way I have for the last 5 movies:

“two for star trek, please…”

459. Planet Pandro - September 8, 2012

452. Frank

I swear your post wasn’t there when I made mine!!!

Star Trek: Coincidence

460. Gary Makin - September 8, 2012

Star Trek Not into Colons?

461. RenderedToast - September 8, 2012

Apparently my post got deleted, probably because I swore, so I’ll say it again….

This is not going to be the title. There’s just no way anyone thinks this sounds anything other than dumb as hell. It sounds, like many have said, like a terrible fan-fiction that’s trying to be extremely edgy and dark. It sounds like the kind of title you see on Trek message boards when people just spout titles for films that are in their heads that they think sound really cool and interesting but actually just make them look like ‘sperg lords. You know the type..


If anything, this is the title of the game featuring the Gorn, not the new movie. Just more Abrams diversionary tactics.

462. Dadio - September 8, 2012

Can you do lens flares in darkness?

463. Star Trek Voyeur (colon deleted) - September 8, 2012

Not sure if it’s been said, as the thread is faster than I am…

trekintodarkness.com is registered. No STAR in title. Don’t know if it’s valid, or someone riding the wave.

“Trek Into Darkness” seems to work better than “Star Trek Into Darkness” IMO

WHOIS does not return much, except the registrant, or it’s proxy, is in L.A.


Registrant Contact:
WhoisGuard Protected ()

11400 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064

464. Nony - September 8, 2012

It would be hilarious if this was all a fake-out.

465. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

I’ve already accepted it. I can’t even remember what was wrong with it in the first place.

“That’ll do, pig. That’ll do.”

But seriously. You’ve jumped that hurdle, you’ve made the decision. Don’t second guess it. Time to move on to the next thing.

466. indranee - September 8, 2012

Dumb, dumb, dumb. If this this is what they come up with after making us wait with bated breath for this long I’ve no reason to look forward to the movie. Sigh…

467. Dadio - September 8, 2012

Kirk: Kahnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!

Kahn: What?

Kirk: Turn the lights on please

468. PaulB - September 8, 2012

#464 – :) That made me giggle like a small child. Shame on you. :)

469. Mark - September 8, 2012

It’s basically a pun, and the decision to lose the colon of this series of films, as a stylistic indicator, will mean that the next one will probably be a pun, too.

Whatever, I’m sure the movie will be good (and this isn’t the first Trek film with a dumb title)… but a pun? Ugh.

470. somethoughts - September 8, 2012


Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
Star Trek: Beyond the end
Star Trek: The Scroll of darkness

471. DonDonP1 - September 8, 2012

Cool! Happy Star Trek Day, everyone! Live Long and Prosper!

472. Jefferies Tuber - September 8, 2012

The delays have really severed some trust and goodwill toward JJ. I mean, seriously: SUPER 8? Really? Cool title, but something tells me they’ll diddle with the fonts. The CG steel arrowhead in the opening credits and the closing credits were the worst part about the first film, followed by Giacchino’s fail on the theme. I think these guys have talked themselves into creating a parallel universe with more JJ and less GR, so as much as I like the title, I don’t trust where it’s heading.

473. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 8, 2012

I am pleased that Star and Trek are in the title. I also like the fact that the colon has been removed. This gives life and momentum to the/a Star Trek – a good move on the part of the producers/writers.

I have just thought that maybe the abbreviation STD or STID with its obvious associations with sexually transmitted disease(s) is a clue in itself.

It is along the lines what some medical scientists believe is what has brought the terrible viruses like ebola and HIV/AIDS and others to large numbers of people is the result of the mass destruction of many of the world’s very old rainforests in places like the Congo, Africa, Amazon forests of South America etc. Within those finely balanced ecologies, such viruses were, as it were, “kept in their place” but with the destruction of much of the ecology, the viruses have been unleashed.

What if something like that happened when Vulcan was imploded? Due to the MASSIVE planet wide seismic disturbances that preceded implosion, such a virus was released and could survive in space…Perhaps it could be sexually transmitted. It is possible that the surviving Vulcans may have natural immunity but what about other humanoid races, like human beings? An interesting possibility is that perhaps both Spock (because he is half-human) and Lt Uhura have the virus, among many others, so the race is on to find a cure/vaccine…or that Spock (being half-Vulcan) is immune but an unwitting carrier of the virus…

other possibility, even probability, is that Romulans, with some power hungry collaborators (eg Ben Cumberbatch’s character?) with a mindset not unlike that of Nero, may find a way of engineering this virus to be even more virulent, (possibly more painful and debilitating as well) and ultimately deadly to most of human kind. If people do survive the virus, they invariably end up with infertility.

Romulans, of course, being closely related genetically to Vulcans, would also be immune to its effects. Perhaps it is in one very dark corner of space (literally) where the virus is spread to others, like crew of the Enterprise…

To me, that’s a fairly dark scenario. I made this up, but it could very well tie in with the title (especially when abbreviated) and given what Dr McCoy said about space – he was drunk at the time though…;). I am also thinking of Nero’s mindset in wanting to destroy humanity and aligned people belonging to the Federation, which he would have no doubt shared with many other Romulans of the 24th century and likely with those of this alternate 23rd century. This being said, I have NO IDEA what the writers have written, so who knows!

I don’t know what the Heart of Darkness is, however I believe that this sequel’s story is meant to be an original screenplay.

474. Gary Neumann - September 8, 2012

Epic debate but lots whining

475. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 8, 2012

Yes, I was also wondering this Boborci is the real Roberto Orci, one of the producers/writers of Star Trek into Darkness. I don’t like impersonators, especially if someone is pretending to be Roberto (Bob) Orci. Not good.

Trekmovie staff/AP – please check and confirm or otherwise. Thank you.

476. Andysd - September 8, 2012

Star Trek

Rise of the Enterprise

The Enterprise Rises

The Dark Enterprise

Spock Rises

The Enterprise Begins


Star Trek

Doing The Best We Can to Imitate the Batman Franchise

What do you think Bob?

477. Nony - September 8, 2012


The EnterpRises?

478. Daoud - September 8, 2012

Star Trek
(The word “Star” dissolves to leave just Trek)
(Under Trek these words appear:)
Into Darkness.
That could work. The title’s “Star Trek Into Darkness”, but it’s an “overlap” or “set notation union” of “Star Trek” U “Trek Into Darkness”.
Remember, one of the early Bantam era novels was called “Trek to Madworld”. Perhaps that was part of Bob & Alex & Damon’s logic.
I’m just glad to know they’re liekly going with the Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness type of story with Kirk and Spock and McCoy together in the Willard/Marlow role… and Villain-To-Be-Named in the Kurtz role. Hey, there’s a good nickname for now for Cumby’s character: “VTBN” Seems like Darkness implies madness….. and with a black Starfleet uniform… I’m going ride back to Garth… with him having tried to awaken Khan and failed… either getting a disfigured Khan (portrayed by Gatt), or a doesn’t-survive-long Khan (portrayed by Nolan North)….

479. Im a trekkie not a trekker - September 8, 2012

Yic!!! The title makes it sound like there might be twinkly vampires and shirtless wolves in the movie.

480. Daoud - September 8, 2012

@470: Kea…. Heart of Darkness is an important piece of British literature, by Joseph Conrad. It was required reading when I was in school 30 years ago…. At least google things you don’t know about, or check Wikipedia:
The story was reinvented as a movie set in Vietnam… that movie being Apocalypse Now.
I’m convinced now these play an IMPORTANT role in the story development that Bob and Alex went through…. and it’s a story that explains a lot of some of Bob’s soliloquies here at trekmovie over the past two years. He said he’d have some commentary on the current world situations in it, and Conrad’s original novel still is relevant to the world today. Plus, Trek has some classic characters, namely Khan, Garth, Parmen, Trelane, Q, Kor… who have characteristics in common with Conrad’s Kurtz.

481. Voodoo - September 8, 2012

“Into the Darkness” sounds much better than “Into Darkness”

482. LizardGirl - September 8, 2012

@436 I like those, especially the Star Trek–The Journey into Darkness, but I would’ve streamlined it to Star Trek Dark Journey.

They’re avoiding long titles following a colon. It’s actually quite novel, in my opinion. It’s a minimalistic title that doesn’t give the plot away yet allows the audience to wonder how it applies to the movie. Really the only “clue” we have to go on is “Darkness”. The “Star Trek” nor the “Into” give anything away about this movie.

We tend to read Star Trek as a separate entity because we’ve been trained that way. Adding “Into Darkness” without a colon sets this franchise apart from the others. It pulls “Star Trek” into the actual meaning, instead of using it as a prelude and letting the rest stand on its own. People (pretty much everyone) aren’t used to that so they’ll naturally want to say–Star Trek [[pause]] Into Darkness. Sorry but you have to take the whole spoonful, don’t break it up! It may seem awkward and overly simple at first, but give it some time. I believe they’re onto something here.

Also, last time I checked…darkness isn’t cheesy…at all. I should know, I used to be afraid of the stuff. It can be the literal lack of light (I doubt this is applicable because this IS a space sci-fi movie), it can describe a mood or tone, it can also allude to something evil. I’m banking it’s one or both of the latter two. I eagerly wait more news!

483. Uberbot - September 8, 2012

Not bad…

484. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 8, 2012

Hey, you guys are the ones equating a Star Trek film title which has the word Darkness in it with a book called Heart of Darkness. Frankly, I don’t see much difference between people confusing Batman movies with Dark in their titles with this Star Trek title, even though they are completely different franchises.

BTW, I hate(d) Apocalypse Now – dark, violent and incoherent with all that awful Brando drawl. I really hope that Star Trek is not like that…

Other than the title Star Trek into Darkness, the movie has no actual, identifiable type feel to it because we know nothing about it.

We/I tend to equate “darkness” with negativity, bad or evil, harrowing, claustrophobic, unforgiving, violent, mean, nasty, heavy…

However, it also has the little meaning as in a dark night. I enjoy the night, especially on a clear star-studded moonlit night where the air is crisp and fresh. It is restful, especially on tired eyes, and peaceful. Hopefully, various kinds of “darkness” will be represented in this film and not just the kind most shown in so many movies at the moment – the bad, harrowing kind.

It is this fear of Star Trek following the general trend of these darker films that had me feel upset and disappointed. This is also why I prefer a title of Star Trek through Darkness because the phrase gives a feeling of coming through, out of, into the opposite, the Light. Of course, the word “light” has more than a literal meaning…

485. Bill - September 8, 2012

Is the tile “Into Darkness” or “Star Trek Into Darkness”? If it’s the second one it sounds like there is an understood invisible colon in there. If they’re worried about all the titles being confused with the other coloned titles why not reverse them? “Into Darkness: Star Trek 2″

486. Randall Williams - September 8, 2012

@105 (Bob Orci)

How about “Star Trek: Gornification”? The movie tie-in to the game
features the Gorn as the arch-villian (take a look) and if you boot
up the 2009 DVD wait until the main menu comes up with the
enterprise rotating. Turn up the volume and you will hear a voice
distinctly say “Gorn”. So, the villian is the Gorn and whatever
role Cumberbatch plays will probably be controlled by them
psionically? Just a educated guess.

487. Mel - September 8, 2012

The title just sounds strange and bad and I am not an English native speaker to which the title allegedly should appeal. They should have added a “the”.

“Star Trek Into The Darkness”

That sounds already much better.

488. capt sanders - September 8, 2012

Please just call it Star Trek II

489. Conrad - September 8, 2012

He cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision—he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath—”The horror! The horror!”

Heart of Darkness

490. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

Apocalypse Now — now, that was a film, an apocalypse.

There’s even a documentary on Francis Ford Coppola’s personal apocalypse called, in part — wait for it… wait for it… — “Heart of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse.

Creative destruction, friends. These are the times that try our souls because they challenge us to destroy the village in order to create it. These are the days of thunder and napalm; of napalmed-victory scents; of great things done by ordinary men sent to kill faceless beings in the darkness of the rivers of life.

Does Star Trek stand for goodness? Then let it prove it! By confronting fear … not like Vader … but like the hero in his journey to hell and back.

The terror within is the fear of the unknown. The conquest of the unknown, thus, is the conquest of fear, and the achievement of peace.

And that’s the name of THAT tune….

491. Majicou - September 8, 2012

Man, it’s great when a thread really has everything. The totally baseless speculation! The pointless digs at other parts of the franchise! The “I don’t like it and neither do you”! The “It’s all because JJ Abrams hates Star Trek”!

Ahh. TrekMovie in microcosm.

492. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

Don’t know what the status is of that other film scheduled for release in 2013, Into The Darkness. The only possible glitch I can see is having two movies out at the same time with almost the same titles. Hopefully that’s been looked at and hopefully Star Trek will come out first by a month.

493. photonatureblog - September 8, 2012

I was sure this was going to be another Khan movie, but 31 has a good point with no stars, just darkness between galaxies:
” 31. Rob A – September 7, 2012

Into darkness? As in, “We’re leaving the Galaxy, Mr. Mitchell”? “

494. Daniel Craig is My wookie Bitch - September 8, 2012

315 its funny I personally Find Star Trek Into Darkness very cringe inducing. And have seen 8 and 10 years old write better Star Trek Fan Fiction titles.

As for your ” Exploration is the fine for the tv shows, the movie need bigger stakes”, go find your shoot em up action sci fi by watching the Total Recall remake. Trek is at its best when it involves Exploration be it of the human condition, or space and different worlds, yes you can throw in a good dash of action and fighting but in the end its the heart and souls of these characters that draws us to these films, NOT BIGGER STAKES.

495. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

484: “BTW, I hate(d) Apocalypse Now – dark, violent and incoherent with all that awful Brando drawl. I really hope that Star Trek is not like that…”

It was dark, it was violent. But incoherent? Not a chance.

Still one of the best movies ever made. Very very high on my list, made during a time when Coppola was on FIRE.

His The Conversation is not as big or well known either as The Godfather or Apocalypse Now, but it is brilliant. As a conspiracy thriller it’s one of the best, with a jaw dropping finale.

496. Daniel Craig is My wookie Bitch - September 8, 2012

321 A title is suppose to give you an idea of what the story is about
The search for spock does that, The Voyage home does that, The Final Frontier does that, as does The Undiscovered country.
Even Generations does that, as does first contact, Insurection, Nemesis not so much. But 2-8 do a great job of letting audience know what the story is about.

But i suspect no matter what title they chose you would still be singing JJ and co’s praises.

Heck its not even an original title there is another movie comming out next year as i said earlier that has the title ” Into Darkness”

497. Rudy M Alapag Jr - September 8, 2012

the title is so much darker because its SO dark it means it follows and should follow: the wrath of kahn, the undiscovered country, first contact, and last but not least: NEMESIS. the title works for me. i was always looking forward to something dark a title.

498. Hat Rick - September 8, 2012

Ode to STID

A vessel plies an endless ocean
With no hope of return
The journey is in motion
The engines in it burn

A crew sends its greetings
To an implacable foe
To find but futile meetings
No matter — they boldly go

Forward moves the dark heart
And at its core they aim
First with words, but then a dart
And so does end the game.

499. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

It’s funny that Bruce Wayne was going through a dark-night-of-the-soul as Batman, and that Nolan kept calling him the Dark Knight.

I wonder if that was conscious.

500. Patrick R - September 8, 2012

That title is so awful that when I told my wife about it in the emergency room today it actually distracted her from the agonizing pain she was in for a while. Really. FYI: She is going to be okay.

501. Captain Karl - September 8, 2012

with the soundtrack performed by Depeche Mode

502. Aaron - September 8, 2012

Captain Karl from a certain band???

503. Captain Karl - September 8, 2012

Aaron, no, although I play guitar, I am just a humble cartoonist

504. Aaron - September 8, 2012

Sorry but “Into Darkness” is far better than some of the episode titles such as “Spock’s Brain”, “Who Mourns for Adonais?”, “Requiem for Methuselah”… etc and that’s only from TOS. Secondly it’s also far better than the title for the new Titan Novel “Fallen Gods”… Ugh… And the novel Heart of Darkness which Apocalypse Now is only loosely based on is wonderful and many movies have successfully used its framework to tell amazing stories just like Moby Dick, Shakespeare, and even Dante. One should hope that Star Trek would be made well enough to me mentioned in the same sentence as these classics.

But… In the end naysayers gonna nay and everyone else will excitedly quietly await the next film.

Trailer would be nice ;-)

505. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

Like the title of the movie What Dreams May Come, the title of The Undiscovered Country is Shakespeare, who can always provide a load of great titles for a project:

Be All My Sins Remembered
More Than Kin, Less Than Kind
Rise By Sin, By Virtue Fall

You can also dig out some good advice:

“Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt.”

Something that gives me optimism about the title Into Darkness is that it feels so contemporary, now that I think about it. It feels relevant to us here and now, since that is exactly where I feel we are all headed, and at warp speed. And I could really use a Star Trek that speaks to us here and now about what’s going on in the world, and in America.

506. Vultan - September 8, 2012


Yeah, I’m not getting her criticism either.

When you watch a movie called “Apocalypse Now” that shows on the cover/poster that it’s about the Vietnam War, opens with Jim Morrison singing “This is the End” amid bursts of napalm flames, then cuts to Martin Sheen in a drunken, suicidal rage, you shouldn’t really expect anything uplifting or lighthearted about it.

Sure ain’t Star Trek, but nothing else is.

507. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

When I hear that the threat is greater in this movie than a ship full of crackpots with a black hole machine, I think of something more insidious and pervasive. It might seem odd, but that makes me hopeful.

508. Vultan - September 8, 2012

Well aside from the surfing. That was fun.

509. Daoud - September 8, 2012

I think the correct parody will end up being Star Trek Into Loch Ness…
The Enterprise encounters a spaceborne monster, Nessie…..
@505. DMD, on a serious note, I agree with you. Bob telegraphed his feelings over the past couple years, and I’m sure we’re getting a script with a hidden conspiracy that Kirk, Spock and McCoy defeat in the process. Into Darkness suggests we’re getting some high concept, not just blow’em’up.

510. Chingatchkook - September 8, 2012

I’m kind of of amazed at the number of people who have complained about the title…really, is it that bad? I don’t think so. I’m sure that ‘The Wrath of Khan’ seemed a little unusual in 1982, but that one certainly grew on the fans. In the end, it will be the quality of the movie that will lend credence to the title.

Like the Wrath of Khan, I’m willing to bet that in 30 years, ‘Into Darkness’ will also be a classic.

511. Nick - September 8, 2012

Title sounds fine to me. I won’t judge a book by its cover at this stage.

512. Hugh Hoyland - September 8, 2012

Apocalypse Now is one of my all time favorites to. That is how I wish I could make a movie (if I ever were to make one lol)

513. Danpaine - September 8, 2012

I just told a buddy of mine, who is a huge Trek fan of 30 years – but does not follow ANY Trek boards, the new title. He said….

“What? Oh My.”

There’s one long-time fan’s opinion.

514. Gary S. - September 8, 2012

I like it.
It is mysterious and indicates forward motion at the same time .

515. RyuKen - September 8, 2012

For those who complain about the title, then don’t watch the movie.

516. dmduncan - September 8, 2012

@509: TOS reflected the civil rights tumult of the 1960’s. And TNG reflected the humanist-utopianism of the 1990’s.

So, to be relevant, the sequel should be a reboot of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

517. Matt - September 8, 2012

Should be a great movie, but an awful title. I still like what someone suggested in a comment from a previous trekmovie.com story: Where No One Has Gone Before or some iconic title like that. Doesn’t give anything away, it’s iconic, and it doesn’t follow the same tired pattern of having “Star Trek” in the title.

518. La Reyne d'Epee - September 8, 2012

509: yup, high concept. I’d like some of that. That is when Trek is at its best.

Don’t want it to just be a brainless dumb action movie, which is all I get from what the actors keep saying about it.

519. CAPT KRUNCH - September 8, 2012

I wa still hoping for STAR TREK 2 Electric Boogaloo!
STAR TREK 2 The Edge Of Wetness!.
STAR TREK 2 …a trailer already!!!!

520. Montreal_Paul - September 8, 2012

488. capt sanders
“Please just call it Star Trek II”

Ummm…. NO.

521. Dunsel Report - September 8, 2012

I think it’s a great title that has nothing to do with the Batman titles. It strips away so much pretentious nonsense from Star Trek and reinvents it as something cool and primal about journeying out there into space.

522. PaulB - September 8, 2012

Just call it “Star Trek Too” and move on.

523. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 8, 2012

Why on earth would the producers/writers/director work on a movie with an original screenplay, spend millions of dollars making the movie and then give it a title that is already the name of one of the first episodes of the Star Trek franchise? How original is that? It is not. It is BORING and totally uncreative. It is just a copy. Besides, where we should hear “where no one (or man) has gone before” should be in the beginning of the movie when Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) tells the audience the mission statement – “Space – the final frontier. These are the voyages…to boldly go where no one (man) has gone before.”

Tired old pattern of having Star Trek in the title. This is what it is – STAR TREK and frankly, I couldn’t give squat what other franchises chose as their titles or how their studio/producers/director go about marketing their movies.

Unless Paramount/Bad Robot are simply testing out the title on us folks, it seems that Star Trek Into Darkness will be what the sequel is called. I have suggested other titles, as have many other people, but this is the one they have chosen and it no doubt fits the story – the story nobody knows about. That’s not a bad thing though.

#517 – The actors can only say so much. What would you rather hear them say? – the movie lacks character definition, is clumsy, long winded, slow, tedious, the sets and the stunts suck and they kept falling asleep while saying their lines because they were so desperately bored with what they were saying and doing…Yep – we’ve got a real winner here…;)

524. NCM - September 8, 2012

Star Trek Into the Future

Stark Trek Into the Future

Star Trek Impact

Star Trek Dark Quest

Just foolin’. I like the title well enough; though I tossed it out to a table of fellow Trekkies today, and they were unimpressed. Still, we’re all looking forward to May 17.

525. Aurore - September 8, 2012

….Oh my god….I remember now…..

As a matter of fact, inspired by a man called Anthony Thompson, a poster had somewhat “predicted” the title of the next Star Trek, months ago (post 59):

“….Star Trek 2 : Heart of Darkness Rises : The Apocalypse is Now”



P.S. : Mr. Orci, once again, above all, I hope for an excellent sequel.

526. Bob Tompkins - September 8, 2012

So are they going back to the iconic pointed sideburns in Starfleet for this one?

527. Alex - September 8, 2012

“Historically, including with the 2009 movie, Star Trek has not performed as well as over action tentpole franchises in non-English speaking markets. So apparently a big focus of the testing was to find a title that worked globally. ”

I don’t think this title will work well in Germany, neither translated nor in the original. Just sounds weird to me…

528. DonDonP1 - September 8, 2012

Cool! With respect to naysayers, this official title rules, even though there is not a colon at all.

529. Optimistic Doodle - September 8, 2012

Not a title – an invitation (from Bones?)!

The title invites people to ‘Star Trek’ (verb), ‘Star Trek Into Darknessssss…’.

And yes, the emphasis does seem to recall Star Trek dialogue:
“Space is disease and danger,
wrapped in darkness
and silence.”

Facinating copy!

530. La Reyne d'Epee - September 8, 2012

527: interesting point – don’t honestly see why they need the same title for all global markets. It’s common enough practice for films to have very different titles in different countries (the favourite will always be Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for one of the Bond films). Different languages have differing linguistic concepts that can’t always be precisely translated anyway. Don’t get what the overriding need is there.

531. MC - September 9, 2012


And obviously, audiences responded to “Dark Knight” because it had “dark” in the title, and so this movie will also make a billion dollar.

I hate this so much.

532. MC - September 9, 2012

To be fair, I can’t pass judgment on the title without knowing which major, canon-important planets they plan to offhandedly destroy this time out.

533. trekmaster78 - September 9, 2012

“Star Trek In-two Darkness”!!! Hey!!! :-)

534. trekmaster78 - September 9, 2012

It also could mean “Star Trek (In-)Two(:) Darkness”. Very tricky” :-)

535. Jonny Boy - September 9, 2012

Still a little torn on the title, but for now, here is my take on a title treatment. Couldn’t help myself :)


536. Aurore - September 9, 2012

We’ll see how this will work in France.
A majority of people will probably be fine with the title.

Personally, I was pleased to be reminded of the fact that, sometimes, registered domain names didn’t necessarily end up on the final film….


537. Herb Finn - September 9, 2012


538. Picard's Barber - September 9, 2012

I like it. I think it works great without the colon because it makes “Star Trek” a verb. Like “hey, I’m gonna go star trek into the darkness for a bit. Be back later!”

539. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

( Colons? This ain’t Battlestar Galactica ;-)

Not a title – an invitation… and, a compliment too?
Like… an invisible smiley being part of the title.

“Into the darkness they go, the wise and the lovely. ”
Edna St. Vincent Millay

And remember Reaper Man’s words:

“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong.
No matter how fast light travels,
it finds the darkness has always got there first,
and is waiting for it.”


“This title, it’s exciting!”

540. Jim Nightshade - September 9, 2012

star trek into darkness—-duracell product placement…commercial when jj abrams needs lens flares in the dark what is the only battery jj trusts? the copper top…
star trek turn off the heart of darkness returns….
burger king…into the darkest whoppers cooked extra long…and made to look like saucer section..

541. The Acronym - September 9, 2012

The lack of a colon suggests a “trek into darkness”, so technically it should be STID, which also helps distinguish it from ID. Unfortunately, if you look it up in Google Translate, you’ll see that “stid” means “shame” in Bosnian/Montenegrin/Croatian/Serbian. Overall, they could’ve easily picked a better title.

542. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 9, 2012

They could have named the movie Star Trek Under Darkness, ie STUD, on the Starship Enterprise, ship of sexploration and who better to captain this starship than Captain James T Kirk.

I really think the writers missed a good opportunity here…;)

543. Trekboi - September 9, 2012

Aweful name & without a : it makes no sense.
It is a tragic play on words.

544. P Technobabble - September 9, 2012

I’m not aware if this has already been mentioned, but it seems some people are assuming the “Darkness” in the title refers to some physical location that is dark… like space. Or that it means “dark, without light.” Maybe — if you take it literally…
It need not be referring to something bleak and gloomy either…
However, the “Darkness” could be more of a metaphor, referring to something like a “dark night of the soul” kinda thing — a passage through troubling times, or pain, or loss.

545. BulletInTheFace - September 9, 2012

#331: “The Darkness of Space Never Looked So Bright”?


That would be a horrible marketing slogan.

546. Kirk, James T. - September 9, 2012

Its gonna be:

2009: “Star Trek”
2013: “Star Trek into Darkness”
2016: “Star Trek out of Darkness”

Followed by an animated series called:

“Star Trek”

and a live-action series called:

“Star Trek The Next Generation”

Based upon Gene Roddenberry’s, Star Trek: The Next Generation

547. BulletInTheFace - September 9, 2012

#379: Trek is both a verb and a noun.

548. Kirk, James T. - September 9, 2012

Also why are people so obsessed with short-tounge? STID – no its Star Trek into Darkness.

You don’t go round saying “mum I’m just going to the C and later we’ll be heading out to the R and maybe the B after…”


549. BulletInTheFace - September 9, 2012

#388 and others claiming “Trek” is only a verb: You should at least look a word up before claiming to know its meaning. Here’s the definition:

intr.v. trekked, trek·king, treks
To make a slow or arduous journey; to journey on foot, especially to hike through mountainous areas.

A journey or leg of a journey, especially when slow or difficult.

550. Aurore - September 9, 2012

@105. Roberto Orci

Star Trek Into The Dark Side Of The Force

….Now, here is a title I could “get behind” !


551. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

For those still missing sleep over the missing colon: a creative, visual solution may be on the horizon. So keep those thumbs up!

552. Charles Trotter - September 9, 2012

Whether it’s meant to be literal or metaphorical, the title just seems silly to me. I mean, ‘Star Trek Into Darkness?’ Seriously? It kinda sounds to me like an entry in a sci-fi reimagining of the Crosby/Hope ‘Road to…’ movies. Can’t wait for ‘Star Trek Into Morocco.’

Having said that, I can easily forgive the title as long as the movie turns out great. Besides, it could be worse. They could have chosen one of these titles:

A Trek in the Dark
Long Day’s Star Trek Into Night
Star Trek Through the Tulips
Eternal Star Trek of the Spotless Mind
Good Night, and Good Trek.
Star Trek to Yuma
A Trek to a Kill
Star Trek to Witch Mountain
A Star Trek Is Born
Quantum of Star Trek
Trek Hard
Startrek Blvd.
Star Trek in the Surrey with the Fringe on Top
In the Trek of the Night
The Dark Trek Rises
Star Trek Into Rehab
2 Trek or Not 2 Trek
Star Trek Into Liquid

553. Toonloon - September 9, 2012

I wasn’t crazy about this first but it’s growing on me. Did anyone really think that when they heard the title of ST6 that “yes, that’s it! Perfect !”

I’m excited about the suggested direction of the new movie that this title suggests. It sounds like we’re going to get something new which the TNG movies never managed to pull off.

Boborci – I’m sure you’ve had thoughts about the next movie, going off some of your posts in the past. Do you know if you guys will want to make a sequel a la search for Spock, or your next movie to be a stand alone.

I really can’t wait to see this movie. Hope there’s a trader soon.

554. Miles R. Seppelt - September 9, 2012

Needs a colon.

555. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

Maybe an idea to register the domain name ‘startrektitle.com’ to start brewing sequel titles?

556. Keachicklets - September 9, 2012

Star Trek Into Darkness is fine…it doesn’t need a damned colon!

557. Hat Rick - September 9, 2012

Hey, everyone! We need not fight over titles today! (Although that’s half the fun,of course.)

Too dark, you fear? Well, fear NOT!

In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a news article / comment thread just below this one wishing Star Trek a happy birthday!

In that thread, we can pay obeisance to the opulent optimism we ogle, omnipresently, in Trek!

Let’s add our birthday wishes to this very vital, frightfully frenetic, astoundingly appealing, epically excellent, heartily hailed, marvelously magnificent, and radically radiant postmodern phenom!

It’s the least we can do!


558. Gary Neumann - September 9, 2012

556 Thanks!

559. Star Trek Into Darkness - September 9, 2012

If they want to remove Star Trek in the title the way Batman removed Batman with The Dark Knight then the logical and better title would be one of the following…

Strange New Worlds
To Boldly Go
Where No One Has Gone Before (not sure if this one can be re-used)
The Final Frontier
At the Edge of the Final Frontier
These are the Voyages
The Voyages of the Starship Enterprise
Warp Speed (a terrible title)

Strange New Worlds is probably the best out of this bunch — if the goal is to remove Star Trek from the title. I’m sure one could find more like these. The question is, do any of these fit the story they want to tell? Only they know that answer.

But Star Trek Into Darkness, as has been said many times here, is a terrible title. It’s goofy, pedestrian, fanfic nonsense. Worse, it’s stinks of a studio pandering to the notion that they have to make a dark edgy movie for it to succeed and if they stick the word Darkness in the title, BAM! Dark movie. People will flock to it.

These are better, but only slightly better.. in other words, bland:

Star Trek — Heart of Darkness
Star Trek — Into the Darkness
Star Trek Voyages

The only people who can properly title the movie are the ones who wrote and filmed the movie. As it stands, the proposed title they came up with is a stinker.

560. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

Let us all try to remember just the ‘Star Trek’ bit and go see ‘Star Trek’.
Only then we all can flare into darkness and reexamine the title ;-)

561. Walt Kozlowski - September 9, 2012

# 529 Exactly what I was thinking! Star Trek is a verb! ! Into the preposition and Darkness the noun!

562. Michael - September 9, 2012

Really, this is interesting!


563. Hugh Hoyland - September 9, 2012

I told them to call it “Star Trek The Motion Picture” but they wouldnt listen.

564. NCC-73515 - September 9, 2012

Renegade trailer featuring Koenig and Russ:

565. Gumshoe Garak - September 9, 2012

Variety is reporting that Star Trek Into Darkness uses a cutting-edge new “fade to black” effect, which slowly makes the entire movie darker until the final action-packed climax which is entirely in the dark. Director J.J. Abrams was quoted as saying, “I loved sitting in my family’s living room and listening to radio dramas, like Zero Hour and X Minus One when i was a kid. I wanted to find a way to recreate that experience and bring it to a whole new generation.” Abrams continued, “I think a lot of fans will expect tht the title we chose refers only to the story and tone of our film, but ‘Into Darkness’ will be a much more immersive experience.” In addition to being shot in 3D, STID will be the first major motion picture to require viewers to pay an additinal $5 surcharge for night vision goggles which wll be required to view the 47 minutes of IMAX footage shot entirely in the dark.

566. Douglas - September 9, 2012

#562 you are correct!
Another film titled “INTO THE DARKNESS” premiering in 2013!
And the movie’s trailer is good!!! AHHHHH!!
Mr. Orci, Mr. Abrams…..did you know? Are you going to do anything?
I’m going somewhere to calm down now……
I have to.

567. AJ - September 9, 2012

563: Hugh:

That’s actually very funny.

I recommended “STAR TREK: For the World is Hollow And I Have Touched the Sky” and they lost interest half-way through.

568. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - September 9, 2012

562 Do people even bother to read through the thread before they post info, like they are the first ones to find it or bring it up?

I mentioned that there is another movie with that title, and the two stars of that production way back on comment 121, two days ago, and again on comment 496 yesterday.

and I mean its not even like a lot comments seperate from the one where i mentioned it yesterday and yours from this morning

569. Daniel Craig is My Wookie Bitch - September 9, 2012

566, again I posted that info, 2 days ago, if you read through the entire thread you would have seen that.

570. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

Do you people even know what you are talking about?


Go take a look at all the film titles… they are all stacked titles. None had colons. When people write about them, they put in colons. But NONE HAVE COLONS.

Good Lord people… look at them yourselves. I assume you have this called internet?? I hate when people are whining for nothing.

571. Dolphinboy - September 9, 2012

Anyone remember not long after trek 09 was released Mr bob orci saying that the crazy evil villain had been done to death and that they were thinking more along the lines of the voyage home or motion picture?why does into darkness have to mean evil crazy villain and not literal darkness ie some disaster or something? Peter weller is apparently head of some big corporation could be section 31? Cumby is the villain true but not all villains have to be outright bad. Doesn’t have to be a kahn or nerol type. Just a thought.
As for the title itself I can’t say I really like it but it’s not my call. I just hope it’s more true to trek with the moral dilemmas and poignancy as well as the optimism trek has always been about that trek 09 lacked.

I want a thinker not a stinker!

572. ralph pinheiro - September 9, 2012

It does not matter to me whether or not have colons. I just hope that “supreme court” makes an enjoyable movie of Star Trek

573. 24fps - September 9, 2012

The Abrams trilogy:

Star Trek (2009)
To Boldly Go (2013)
Where No One Has Gone Before (2017)

Seems like a no-brainer. I get the sense the rumored title is the product of extensive studio involvement.

574. wicket - September 9, 2012

I can not wait for the movie. I am just happy to have a new Star Trek story to look forward to.

My fellow Star Trek fans do not seem to be happy anymore unless they are complaining. Lens flares, ship don’t look right, not happy about uniform hats, colon, blah, blah, blah.

All this complaining now about a colon makes me need to go empty my colon.

575. Hat Rick - September 9, 2012

567: It’s so funny because it’s true!


Good stuff, 563 (Hugh)!

576. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

I really think now would be a good time to draw a teasing ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ doodle :-/

577. Walter Kozlowski - September 9, 2012

# 573 perfect titles!

The Abrams trilogy:

Star Trek (2009)
To Boldly Go (2013) starts with to (2)
Where No One Has Gone Before (2017) 4 minus One= (3)

LOL fishing!

578. Andrew - September 9, 2012

I know I’m in the minority but I don’t think the title would make any sense with a colon. It is obviously supposed to be a sentence, using the term trek literally. And I like that. It gives these new films a unique way of titling that sets them apart from the numbering than colon-ing of the 2 previous iterations.

579. Horatio - September 9, 2012

This may have already been covered but i’m not going to go back and read 576 posts. I am at first not inclined to like this title for the new film just because it sounds too much like copying the Batman franchise – something Chris Pine just said they WEREN’T going to do.

580. AJ - September 9, 2012


You touch on a potentially sore, and well-discussed subject: Will JJ do a ‘dark’ Batman-esque drama just to do it “dark?”

Star Trek, by definition, is not ‘dark.’ They did ‘gritty’ on DS9, as it was at the time, but it was always in the Trek vein of ‘mankind pursuing a better future,’ which is a compass-point Trek has never strayed from under many stewards.

Doing Trek “dark” would be like putting Batman in a pink wedding dress at a Spice Girls concert. The ‘dark’ thing is so over, anyway. ‘Batman’s’ last trilogy ended appropriately, but it was its own genre, really.

581. Gary S. - September 9, 2012

The Batman franchise isnt the only movie series that has darkness has darkness has a them
and I think Chris Pine was referring to tone ,
Not Content .

582. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

578. Horatio

Judging from your comment, you obviously didn’t read that article and just the blurb.

583. Walter Kozlowski - September 9, 2012

dark·ness   /ˈdɑrknɪs/ Show Spelled[dahrk-nis] Show IPA
1. the state or quality of being dark: The room was in total darkness.
2. absence or deficiency of light: the darkness of night.
3. wickedness or evil: Satan, the prince of darkness.
4. obscurity; concealment: The darkness of the metaphor destroyed its effectiveness.
5. lack of knowledge or enlightenment: heathen darkness.

Darkness varies! Besides Batman the hero had a dark-side himself. I don’t think that’s the path they are taken with the crew. I think that’s what Pine was saying.

584. Jefferies Tuber - September 9, 2012

Seems like someone is embarrassed by Star Trek. Chris Pine’s clearly engineered words about Star Trek’s comedy not being like Batman now seems like an anticipatory move by the publicity department to address fans will reject what they’re about to do to appeal to non Trek fans. [See: numb tongue].

Anthony did a run down of costuming – aren’t they also introducing a black and grey uniform? That’s Star Trek all right. Cough. They’ll shave all the color and optimism and joy off of Star Trek in no time.

Mark my words. They’re holding back on publicity because they’re changing Trek and they know nerdier Trek fans like me will piss blood and cry, “Havoc!” The comics already tip their hand that this is going to be one of those ‘corruption in Starfleet’ plot lines that rewrites the utopian fantasy of Star Trek and Never. Works. Orci’s the anti-Roddenberry: an anti-socialist gun-loving libertarian.

Get ready to be georgelucased and left in a gutter.

585. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

583. Jefferies Tuber

Wow. I have no idea where you got that from. Not even close buddy.

586. CarlG - September 9, 2012

@583: Thanks for providing me with a chuckle before lunch!

… You’re serious? Oh well, I laughed anyway.

587. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

Not to get lost in any Jefferies tube by manner of speaking, here are the words spoken by Chris Pine:

“We’re not making Batman. There’s comedy but, like the first one, there’s some serious issues being dealt with. And I’d say the threat is even greater in this one. The force [the Enterprise crew] are met with is much more frightening. It’s relentlessly action-packed and in terms of character development it goes places you’d never expect.”

588. IlSisko - September 9, 2012

105. Boborci – September 7, 2012
“Give me your first choice of titles!”

I would have called it “Star Trek The Space Between” ;)

589. Maltz - September 9, 2012

Tired, tired, tired.

Please, God, give this franchise to someone else. And maybe forget movies for a while. Bring it back to TV, and maybe do what Cawley is trying to do. Pick up where we left off at the end of Season 3, don’t pull any time-travel-reboot-alternate-timeline BS.

And let’s get back to good old Star Trek the way it is meant to be.

BTW – Ain’t It Cool is having a field day with this one.

590. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

Couldn’t help myself lighten up the darkness:

“We’re not making Batman Into Darkness. There’s comedy, like titlepicking. You know, serious issues being dealt with. And I’d say the titlepicking is even greater in this one. The comments the Enterprise crew are met with, and In terms of doodle development, it goes places you’d never expect.”

591. Tiberius Subprime - September 9, 2012

The recent issue of SciFi Now magazine ran a small piece on the new film in their upcoming movies section.

Although they do not actually say the villain is Mitchell, they continued to push the idea that this new film could be about Mitchell–despite the fact he died in the comic (an easy thing to undo, by the way).

I’m not saying it is a Gary Mitchell story, but I am very interested as to why they appeared to push that angle.

I’m still hoping for Garth.

592. LJ - September 9, 2012

Without the colon it kind of sounds a little camp to me, maybe akin to ‘Skipping Under the Rainbow’. I, personally, would have preferred it with the colon, as it would have more dramatic impact. Even better would have been to call it simply ‘Into Darkness’, or ‘Into Darkness: Star Trek 2′. Just my humble two-penneth’s worth.

593. Anthony Lewis - September 9, 2012

105. Boborci – September 7, 2012
“Give me your first choice of titles!”

Star Trek Too: How Khan Got His Wrath Back

594. Charley W - September 9, 2012

I’ll agree with what seems to be the majority opinion (at least without a real poll): it’s a TERRIBLE title without a colon; not bad with one.

595. LJ - September 9, 2012

@105 Boborci – it’s kind of hard to suggest a title when we don’t know the plot: why don’t you feed us a little so we can help you out there? Go on: you know you want to! (just messing with you…but some tidbits would be nice).

596. going darkly - September 9, 2012

Ain’t It Cool is the internet equivalent to a rag. Just a bunch of people with nothing to do nit-picking things to death. oh wait, that’s here too!

597. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

594. Charley W

Ummm… can you show me where any other trek movie had a colon?? Every internet search I did showed EVERY Trek movie title STACKED and WITHOUT a colon.

598. Harry Ballz - September 9, 2012

Is it too late for them to add a few more sex scenes and call it……..

Star Trek: For My Leg Is Hollow And You Have Touched My Thigh?

599. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

Beyond the desperate need for a teasing ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ doodle now, a new Star Trek series ought to be on the horizon… as it spawns titles! Discussion supports theory.

600. Jefferies Tuber - September 9, 2012

585. Montreal_Paul – September 9, 2012

What’s not even close, the title, the uniforms, the libertarianism, the Starfleet intrigue in the comics? I don’t know what the plot’s about, but these arrows all point in the same direction. Pine’s comments were clearly anticipatory towards the title.

I don’t need to argue with you, but what do you really know or what evidence do you have that doesn’t come from a publicity assistant?

601. Harry Ballz - September 9, 2012

Hey if the new villain IS Captain Garth, and JJ IS trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars, I’ve got the solution!

The new villain will be…………..(wait for it)…………………..GARTH VADER!

602. Harry Ballz - September 9, 2012

597. “EVERY Trek movie title STACKED and WITHOUT a colon”

Montreal_Paul, Alice Eve is already STACKED, who needs the title to be?

603. Jefferies Tuber - September 9, 2012

585. let me add to the list of arrows pointing in the same direction above: Main villain Bandersnatch Cumberbund photographed in new black Starfleet uniform.

604. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

‘ask nerds’ = ‘darkness’ anagram; how weird is that?

605. Locke for President - September 9, 2012

Didn’t like the title at first, but it has grown on me.

If this weren’t a Star Trek movie. and any other movie came out with a similar title of “Star Voyage into Darkness”, people wouldn’t think twice about it.

Everybody is just hung up on Star Trek being a singular object, instead of reading the title literally. Substitute “trek” with any similar word, and it does make sense. It’s just people are preconditioned to put that pause after Star Trek, and that is the hang-up.

“The Empire Strikes Back” is actually a pretty lame title if you think about it. It was a great movie, people loved Star Wars, so most people didn’t have a problem with the title. I was 12 when it came out, and I accepted it hook, line and sinker. But if the movie came out when I was 44, I’d probably think it was cheesy title to a movie with my adult, 2012 sensibilities.

“Attack of the Clones” sounds really 50’s B movie-ish as well. It went on to make a ton a money. Sure, it wasn’t as good as some of the other Star Wars movies, but people don’t really laugh at that title too much anymore. It’s been accepted, although fans at first thought it was really cornball. Ask a kid who was 12 when that movie came out, and they would think it’s the perfect title to that movie.

606. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

600. Jefferies Tuber

I just don’t see how your post was relevant. You are assuming a lot about a movie you haven’t seen yet. You have no idea what the grey uniforms are… are they to blend in on a mission? Are they a cadet uniform? From everything I have read and seen… the uniforms are still the colored ones from the first. Just curious, do you feel this way about the first 6 movies since TMP all the uniforms were grey and white… and then the other 5 were very naval looking? Or are you one of the fans that feel everything should be TOS and that is it?

607. Weerd1 - September 9, 2012

I like it. There’s immediate “Star Trek” recognition, you get a sense of mystery, and it still presents it to us old-timers as something new.

Look, if I wanted more of the same out of Star Trek, I’ll go pull the TOS DVDs off the shelf. Let’s keep the new look rolling, and when it gets old, we’ll try something ELSE new.

608. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

@603: Interesting, thank you!

Maybe those ‘Men Into Black’ (with disturbing agenda) are explorers, star trekking people into darkness as you will; Cumberbatch being the Khan of the suits? That would illuminate the chosen title.

609. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

603. Jefferies Tuber

Black uniform worn by Cumberbatch = undershirt of the basic uniform (like the one Kirk wore throughout the first movie.)

610. Buzz Cagney - September 9, 2012

#598 that actually made me chuckle, Harry. :-D

611. DeShonn Steinblatt - September 9, 2012

Not nerdy enough!!!!!! This title would suggest that they intend to make money! Are we just going to take it?!!! Are we just going to sit here on our gigantic asses and complain?!!!


Well, carry on then.

612. Buzz Cagney - September 9, 2012

I can’t wait to see what Captain Kirk’s new Batmobile looks like.

613. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

@609: Correct.

Now knowing the title and witnessing the Cumberbatch/Spock battle undress, as well as hearing a “This ain’t your father’s Star Trek” echo, seems to fuel the ‘Starfleet vs. ‘Dark’ Starfleet story idea.
Of course, this remains purely speculative ;-)

Personally, I believe the New Vulcan may be a more realistic element, as this is somewhat a wonderful chance for Vulcans to re-purpose their future, a ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ in its own. A source for conflict within, and opportunity for other races interfering (humans not excluded)… Do remember the Nimoy rumor too.

614. Mawazitus - September 9, 2012

Internal Starfleet conspiracy (perhaps with some sort of connection to an external force). That’s my guess, in broad strokes, for the plot of STID. It would be quite awesome if it somehow involved the Botany Bay, discovered years earlier than in the Prime timeline, the crew having disguised themselves and infiltrated Starfleet. There you go. I’d like to see that movie.

I’ll call it… Star Trek: A Dark Treachery… or something.

615. Markonian - September 9, 2012

How about: Star Trek Into Unknown Darkness.
Adds an implicit “final frontier” element.

616. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - September 9, 2012

Based on a lot of the comments I’ve seen here, I think they should have titled it Star Trek: Jumping to Conclusions ;-)

617. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

616. Shilliam Watner

Boy, do you ever have that right! People here have no idea what the movie is about, haven’t seen any video, only saw a few out of context pictures, know NOTHING about the plot… yet think they know everything about the movie! LoL. What a joke!

618. Gary - September 9, 2012

Just be better than the first movie….. The story SUCKED

619. BulletInTheFace - September 9, 2012

#589: There’s no need to give it to anyone else. Star Trek is in great hands, and is more successful than it had been in years. JJ Abrams made the franchise relevant again.

And Ain’t It Cool News is a steaming pile of crap. None of its staff has any writing ability or journalistic ethics, Harry Knowles is quite possibly the worst writer in the history of writing, and the people who post to the talkbacks are low-class degenerates. So what goes on at AICN is irrelevant.

620. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

@ 618 Gary

Oh yeah. Sucked to a tune of $385,680,446.00.

621. KJ - September 9, 2012

My God, the lack of a colon is causing so much craziness? Some of us Trek fans really have to get our priorities straight.

I’m taking the title as meaning the unknown, as in neither the crew nor the audience knows what the Enterprise will find out in the depths of the “darkness” of space.

622. MC1701B - September 9, 2012

17. Because those in charge of this series do not have the slightest clue what Star Trek is about. They are interested in making entertaining, profitable movies. Star Trek can be that (TVH), or it can be not that (NEM). What it can’t be is the latest mindless turd out of J.J. Abrams’ ass. Which is what this will be.

I am done. More important, my kids (the younger of whom says Super 8 is his favorite movie of all time) are also done. What a horrific way to celebrate the anniversary.

623. Jonboc - September 9, 2012

#622. “I am done.”

…never to return? Or would that be asking too much?

624. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

@621: Indeed it does go with a reported theme that *this* Enterprise crew is still coming together, boldly sailing into the unknown. Mix this with a darkness and the title could sum up major movie elements.

Also, do remember:
Sneaky shots from the set showed Cumberbatch dressed what appears a metallic trench coat and a black shirt with a Starfleet logo, which may point to a traitor in the ranks.
(1) Simon Pegg did say the baddy won’t be “another disgruntled alien”.
(2) Chris Pine: “Trek is at its best when it is making hugely bold moves like [blowing up Vulcan], and there will be hugely bold moves in this one.”

Star Trek Into Darkness… and the discussion continues ;-)

625. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

622. MC1701B

I don’t think anyone will really miss you now that you are “done.” I loved the 2009 movie. I am 45 and have been watching Trek since a kid. I do believe they “got it” and I am a long-time Trek fan… I watched all the Trek TV shows, all the movies, and collect Trek stuff. I found the 2009 was very captivating and I liked what they did with it. I found Trek was feeling stale and not much more could be done that hadn’t been done before. The only choices were: More of the same and risk the franchise dying off completely or taking a new direction and approach without losing the essence. The accomplished taking it “where it had not gone before.”

But you are “done” with Trek… well, so long! It will continue… successfully… without you. Long time fans like me and my friends will still continue to go and enjoy it for years to come.

626. Jefferies Tuber - September 9, 2012

Montreal_Paul – I don’t exactly know how to explain the relevance of my comments, aside from the obvious. We know very little and speculate to pass the time. The factors I’ve listed all point to a darker themed Trek, with obvious generational nods to people who’ve grown up since BLADE RUNNER and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS made optimism uncool.

I felt the same way about the black shirts in the first movie – both that they were a non Roddenberry move and that BC’s shirt was just an undershirt. But later photos show Kirk and Spock in grey creased slacks and a black shirt. BC is essentially wearing that with a TSFS-style rogue Captain jacket. Now comes the DARKNESS title.

Unless I’m mistaken, there were no ‘bad Captains’ until Roddenberry died – they were either driven mad or had the worms. Since then, post-Roddenberry plots have included all sorts of previously verboten intrigues, conspiracies, plots and insurrection.

Anyone who has worked with a PR department or a publicist knows that no press unintentional, especially when the star of your movie explains that ‘it’s funny not dark’ a week or so before the title is announced to be ‘IN DARKNESS.’

Writers, agents, managers and fellow producers and executives have all heard tell of Orci’s … let’s just call it conservative politics. You don’t have to believe me.

So, I don’t know. You can choose to listen to publicists or you can have fun speculating based on facts we can objectively observe.

627. Classy M - September 9, 2012

Regarding the great colon debate: Only *ssholes really need a colon. Of course, the reverse is also true.

628. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - September 9, 2012

617. Montreal_Paul – The level of rage expressed by a small percentage of fandom is kind of unsettling at times. They’re so vocal and post so often that it makes them seem like a larger percentage than they really are. Unfortunately they can hijack a topic and drive away the people who want to talk reasonably. And there ARE reasonable ways to express anger and disagree with somebody.

629. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

626. Jefferies Tuber

No “bad” captains until Roddenberry died?!?!? Um… have you ever watched TOS? Captain Tracey… Captain Garth… black undershirts were in TOS as well. Let’s see, what else? Oh yeah, The crew often wore costumes to fit into a society ie: Nazi Uniforms in TOS.

Listen to publicists? What publicists? There has been no publicity regarding the movie as of yet except for leaked pictures!

In Darkness…. hmmm… Space is dark. Bad guys are usually “dark.” Pine’s comments are his own… he wasn’t promoting the movie. He was asked a question. Wow, you really read too much into nothing. How about you wait until there is actual news about the movie before you judge something. Fact is that you know NOTHING… absolutely NOTHING about the movie except that the title is “Into Darkness” and that Cumberbatch is playing the villain. EVERYTHING else is pure speculation. And you are basing things on speculation and not fact.

630. Jefferies Tuber - September 9, 2012

And not that I really care, because the movies were awesome, but the switch to militaristic uniforms in TWOK did signal a more violent Trek with more black and white morality.

631. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

628. Shilliam Watner

I agree 100% with what you said! So frustrating when people can’t open their minds and their eyes and judge a movie without knowing nothing about it! LoL.

632. Michael Towns - September 9, 2012

The reminds me of the great “filio que” debate that raged in the early Middle Ages. Is the Son of the same substance of the Father, and thus equal, or are they of different substance and thus the Father is superior to the Son?

633. Jefferies Tuber - September 9, 2012

Memory Alpha

on Tracey: Driven to insanity by the loss of his crew and ship, and in violation of the Prime Directive, Tracey struck a bargain with members of the planet’s Kohm faction and participated in their ongoing war against the Yangs.

on Garth: His career dissolved in a dramatic descent into madness

Is that all you’ve got?

It’s naive to think for one second that Chris Pine just randomly spouts off clues about the new movie without the express written approval of Paramount, given that they’ve all signed ironclad confidentiality agreements. When that comment contradicts thew new title exactly…. it’s very clearly a PR play.

Say what you like, but there were no officers walking around in black Starfleet uniforms in classic Trek.

I assume you’re not reading the comics, which KO have said are cannon and include plot hints. eg. A secret faction of Starfleet attempts to recruit Sulu on a secret mission.

Take a breath, Montreal_Paul. I’m not a dingo and I’m not trying to eat your baby. I’m just calling it like I see it.

634. Remington Steele - September 9, 2012

This is hilarious.

I’ve been laughing myself silly the last two days at the utter meltdown on here BECAUSE OF A NAME…

What’s even better is the debate of colon, or indeed, lack thereof.

Have ANY of you seen some of the film? Do you know what it’s about? Do you know the themes that will be in the movie??


You’re crying because the word Darkness is in the title…

This is comedy gold to be fair. I can understand a few small gripes, but this has gone far beyond that, sadly its pretty obvious some people here have taken their general distaste of the title into their daily lives like it is some form of personal insult.

I was hoping it wouldn’t happen when I saw the title, but the comments on here so far have ranged from the understanding to people claiming the name is an insult to everything Star Trek stands for..

Let me re-iterate…IT IS A TITLE. You know nothing about the movie yet beyond a few pictures…

PLEASE try and keep a bit of perspective and stop embarrassing yerselves. I cant believe what I am reading from Star Trek fans, fans who are supposed to be open to all the possibilities, and having panic attacks over a TITLE.

635. Mike Thompson UK - September 9, 2012

Sounds too like Batman to me.

To Boldly Go sounds good.

636. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

633. Jefferies Tuber

And…..? So tell me how you KNOW that this is different? Did you read a press release? Did you see the unreleased movie? Do you have an inside source? Were you on set? Nope. Fact is, you know NOTHING about what this movie is about. So how can you judge this movie?

You do know about a “secret faction of Starfleet” in DS9, Enterprise, TNG and novels. Oh but wait… you are only a fan of the TOS generation stuff. Right? There were hints of a “secret faction” in TOS as well.

And yes… I have been reading the comics since the Gold Key comics. Like I said… I am a Trek collector and love everything Trek. I’m 45 and find that there is more to TOS when you read the interviews with Roddenberry and how his “extended Trek universe” also included a darker, secretive faction within Starfleet.

I think you need to wait until the movie comes out before judging it. You are jumping to wild conclusions. There are 2 facts we know of… the title and who is playing the villain. So from those 2 facts… you were able to extrapolate what you did. Wow. Conspiracy theories abound!

637. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 9, 2012

Hey everyone – I am NOT keachicklets! The keachicklets I know are tucked up in their mountain burrow keeping warm by all the newspaper they took from a man’s padlocked letterbox, giving their little beaks a workout pulling apart expensive gold watches and other shiny jewellery that generous tourists left about while their dad is crashed out because he’s sipped too much of someone’s wine sitting on a table of an outdoor cafe…There’s also a half-eaten subway and wrapper and I’m not sure what the snapped off part of a TV aerial is doing in the corner…

As for me, I was tucked up in my warm bed, since it was night – darkness makes sleep so easy and relaxing and it is now 10 September, 6.46am.

The black undershirt has always been part of the Starfleet uniform, You would often see Kirk and other crew wear it under their colour uniforms from the TOS series. Dr McCoy had the young rankless Kirk wear that – must be standard issue for anyone on a Starfleet vessel. Black pants are also the norm.

I don’t know what the deal is with the grey pants we saw “Kirk” and “Spock” wearing, in some of *leaked* pictures, but I can tell you, they fitted the guys well because they were better designed and tailored than the black pants ever were. Perhaps the grey wear was the *uniform JJ Abrams had the actors wear, when they weren’t actually filming scenes in their proper costumes. Who knows…anything is possible…:)

Star Trek Into Darkness is not a sentence. It is a phrase. Both “star” and “trek” are nouns. The star(s) is not trekking (verb) into darkness – they are already there, bringing light to the dark. “Trek” is NOT a verb. Perhaps if the title was A Star Trek into Darkness, it might make more sense to some, however the Federation/Starfleet by this time make many treks (small and large) into space on many different ships, so using “a” wouldn’t really work.

When I don’t think about other dark movies, as in dark in tone and lighting – Dredd looks dark in every sense of the word – ugh, then the title does not seem so bad. Personally I have never really been afraid of the darkness of night and have good memories of travelling down the North Island with my family at night when I was a child. I loved lying in the back seat (no seat belts then) and staring out at the night sky as we drove on. The air and sky was so clear with deep blue/black colour, especially going along the Desert Road, near the mountains…:))

638. Xai - September 9, 2012

@anthony. Sir, a post like 622 is allowed in this thread, but mine about nitpickers in the “happy birthday” thread appears to have been removed?

639. Captain Adam T. Monroe - September 9, 2012

@startrek #MirrorMirror of the Star Soul/Trek into Darkness man shall go/If he should die before he Wakes/I pray the Mirror His soul to take

640. Red Dead Ryan - September 9, 2012

Based on some of the asinine anti-J.J whining going on here, maybe the next Trek documentary should be called:



641. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

640. Red Dead Ryan

For once, I completely agree with you RDR.

642. Christian - September 9, 2012

“Star Trek Into Darkness” is cool.

A lot better than just “Star Trek” like they did for the 2009 film.

643. Optimistic Doodle - September 9, 2012

I guess now we wait for something more than a title…

644. Henrik - September 9, 2012


645. The Observer - September 9, 2012

622. MC1701B – September 9, 2012
I am done.

You registered yet another sock puppet just to say that?

646. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 9, 2012

#584 – “Orci’s the anti-Roddenberry: an anti-socialist gun-loving libertarian.”

WTF? You have no evidence to make such a statement nor does it even make sense. Why should Bob Orci be anti-Roddenberry? If I recall correctly, he grew up on Star Trek: The Next Generation and said it was his favourite series. TNG has GR written over it, especially the utopian aspect of what he envisioned life in the 24th century to be like. It was other people who made Star Trek “darker” with Starfleet/Federation being more militaristic and having to deal with darker, more antagonistic foes (DS9).

As far as his present politics are concerned, they are his business, not yours. I have no idea where he stands on gun control or socio-economics.

647. LizardGirl - September 9, 2012

As interesting as Star Trek Into The Darkness is, it kind of puts a limit on what darkness actually means. If you just say “darkness”, it could be any or a combination of the definitions of darkness. If you say “the darkness” it points to one aspect of the word, which may be too restrictive. Into Darkness rolls off the tongue better.

There’s another movie coming out called Into the Darkness? Well, Star Trek into Darkness sounds a lot more cooler (really, which one would you rather see anyway). Also, we don’t have that pesky “the” in our title! ;)

648. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 9, 2012

Remember that it is also possible to have fun in the dark…a LOT of fun…;)

649. Doug Haffner - September 9, 2012

#584: Shouldn’t this be: Orci: Anti-Roddenberry , Anti-socialist, Gun-loving Libertarian.
I ask so that I can make sure the new t-shirts have it right. I don’t know if Bob (I feel like I can call him Bob now that I know he’s Anti-Roddenberry, Anti-socialist, Gun-loving AND a Libertarian.) has time to get them made, so I’ll work on it. I feel like Necromancer should be in there somewhere, but it’s difficult to find the right spot. Would it be forward of me to ask if we could shorten it some? How about Orci: Necromancer? Maybe the graphic could be a gun with ketchup on it? I’m just spitballing here. Do Anti-socialists even eat ketchup? I’ll have my people check on that.

650. Dadio - September 9, 2012

Star Trek into Darkness

The Universe hides a secret, a terrible past, something so ancient and dark that it still remains hidden and silent, conceled and waiting since the begining of time until it was called upon by a inconceivable evil.

The crew of the Enterprise learn from a group of mysterious Rebels about the true nature of there reality and there war against its controllers of the Darkness.

Kirk and crew must find a way to stop the brotherhood of Darkness in order to save the Universe.

651. Doug Haffner - September 9, 2012

#584 I’ve got a version 1 design. Bad news, though. It turns out the ketchup is antithetical to Anti-socialists…so the gun is condiment free. I took the liberty of picking a more traditional approach to the gun. We think this is the type he used to shoot Roddenberry…more later on that.


652. Iowagirl - September 9, 2012

I think the title…fits well.

653. bardicjim - September 9, 2012

GR created Star Trek, but let us not forget that there is a massive list of complete donkeys that he created too.

654. DS9 Forever - September 9, 2012

Sounds like a book about Deep Space Nine

655. Kirk, James T. - September 9, 2012

So many fans here have given the world a reason to believe that Trekkers/Trekkies are just completely pathetic, stuck in the past, with their minds closed to anything but the made-up-by-fanboys gospel of Roddenberry. How utterly dissapointing and how completely embarrassing that so-called fans of an optimistic and hopeful myth could be so childish and so pathetic.

Roddenberry would be completely ashamed of all of those being so petty over the title of a movie we know nothing about but of which I am sure will be as good as the first if not better.

If you are so pathetic to judge a movie by it’s “cover” I urge you to walk away, Star Trek has moved on and if you can’t move with it, accept that and move on yourselves.

Completely disgusting.

Bring on (if it is to be) STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS and lets see a Star Trek that takes us to the final frontier and puts those who are so petty and unworthy of liking such a franchise to shame.

656. Loretta Andrade Trekker forever - September 9, 2012

Just looking forward to the movie and hopefully a new TV series. Star Trek lives forever. It is still great and I have been there since the start. Love my folks.

657. IowaFarmBoy - September 9, 2012

nice title, its definitely an original and literal expression of the meaning of Star Trek.
Now maybe they can build a movie set that resembles a realistic Bridge. Instead of that “IKEA showroom” movie set, then we could find ourselves ensconced in the inflated theatre recliners while the story unfolds.
Also they could tone down the Lens Flares some.
STTOS Trekkie

658. John - September 9, 2012

I want to know at least, a little bit of the plot. I’m hoping for MirrorMirror. That’ was one of my favorite OTS episodes! Where as Into The Darkness is a good title, Mirror, Mirror and Out Of The Darkness are better choices. They have more mystery about them.

659. The Director - September 9, 2012

Sounds like “Star Trekking Across the Universe” to me. Guess I need a trailer to give it a bit more depth.

660. JB - September 9, 2012

So they are making Batman after all. How creative.

661. billiam - September 9, 2012

Star Trek Into Darkness, a movie about a black hole at the center of JJ Abrams brain, sucking every bit of info away from the public.

Title means nothing without some context to go with it!!

662. Will - September 9, 2012

I genuinely hope they rethink the use of the colon… Star Trek : Into Darkness reads like a story in the Star Trek Universe. Star Trek Into Darkness reads like some hipster thinks he’s clever but in actuality he isn’t.

663. Craiger - September 9, 2012

The Dominion Return

664. Captain Tired of Star Trek Nerds Getting Moist Over Little Details - September 9, 2012

Although I appreciate the news, I cant believe the big stupid deal people are making over the title of this movie. I am pretty sure when the plot is revealed people will get the title. In the mean time shut up, I mean the movie doesnt come out until next year. Star Trek fans are the most annoying fans on Earth. They bitch and moan about every little thing. I am sooo glad they rebooted the franchise. Absolute nonsense some of the comments from you morons make over the title of a movie you know nothing about.

Gary Mitchell has already been dealt with in the comics series. That is
why they did a comic for all you salivating nerds who cant wait till 2013.
Why the hell are they rebooting it if they are going to rehash 40 year old story lines? Bob Orci did say that Cumberbath’s Character is canon. Who it is I have no idea? I would like to be surprised. Its a new Universe with new interpretations.

I am also annoyed with these Trek purists who want light hearted sappy moments. Star Trek is entertainment and a business. When Rick Berman made films for fans it killed Next Gen at the movies. It was a mess. These films are based in the lore but when they did the alternate reality thing it left the door way wide open for all kinds of outcomes. I am going to avoid this site from now on. Its annoying and pointless. I want to be surprised and I am tired of Nerd theories.

665. Captain Tired of Star Trek Nerds Getting Moist Over Little Details - September 9, 2012

Seriously you muther suckers are debating a colon? a colon? (Shaking my head) Okay Im done. A fracking colon? Damn you would think Star Trek was real the way some of you act. Oh hold on there is a naked Orion girl in my room. I will talk to you guys later….

666. Captain Tired of Star Trek Nerds Getting Moist Over Little Details - September 9, 2012

Cumberbath is portraying Mitchell Agustus Romney descendent of the 21st Century President. He wants to spread conservatism across the universe on the USS Limbaugh and Kirk and Crew have to stop him as he attempts to squash same sex marriage in the Beta Quadrant. Guest Starring Tyler Perry as Admiral Madea. …Okay Im done…

667. Captain Tired of Star Trek Nerds Getting Moist Over Little Details - September 9, 2012

Okay seriously into Darkness sounds cool. I personally think that Cumberbatch is Flint. That would be very cool.

668. van archer - September 9, 2012

this is all their creative team could come up with?
its no wonder Star Trek 2009 sucked.

Star Trek

669. Jefferies Tuber - September 9, 2012


640. Red Dead Ryan – September 9, 2012
Based on some of the asinine anti-J.J whining going on here, maybe the next Trek documentary should be called:



670. Craiger - September 9, 2012

What if Cumberbatch is Gary Mitchell but he doesn’t get GOD like powers he becomes a renegade Starfleet officer and wants to incite a war with the Klingons? However at the begning of the movie his a crewmember of the Enterprise and one of Kirk’s friends not sure if he would still be his best friend at the Academy because I think McCoy was during this new timeline.

671. Craiger - September 9, 2012

Also maybe Mitchell is a Section 31 agent and sees the Klingons as a threat to the Federation.

672. Perplex - September 9, 2012


“over the title of a movie we know nothing about but of which I am sure will be as good as the first.”

Sounds like a threat…

What you ad hominem people never seem to get: It’s not a problem that something is new (storywise, I would say otherwise, though). How they made it new is, what matters.
And from the title itself, you can extrapolite one or two things.

673. Craiger - September 9, 2012

However I just remembered did Orci say that the reboot Trek comics are canon? In those Mitchell does get the GOD like powers.

674. Bill Peters - September 9, 2012

Ok why the JJ hate here? We haven’t even seen the Film and people are hating it? Really I am going to hold Judgement tell I see the Film thanks, it not like I can tell how good or bad it will be.

675. Jefferies Tuber - September 9, 2012

636. Jim Kirk would jump to conclusions.

JJ can do far worse than kill Star Trek. He can hurt Star Trek. And then go on… hurting Star Trek. JJ can leave Star Trek as Rick Berman left Star Trek, as Stuart Baird left her. Marooned for all eternity, in the center of a dead planet… buried alive. Buried alive.

Damn it we need more information. But we should not hesitate to speculate, jump to conclusions or otherwise chase dragons in Star Trek’s defense.

676. Dave - September 9, 2012

They should just call it “Another Star Trek” or “A Second Star Trek”. Because that is what people are going to call it. Not Into Darkness.

677. StephenH - September 9, 2012

I like it. Not sure there were very many alternatives anyway.

It avoids having a number in it. What would you number it anyway? II? XII? Or maybe VII?

And it avoids the bloody colon. I think Lindelof was onto something when he said the colon embodies everything that turns people off of ST. A colon in the title literally translates as Star Trek: Yet Another Movie.

Also ST is short on names and catchphrases that could work without ‘Star Trek’ in the title. Enterprise is already taken. To Boldly Go sounds about as lame-O as you can possibly get. And there isn’t really anything else I can think of that speaks in the way The Dark Knight does, in which people say “Oh I know… that’s Batman, right?”

So instead they’ve found a title that plays on the name ‘Star Trek’. It’s not what I was expecting, but I don’t know what I was expecting. It’s better than anything I would’ve had.

678. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - September 9, 2012

I have no problem with speculation, but when people begin condemning the film based solely on rumors, a few stills and a title, I find there’s an agenda involved. And there IS a difference between condemnation and speculation.

Buy hey, whatever.

679. Daoud - September 9, 2012

Dorkness Rules! Anyhoo… just get some sort of promo trailer going with the old Orson Welles voice on:
It will startle your senses; challenge your intellect…
And alter your perception of the future; by taking you there…
The human adventure is just beginning…
Chris Pine is Captain James T. Kirk
Zachary Quinto is Mr. Spock
Karl Urban is Doctor Leonard Bones McCoy
Simon Pegg is Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery Scott
John Cho is Lt. Cmdr. Sulu
Alice Eve is Dr. Christine Chapel
Anton Yelchin is Lt. Pavel Chekov
Zoe Saldana is Lt. Uhura
Benedict Cumberbatch is….. [ Khan | Garth | ??? ]

680. Andy Patterson - September 9, 2012

Some guy over at Ain’t It Cool says it will for ever be known as ‘STD’. Funny.

Another one says :



Read some of the comments over there.
That Harry has some funny followers sometimes.

681. Jefferies Tuber - September 9, 2012

674. Ok why the JJ hate here?

No hate, but he deserves a great deal of heat for making SUPER 8. Directors like Jackson, Cameron, Raimi and Nolan commit to their franchises and it makes a difference. JJ went off and made a novelty film that delayed Trek two years. It was a loss of momentum and sets a precedent for longer delays between movies. All bad.

682. shaggy5483 - September 9, 2012

I would like to point out that Star Trek Nemesis, the one movie they were specifically trying to divorce themselves from, didn’t include a colon in the title. Way to go guys…

683. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 9, 2012

Oh for goodness sakes, stop living in the past. Super 8 has been and done. Same with Nemesis.

Your ordinary, more sensible joe-public couldn’t give a squat about the fact that a movie was delayed, that a title doesn’t have a colon and other such bs.

Everywhere I go, I read much the same rubbish. Such little minds, really. If this sounds condescending, you know what they say about wearing the cap…:(

684. Commodore Adams - September 9, 2012

I have no problem with the name, it actually intrigues me. Insignificant details aside like the lack of colon and number, it hopefully denotes something I want from a star trek movie, some darkness. Its what made the last 4 seasons of DS9 amazing. The opening scene of Star Trek with the Kelvin was intense to say the least and in its own way extremely enjoyable, it was and announcement that the upcoming Star Trek movies by Orci, Kurtz, and JJ were going to be different, interesting and intriguing with good old cowboy diplomacy.

I was also thrilled when we learned that Klingons would be in the film. I am still crossing my fingers for some epic space battles and some decent ‘badassery’. Some people will say that these elements are not what make Star Trek and that is absolutely true, but non the less its fun to see these elements in Star Trek every now and then.

To the people saying that these Star Trek movies have Star Wars influences and Star Trek Into Darkness will have influences from The Dark Knight, its inevitable that things of the past will influence what is to come. Every film is influence by movies which have come before.

Larger budget, feet on the ground from the first movie, all the secrecy. I am extremely excited to see Star Trek Into Darkness. So much so that I am only going to watch the movie trailers whenever they are released and avoid reading any spoilers. I love the intense secrecy with this movie regardless of the few leaked photos of Spock, Cumberbatch, Saldana, Pegg and Yelchin in dress uniform. Being only 8 months away, the secrecy is far more successful with this film (so far) than the 2009 movie.

685. Ahmed - September 9, 2012

Well, I just hope that after 4 long years, the sequel will be worth the waiting.

Meanwhile, I’m getting really excited about the new The Wachowski movie, “Cloud Atlas”.

686. Kirk, James T. - September 9, 2012

@672 Perplex,

Oh blah…

Listen, there was nothing wrong with the direction creative or otherwise, JJ Abrams and his team has taken Star Trek in – Infact it’s fantastic that different people have different views on what Star Trek is. From Gene Roddenberry, Harve Bennet, Nicholas Meyer, Rick Berman, Ronnald D. Moore, Ira Steven Beir right through to JJ Abrams. It is what the creative team behind it want it to be.

In this itteration of Trek it’s very much back to the spirit of the original updated (very successfully so far) to conform to what modern audiences today expect from big budget action adventure movies – when the flame is passed onto a new guardian, it will be theirs to reinvent again.

Part of the problem in the late 90’s is that it was stuck with the same creative people for too long.

It doesn’t matter whether or not they’ve taken the right direction. What matter’s is whether or not your going to like it or not like it, if not then you’ve really got to ask yourself why you insist on commenting on something that doesn’t interest you….

The facts are there for everyone to see,the 2009 movie did exceptionally well, took in a huge amount of money for a franchise just 7 years prior was dead. Critics loved it, fans loved it and most of all, it’s still remembered and remembered fondly. The majority of Star Trek fans enjoy it in whatever form it takes and just take each adventure as they come and judge them on their own merits. The fact that some, and it is just some fans, can’t grasp rationality and even give JJ Abrams a chance, picking apart the stupidest things speaks to the intelegence and mental attitudes of those fans more than it does the integrity of the decisions creative people take in putting their ideas onto film.

687. RetroWarbird - September 9, 2012

It’s a clever approach, and that kind of cleverness is something I appreciate in title-selection … just not in the kind of overuse of it in every regard by most modern script-writers. Star Trek ’09 wasn’t the worst offender ever, but I did think it tried to be a little too clever with the material. But I like this! Because by using Trek as a verb rather than a Noun, you get an absolute ton of mileage out of it. After all, you can Trek to someplace, Trek from someplace. It’s highly applicable, and reminiscent of the kind of pulpy old titles you’d get in a proper classic serial format, which makes it highly appropriate for a reboot of the original Star Trek.

Now – while I like what they’ve done, the switch from Noun to Verb that could still, if you switch the emphasis, could be part of the titular Noun – I really like what this does, even think it opens up the franchise … (though I would’ve reminded the writers that you can place words Before the title, not just after it.)

“… Into Darkness” is awfully rote, derivative and cliche at this point, isn’t it? It just summons images of … you know, EVERYTHING ever that wants to be edgy. Even Trek, which I know full well our creative team respects enough to come out of darkness with a lighter, more idyllic, progressive message about overcoming darkness … perhaps it’s just the actual word itself; “Darkness”, that’s not doing it for me. It may as well be “Star Trek Into Edginess” with the way “Dark” gets thrown around these days for that purpose.

But again, I really like what it opens up here; I can think of a half-dozen titles off hand. “Star Trek To the Edge of the Galaxy”, “Star Trek From Beyond”, “Star Trek Into Danger”. See … “Into Danger”, that’d touch my nerve.

688. Erik - September 9, 2012

Star Trek There And Back Again!

689. VulcanFilmCritic - September 9, 2012

Space is disease and danger after DARKNESS and silence. Hmmmmmm…
So is McCoy going to get it this time?

690. gingerly - September 9, 2012

Obviously, this is prequel about Spock’s relationship with Uhura. ;)

691. Dee - lvs moon' surface - September 9, 2012

HAHAHAHAHAH …. OMG…… Who is “Keachicklets”? … I hope, Mr. Orci if you are reading these comments you’re having great fun …. LOL

;-) :-)

692. Walt Kozlowski - September 9, 2012

How does this title spark international interest???

693. Ken Byrd - September 9, 2012

690…………..Well played

694. Craiger - September 9, 2012

I got it 133 Admiral Archer is after Scotty for not finishing out his sentance on Delta Vega. LOL.

695. Walter Kozlowski - September 9, 2012

STAR TREK into the 3D

696. A14U - September 9, 2012

“Into Darkness” sounds like something tacked-on to a hundred other miserable, cynical, depressing modern sf / horror films with cheesy CGI and gore effects. Bad, bad choice for something as wonderful as Star Trek once was.

697. A14U - September 9, 2012


Same thing crossed my mind. The new title…uh…sounds like an STD!

Forgive them, Gene, for they know not what they do.

Why not just call it STAR TREK: NIGHTBEAST.

698. dmduncan - September 9, 2012

Dark of the Moon was a great title. Much better than the film that had it.

Edge of Darkness is already taken by a film I really like.

Quantum of Solace is great.

A Blind of Lies

A “blind” is a camouflaged structure hunters use to hide under so their prey cannot see them and will approach close enough to shoot.

Cloak of Treason

It sounds like the “darkness” of Into Darkness is metaphorical. “Abyss” can be the same way.

If the story has a crucial dilemma, then both halves of it can be referenced to become a cool title of a sort that I dug out of Shakespeare in #505:

More Than Kin, Less Than Kind
Rise By Sin, By Virtue Fall

(And no, I’m not actually suggesting those as titles, but merely using them as examples).

If it was truly about Khan you could make a title out of words used by Khan in TWOK:

Perdition’s Flames

In fact, you could probably dig out a load of Miltonian references for titles just as you could out of Shakespeare.

Now if the movie is about Khan, here would be a case where secrecy actually hurts your good title choices. Because if you are so concerned about letting on that it’s Khan, then you cut out a whole possible segment of choices that could let on that the movie is about Khan. And somewhere in that segment would be some great titles that you feel you can’t use.

A Miltonian title would probably act as a clue which they do not want to give.

The downside to that strategy is that we WILL know it is or is not Khan before we actually see the movie, so the secrecy will not last — at least not for the vast majority of us — until we are seated in the theater.

But the effect of the secrecy on your title options lasts forever.

So it could be they chose Into Darkness because it was the best SAFE title they could come up with.

699. Anthony Pascale - September 9, 2012

anyone else come up with your own posters or type treatments ?

700. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - September 9, 2012

698. dmduncan – I love Edge of Darkness also. That movie haunted me for days afterward.

701. gingerly - September 9, 2012

As for first choice of subtitle…

The Mission
New Life
New Worlds

702. gingerly - September 9, 2012


I’ll add my treatment tomorrow. ;)

703. gingerly - September 9, 2012

Okay, here’s my treatment:


704. Platitude - September 9, 2012

This comment thread is out of control.

Loved Star Trek 2009, I’m sure I will love the next one regardless of if its title.

705. Gary Neumann - September 9, 2012

I hope we get to see more of the enterprise, inside and out :)

706. Zinc Saucier - September 9, 2012

It sounds like one of those Wheel of Fortune “Before and After” puzzles.

Oyster Rockefeller Plaza
Moby Dick Tracy
The Empire Strikes Back to the Future

When did colons become uncool exactly. I’ve always liked subtitles.

707. xeos - September 9, 2012

I think it could look good in type. It depends on how this film is presented.

708. xeos - September 9, 2012

oops forgot to actually post my mockup:



709. xeos - September 9, 2012

smaller version, sorry about the 3 posts…


710. dmduncan - September 9, 2012

700: “698. dmduncan – I love Edge of Darkness also. That movie haunted me for days afterward.”

As it should have.

711. dmduncan - September 9, 2012

709. xeos – September 9, 2012

Yeah man. No damn colon necessary. The font size and difference does the same thing.

712. Dunsel Report - September 9, 2012

Amazed that people can think J.J. Abrams killed the true spirit of Star Trek when Deep Space Nine ended with Sisko being possessed by some kind of dumb space ghosts.

713. Gary S. - September 9, 2012

#710 Edge of Darkness, The Mel Gibson film?

714. somethoughts - September 9, 2012

boborci can you share with us the other titles you guys were considering?

I am curious if I like the other ones more.

715. Red Dead Ryan - September 9, 2012


Sisko wasn’t possessed by “some kind of dumb space ghosts”. He was called back to the Celestial Temple (wormhole) by the Prophets as part of the deal he made with them to help him save Bajor. Watch the episode again.

716. Harry Ballz - September 9, 2012

Those who want to protect the tradition of a colon in movie titles shall from here on be known as….colonists.

Sheesh, next thing you know, they’ll want their own country!

717. Daoud - September 9, 2012

@716… yeah, and the compromisers who will go half way….

718. Nony - September 9, 2012

@699 Tried my hand at a poster sort of thing. I can never help myself when it comes to this damn fandom.

Little decent viewing size version:


Humungo grainy I-don’t-have-the-hang-of-size-and-resolution-in-Photoshop version:


719. Red Dead Ryan - September 9, 2012


HEE HEE! Another good one, Harry!

And would the leader of the colonist militia be a……colonel?

720. Gary S - September 9, 2012

Sisko was clearly with the Prophets at the end of DS9.
Not sure about this posession thing .
Wasnt Dukat being assisted by the Pagh Wraiths in his fight with Sisko?
Maybe thats where the “Space Ghosts thing comes from.

721. WillH85 - September 9, 2012

Now that I take some time to think bout it, this sounds like a title they’d give to a Transformers movie and that’s a pretty low standard right there. I just hope the movie’s better than the title.

722. Joe35 - September 9, 2012

Sounds incredibly lame, but then again that IS in keeping with J.J. Abrams’ butchering off — I mean, take on — “Star Trek.”

723. Harry Ballz - September 9, 2012

If they made the next movie about a young Jim Kirk becoming the next great thing in Starfleet, and showing up all the other captains, how about………..

A Star Trek Is Born

(runs and hides)

724. Captain Huggy Bear Sybok Sisko - September 9, 2012

@722. Explain how can you butcher something that was already being butchered by the previous gatekeepers of the franchise? The franchise had grown stale and the gatekeepers were arrogant and completely misunderstood the audience they were dealing with. Nemisis was ambitous but directed at Trek faithful. JJ breathed new life into a concept that was dying. How many years were we supposed to watch Bill Shatner in a girdle and a tight red uniform? At some point I figured someone would want to revisit the original series because it was ripe for a reboot. If anything he saved it. Rick Berman was the butcher my friend. The original sereis lasted three seasons and the films were either hits or misses. Trek suffered from playing it too safe spotty conitunity and some rather stupid concepts and ideas. Patrick Stewart is cool but an old bald guy aint going to get people in the seats. A over weight ego driven legendary actor nor a broad in her seventies in a short skirt wont get people to the movies. Trek needed a shot in the arm. So tired of these Roddenberry purists who think Gene would have been outraged blah blah. The original Battlestar Galactica though nostalgic was garbage. New Battlestar rocked. The days of lighthearted Spock vulcan pinches dudes on a bus are over.

The fact that many of you are on here bitching about a title about a movie you know nothing about is amazing to me.

Hey Pascale tell ORCI and Kurtz I said hell of a job on the last movie.

Ask ORCI if Neros incursion changed the tone of the “Alternate” Universe. I imagine his incursion and what they learned had ramifications on everything.

Okay thats my nerd self talking. I am going to get a lap dance from an Orion Slave girl. No Seriously, I am……

725. me - September 9, 2012

lets get back to TNG !

726. me - September 9, 2012

bring on the shatner SHATNER ROCKS NO MATTER HOW OLD ! STRAP ON HIS GIRDLE ! HES READY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

727. Gary S. - September 9, 2012

No need to run and hide.
That made me laugh.
Got any more ?

728. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

668. van archer
” this is all their creative team could come up with?
its no wonder Star Trek 2009 sucked.
Star Trek

And you can judge all this and come to the conclusion by the title of the movie? Wow. Talk about incredibly close-minded.

729. dmduncan - September 9, 2012

713. Gary S. – September 9, 2012

#710 Edge of Darkness, The Mel Gibson film?


The Martin Campbell film, which stars Mel Gibson and Ray Winstone.

730. LizardGirl - September 9, 2012

ooh, pretty!

731. Phil - September 9, 2012

@668…well, if sucking means the most successful film in the history of the franchise, well, here’s to more sucking…..

Yeah, yeah, I know. Still no Hugo Award…..

732. John Cooley - September 9, 2012

Bob, ugh…
This title…it’s bad. And, it will be mocked incessantly. Joel McHale and Chris Hardwick (The Soup and The Nerdist) will be especially unkind regarding this title. In fact, I’ve already heard some great lines about this title from others in the industry and blogosphere. If the intent was to seem cool, or at least cooler than the Star Trek titles used in the past, well try harder. “Star Trek in to Darkness” ? It doesn’t work. Clumsy is the word I would use for it. Quick! The drawing board, run back to it!!!

733. Montreal_Paul - September 9, 2012

Joel McHale and Chris Hardwick and Harry Knowles are hacks. They have no idea what they are talking about and are very un-funny.

Can you image what people would be saying if the title was “Boldly Go”… think if it… “Boldly Blow.”

Into Darkness sounds great as a title and it is different that the stuff that has already been out there. When Wrath of Khan came out… people were all snickering at the title. Generations was very generic. Insurrection was a horrible title and a horrible movie.

Star Trek
Into Darkness

Works really well. Nice job guys. Don’t listen to the idiots getting all up in arms about “OMG!!! There is no colon!! It’s gonna suck!!” These are the same people that will see the movie 5 times and buy the bluray.

734. TREKWEBMASTER - September 9, 2012

What is this “dark” or “darkness” theme going around lately? Since Batman came out, it seems everything blew up with “DARKNESS?”

Now Star Trek Too? Man, just when we needed some light in these “dark” times, pardon the pun, and I so had hoped that Star Trek would be “unique,” but seems like we’ll just have to live with the “darkness.”

You guys could have named it “Into the Void,” or “Blackness,” or hell, even “Star Trek Sub-luminance.” Darkness has already become cliche.

Where’s my flashlight?

735. Phil - September 9, 2012

Oh, Boldly Go never had a snowballs chance in hell. Way to easy to riff on it….Boldly Go Away, Boldly Blows, and it begged the question, what if they didn’t ‘Boldly Go” anywhere? Likewise, Where No Man Has Gone Before would just be fodder for late night comics for a generation. Any title based on a part of the opening monolouge would have opened up the film to tremendous ridicule if did live up to the title…

736. Dunsel Report - September 9, 2012

#720: That’s what I meant, the “Pah-Wraiths” that seemed to be possessing everyone in order to fulfill ancient prophecies from Babylon 5 that Sisko had to prevent by throwing himself into a Lord of the Rings-like fire pit.

I just can’t understand how that stuff was more Star Trek than the new one.

737. rm10019 - September 9, 2012

Beyond The Light

Same meaning, more Trek sounding to me.

738. dmduncan - September 9, 2012

Well if you did a more “optimistic” sounding riff like Out of Darkness, you’re basically telling the potential viewer “all’s well that ends well.” You are telegraphing a happy ending.

Whereas Into darkness does not say that they will get back out of it. Of course we all believe they will…but…these guys blew up Vulcan…so you can’t be sure…

Into Darkness makes me want to see how it turns out whereas something like Out of Darkness answers the question of how it turns out before I’ve even seen the movie.

739. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - September 9, 2012

No matter what they named the film, somebody would mock it. There is no possible title that wouldn’t have been the subject of ridicule. None. Nada. Zero. Zip.

It’s a fine upstanding young title.

740. Fiona Sky - September 9, 2012

Ruh-roh …

I’ve got a feeling it’s Spock who’s going to be journeying into Darkness … a twist on the *other* Star Trek II.

Silly idea, born of an intuition based on Quinto saying he was “glad it was over” (and yes, I know, he’s contracted for 3 movies).

741. Harry Ballz - September 9, 2012

Great, if they kill off Spock in this one, the third movie will be entitled, “The Search For Schlock!

742. Fiona Sky - September 9, 2012

Oops I goofed. Just watched the Quinto sound bites again. Nowhere did he say “glad it’s over”.

But he did say lots of mature actorly stuff, with maybe some implications for those of us desperately seeking news, any news ….

But the title … MEH.

743. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bich - September 9, 2012

620 Box office gross doesnt equate to a good story.
Seriously Do you think Transformers Revenge of the fallen was a good movie and good story? That made of 400 million DOMESTICLY, by your logic the fact that it made even more money DOMESTICLY than star Trek did Domesticly(257 million here North America)

A movies quality and commerical success do NOT go hand in hand

And for the record, I liked star trek 09 just pointing out the flaw in your comeback

744. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 10, 2012

I was the one who originally wrote that perhaps the movie would be better called Out of Darkness, or through Darkness. Star Trek Into Danger is just way too obvious and I agree that my suggestion of Star Trek Out of Darkness sort of gives the ending away. So the best titles are Star Trek Into Darkness or Star Trek through Darkness.

Darkness has a variety of meaning and some experiences of darkness can be peaceful, vitalizing and positive. I suspect this is not the main reason they chose to use the word Darkness here though.

I love the links to the tiny pics by Nony. The dark blue/black with a glimpse of light and soft green… is wonderful with a realistic look and feel of being in space. I hope the producers do something like that…awesome and very beautiful and would look stunning in 3D! Thank you.

745. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bich - September 10, 2012

733, once again I have seen 10 year olds write better titles for their star trek fan fiction.

The title isnt even original, as i pointed out on day 1, there is another movie out next year with the title Into The Darkness.

You would be praising any title that JJ and Co came up with even if it was Star Trek All the way to the bank, or Star Trek The Jokes on You,No one was talking negatively or making fun of the title The Vengence of Khan or the Wrath of Khan back in 81/82
even though you try to say other wise, I was there when Star Trek II opened (in 70mm) back in 1982, and no one in the months leading up to its opening was complaning or questioning how the title sounded.

746. Jack - September 10, 2012

And, like clockwork — we complain about not knowing the title because, hey, we’re part-owners of this thing and we want to be able to impress our friends, er, I mean help out Bad Robot by spreading the word, then we get told the name and we complain nonstop…

I still think this might not be the finsl title… yeah, they’ve registered the domain name but… So what?

747. VulcanFilmCritic - September 10, 2012

@724 Captain Huggy Bear Sybok Sisko.
No but an tremendously aged character actor who played mostly TV Indians in the 60’s STILL gets the fans into their seats. Have you been to a Star Trek convention recently? The fans are OLD. Don’t underestimate the nostalgia factor.
It’s not like the 1970’s when Star Trek fans were a bunch of kids taking over a hotel. Young people in general knew about Star Trek and liked it.
Today, walk up to a random person less than 25 and ask about Star Trek and they look at you like you’re crazy or they just laugh. You might as well be asking about Buster Crabbe.
I’m hopeful to see any new faces in the movies and at the conventions, but Star Trek will always, in someway, depend on its existing fan base for support.

748. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - September 10, 2012

I generally don’t bother posting here anymore… same trolls, same sh*tty attitudes all the time.

All the hate and judgment from just the title… it’s pathetic.

“Star Trek Into Darkness” isn’t a stand-alone breathtaking title, but neither is it awful and – most importantly – once we actually see the movie, we might have a better grasp on the rationale.

More confirmation that this isn’t your daddy’s Star Trek. Go cry in your Romulan ale now….

749. Trekmonk71 - September 10, 2012

He is Mitchell.She is Dr Elisabeth!The voyage into darkness is the Enterprise leaving the Galaxy.Robocop is the Valiants Captain as seen in the flight recorder black box.Enough said!

750. Tiberius Subprime - September 10, 2012

In response to someone above–I forget who now–this new Trek is going to a different Trek than TOS.

I believe it was mentioend that movie 2 and 3 would diverge this new timeline further away from events in the TOS timeline. Eventually, this new universe will stand completely on its own.

Will die-hard Trek fans like it? Who knows? It’s too soon to tell.
But you can’t please everyone, nor should you try.

751. Mark Lynch - September 10, 2012

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but I was not going to closely scrutinise 749 posts to be sure.

If you look at all the Star Trek posters from “The Motion Picture” through to “Nemesis” They all have one thing in common. There is nary a colon to be seen.
It is only when people write these up in print, that the colon gets added.

So this announcement from the official team along the lines of “Hey Guys! We have announced the title of the movie and there is no colon in it, aren’t we clever?”

To which my reply would have to be, “Hey Guys! None of the other movies have had a colon in their title either…. ever. So you’re not clever, it’s just another title.”

My prediction is that we will get what every Star Trek film has done over the years. “Star Trek” at the top, with the secondary just belowit in either a larger or smaller font and/or style.

I honestly don’t get all the kerfuffle.

752. Admiral_Bumblebee - September 10, 2012

I wonder what the international titles will be as I think that they won’t make any sense at all.
You cannot translate the sentence “Star Trek into darkness” into another language while keeping the words Star Trek.

So the international titels will be very different (and I bet even more cheesy).

753. Mark Lynch - September 10, 2012

Make that 750…. :-)

754. Trekmandave - September 10, 2012

I like it and will go with it as no grumbling will change it

755. Mark Lynch - September 10, 2012

I tried a few translations…

stern Wanderung in die Dunkelheit – German
viaggio stella nel buio – Italian
ster tocht in de duisternis – Dutch
périple étoile dans les ténèbres – French
emigre estelar en la oscuridad – Spanish
udhëtim yjor në errësirë – Albanian
星際迷航陷入一片黑暗之中 – Chinese
ستار تريك في الظلام – Arabic
স্টার ট্রেক অন্ধকারের মধ্যে – Bengali

756. Mark Lynch - September 10, 2012

Mostly the “into darkness” becomes “in the dark” or “in the darkness” though, which makes it lose a bit of the bite I feel.

757. BulletInTheFace - September 10, 2012

#741: Movies aren’t “entitled.” They are “titled.” It’s a common mistake, but saying a movie or book or article is “entitled” makes no sense whatsoever.

758. mars - September 10, 2012

every time I ready this title, THIS song comes into my head:


and I see Kirk and Spock and the whole gang singing and dancing on the bridge
“Into Darkness! To Grandmother’s House !!!”

759. Anthony Thompson - September 10, 2012

A better variation:
“Star Trek: Into the Darkness”.

760. Daoud - September 10, 2012

Star Trek Into Dorkness… the story of 46 years of fandom! :)
Coming next summer from Boddenrerry Productions!

761. Daoud - September 10, 2012

⌠ T a |2……T |2 ε |/
⌡.into darkness.|\
“I would hurl words into this darkness and wait for an echo, and if an echo sounded, no matter how faintly, I would send other words to tell, to march, to fight, to create a sense of hunger for life that gnaws in us all.”
~ Richard Wright

762. IlSisko - September 10, 2012

Imagining a possible teaser…

“When you light a candle, you also cast a shadow…”
(Ursula K. Le Guin)

Into Darkness



763. CJS - September 10, 2012

All of the haters have convinced me. I really like this title.

764. DrkMatter - September 10, 2012

More convinced than ever, it’s Gary Mitchell.

765. Decker - September 10, 2012

Star Trek Turns Off The Dark

766. Aurore - September 10, 2012

Oh, yeah…DamOn said so…..

“There’s no word that comes after the colon after ‘Star Trek’ that’s cool,” Lindelof said. “Not that ‘Star Trek: Insurrection’ or ‘First Contact’ aren’t good titles, it’s just that everything that people are turned off about when it comes to ‘Trek’ is represented by the colon.”



767. Ralph Pinheiro - September 10, 2012

do you remember about AICN rumor?
Something about Heart of Darkness By Joseph Conrad and Apocalypse Now.

AICN: “What if Old Spock Prime dispatched a heavily armed crew to where he knew the Botany Bay would be drifting? What if Khan and his crew were (likely against Old Spock’s protests) quickly caged and “broken” and repurposed into Starfleet Team Six, the Federation’s most deadly secret weapon? And what if this “tamed” Khan, with his genetically-engineered superior intelligence, has spent years biding his time as Starfleet puts more and more of its trust in him?”


768. lindsay - September 10, 2012

Until i hear something from a more legit source I won’t believe this

769. IlSisko - September 10, 2012

I’m so happy that we are still groping in the dark, anyway. :D
It could really be Khan or Mitchell or someone else and they won’t tell us until the movie will be released… it’s kind of fun. I’m starting to get used to this game. :)

770. Mark Lynch - September 10, 2012


It has been quite some time since I have heard anything quite as daft as that quote from Damon Lindelof…

So the reason Star Trek has never done as well as it could have, is directly attributable to two dots arranged vertically, which have actually never appeared in any of the movies posters, ever.

Righty ho then.

771. Gary S. - September 10, 2012

#729 I should have said”The film starring Mel Gibson “.
I didnt mean to imply that he had directed it .

772. Thorny - September 10, 2012

739… True, but some titles would have been ridiculed more than others. Frankly, the popular suggestion “To Boldly Go” would have been terrible in my opinion. But “Into Darkness” sure does seem to be a “jumping on the bandwagon” title to me, after Dark Knight, Dark of the Moon, Dark Knight Rises, and the upcoming Thor: Dark World. I kind of wish Star Trek could be out in front of the pack again, as it was with TOS, instead of riding some other movie’s coattails.

But its just a title. Some studio suit somewhere probably calculated that having “dark” in the title will get more butts in seats. So I’m okay with it.

773. filmboy - September 10, 2012

Hate the title. Hate it. I understand JJ and his team’s desire to set their films apart from those that came before. But do that with the content and not at the expense of the title. I know, I know it is only the title to the film. But it just is all wrong. It tries to be clever, but comes off pretentious. It tries to set a tone, but seems silly. It is all wrong.

As many pointed out on here, what comes next?

Star Trek into the unknown
Star Treking
Star Trek into mediocrity
Star Trek into the center of the earth
Star Trek into huge Box Office

I mean come on. Certainly the creative team on this could come up with something better. I understand the desire to keep Star Trek in the title, but then don’t get cute with it. It is funny, but a colon makes all the difference. I would like Star Trek: Into Darkness better than Star Trek Into Darkness.

But even the Into Darkness kind of doesn’t work for me either. If you wanna model your series after Nolan’s films, as the creative team has stated repeatedly, then why not try a title without Trek in it. Like maybe The Federation, or USS Enterprise, or some other nonsense title.

This isn’t world ending level stuff, just don’t like the title. Simple as that.

774. Shannon Nutt - September 10, 2012

I have a theory that JJ is sitting at home on his couch trying to think up a title, and flips on the TV and “LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD” is on and a lightbulb goes off in his head…a very dim lightbulb.

Oh, by the way, JJ, Bob, and you geniuses working on this film, NONE of TNG movies had the colon – either on the poster or on the actual film. So this whole “this is the first Star Trek movie not to have the colon” is compelte PR BS.

So I say we just all start calling it “Star Trek: Into Darkness” since I don’t think anyone here could argue that’s a superior title.

775. Will - September 10, 2012

While I still hate the title, at least it’s not as bad as if they’d followed the Die Hard sequel naming conventions.

Just imagine the horror of THAT reality:

“Set Out On A… Star Trek.”
“Star Trek To The Unknown.”
“A Good Day To Star Trek.”
“Star Trek Into Darkness.”

Oh. My. God. We ARE in that reality. THE HORROR!!!! THE HORROR!!!!!

776. Shannon Nutt - September 10, 2012

They should have just called it “STAR TREK WARS” and hoped to fool the casual moviegoer into showing up.

777. SoonerDave - September 10, 2012


Well said.

Not predicting franchise doom, just don’t like the title. At all.

If you wanted to pull “Trek” out of the title, or really spin it differently, I could probably have signed onto something like:

“This Dark Enterprise’

or you could create a standalone title (ala Quantum of Solace) and just subtitle it “A Star Trek Adventure”

“Enemies and Futures”

778. Aurore - September 10, 2012

“So the reason Star Trek has never done as well as it could have, is directly attributable to two dots arranged vertically, which have actually never appeared in any of the movies posters, ever.”

In the MTV interview where Damon Lindelof speaks of two dots arranged vertically, I, personally, never heard him say what you seem to have attributed to him.

See for yourself (It is not an order, of course. He refers to Star Trek titles at 3:26):


779. Max - September 10, 2012

Star Trek: Turn Off the Dark

780. Joek - September 10, 2012

It’s a Lazarus movie!

781. Praxeus99 - September 10, 2012

People should stop bitching about things and just be happy they are making more Trek for the big screen! No more colons! Yay!

782. Admiral_Bumblebee - September 10, 2012

But you cannot translate the words Star Trek as this is the franchise and you cannot rename the franchise.

So Star Trek has to stay Star Trek and then translations won’t make any sense anymore.

783. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 10, 2012

Star Trek Blood and Gore and T and A!

How’s that for the 782nd post avbout a movie title?

784. Meni - September 10, 2012

Sounds like JJ et al are looking at Nolan for sequel inspiration. Which is a good thing IMO.

I expect the crew to get into some nasty Cumberbatch at some point in the second act of ST2 and stay there going into the third film. The impossibly high stakes will fracture the crew. Everyone will break up with Spock (Uhura, Kirk) forcing him to go full Emo. ST3 will go darker still, hitting rock bottom before the crew pull together to save the universe (and each other) in one amazing ILM-tastic finale. You’ll cheer. You’ll cry. It’ll be awesome, especially in IMAX. Or maybe the Ewoks will just show up and solve everything by throwing some coconuts.

Regardless I can’t wait. 8 months away. Actually I take that back. 8 months is a stupid long time. Think I’ll go into ‘can’t wait’ mode April-ish ’13.


785. Aurore - September 10, 2012

“Star Trek Blood and Gore and T and A!
How’s that for the 782nd post avbout a movie title?”

All of a sudden, “Star Trek Into Darkness” sounds better, to me.
No offense.


I still don’t like the title, though.

786. Mark Lynch - September 10, 2012


According to the article linked to in post 766, Damon is stated as saying that everything people are turned off of by Star Trek comes after the colon. Or words to that effect…

Here’s the article;

Which is more recent than the article you reference. So I assume it is more accurate.

But as I have stated before, none of the other movies have had colons in their titles anyway. So the statement is irrelevant and untrue.

Look at any of the movie posters.

787. Mark Lynch - September 10, 2012

True enough, but if you are using Star Trek as part of a sentence then I believe it may be changed. And perhaps it will.. Who knows for sure now that the colon is out of the bag?


788. Driver - September 10, 2012

Why just trek into darkness when you can STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS!?
OK, got it!

789. Aurore - September 10, 2012

“According to the article linked to in post 766, Damon is stated as saying that everything people are turned off of by Star Trek comes after the colon. Or words to that effect…”

You are right.
The article you linked to is recent .

However, the quote by Damon Lindelof is not. As stated in the article I linked to in 766 ( It’s the same as the one in your post @786 ) :

“Then at this year’s San Diego Comic-Con, Damon Lindelof explained that a title was harder to crack than they originally thought, considering that a “2” was out of the question and because of the creative team’s dislike for “colon” titles.”

In my post @ 778 you’ll find a link to the interview ( with a video ) Damon Lindelof gave at this year’s San Diego Comic-con.

“But as I have stated before, none of the other movies have had colons in their titles anyway.”

And yet, judging by some of the comments on this thread, colons seem to have always played an important part in Star Trek titles…

“Look at any of the movie posters.”

Look what happens when you google any Star Trek movie title.

790. Martin - September 10, 2012

What about “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country?”

“The Undiscovered Country” is a Shakespearian euphemism for “death.”

791. drumvan - September 10, 2012

i think it would sound much better with a colon as well but it won’t be the first time that “trek” has taken the form of a verb.

zefram cochrane (first contact) – “And you people, you’re all … astronauts … on … some kind of star trek”.

792. Praxeus99 - September 10, 2012

It is akin to saying “Star Voyage into Darkness…” I think people are reading it wrong…

793. Mark Lynch - September 10, 2012

My point is, and has been previously, that a colon only comes into use when talking about the Trek movies using print medium.

So I just don’t see the fuss about the poor old colon. Unless we are talking biologically of course…

I’ll be interested to see the first official poster and how they lay out this title.

794. Ralph Pinheiro - September 10, 2012

In terms of marketing, they are being smart. They let a rumor about the title being discussed by fandom. When fans are assimilating it, they show a poster and then a trailer.

795. Jai - September 10, 2012

Well, I like the title. Reminds me of DS9’s “In The Pale Moonlight”.

If “Star Trek Into Darkness” is anything like that DS9 episode (one of the best in the whole Trek franchise), it could be pretty damn good.


796. Aurore - September 10, 2012

“My point is, and has been previously, that a colon only comes into use when talking about the Trek movies using print medium.”

This wasn’t clear , to me, in the posts you wrote in reply to mine, so far.

…. So, I went upthread to see if I had missed anything….you did make your point in 751.

I stand corrected.

797. JackCrusher22Beta - September 10, 2012

The dedication plaque for the USS Stargazer reads, “To bring light into the darkness.” Cumberbatch is playing a young Picard, commanding the Stargazer… adding a twist and setting things up for the eventual TNG reboot trilogy in a few years.

798. Lt. Bailey - September 10, 2012

We shall see what the movie brings….

799. Satori - September 10, 2012

The name is perfect. It needs no colon nor semi-colon. It is a contraction of Star Trek and Trek into Darkness, thus not needing one. It is VERY clever and well thought out.

800. Dr. Wha-? Oh, cool! - September 10, 2012

Does the lack of a colon make this title irregular?

801. Gary S. - September 10, 2012

Why does a title with the word “Darkness” mean Abrams is looking to Nolan for inspiration?
I just dont understand this logic .

802. LizardGirl - September 10, 2012

Yes! As if the word as a patent on it or something.

To be honest, I wasn’t even thinking about TDKR or Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon, Heart of Darkness, Dark World or uh, [insert title here] Darkness when the title was released. All I could think was this is the first OFFICIAL tidbit of info on this movie that we’ve had pretty much all year (besides who the new actors are). That has to count for something, considering that some were beginning to wonder if there was a movie at all.

Also, I’m really feeling these fan-made posters, guys. :)

803. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 10, 2012

Can’t people just ruminate on all the possible meanings, feel and how Star Trek Into Darkness might be said, without immediately comparing it with other film titles, books etc.? My initial reaction was negative, because of how the “dark” has come to be used, but it was only when I was in the dark of the night that I realised that this is a title that is given to so much interpretation, including the ones we normally associate with “dark”, “darkness”.

I don’t give a shit about some book called Heart of Darkness or the fact that movies have “dark” in their titles. This is STAR TREK, remember!

804. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 10, 2012

#745 – Nobody needed to question how those titles sounded. They were so bleedin’ obvious and everyone already knew what the story was (mostly) about.

Even though, Star Trek Into Darkness has a similar title to other movies, because of the use of the word “darkness”, at least it is more subtle and less obvious in terms of what the story is about. If the title were just Into the Darkness or Into Darkness, then it could just mean something harrowing, violent, edgy, but with Star Trek taking us Into Darkness (of the night time of space, of the mind, of the times…), then, as Spock says, “There are always possibilities…”

This is also what I get from Chris Pine when he mentioned that there was comedy etc as well. At least, this is where I hope JJ Abrams and co. are coming from.

805. Aurore - September 10, 2012

@ The writing team.

I don’t have to like the title.

But, I am more than ready to love your story….


806. Harry Ballz - September 10, 2012

800. “Does the lack of a colon make this title irregular?”

No, but if I lacked a colon, I know I would certainly be irregular! I shit thee not!

807. Gary S. - September 10, 2012


808. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 10, 2012

Trek, as it is used in the title Star Trek Into Darkness is NOT a verb. It is a noun, always has been. Words like “trek”, “walk”, “run” can be both nouns and verbs. People may think of these words as verbs, but it is only the context that makes them a verb (or a noun). These words describe movement, motion… which is why, perhaps, some think that the Trek in this title, without the colon when written, is a verb, but it is not.


I take my dog for a walk (walk is a noun)
My dog walks with me (walk is a verb)

I go for a run (run is a noun)
I run to the corner (run is a verb)

The Enterprise is on a star trek (trek is a noun)
The Enterprise treks though star systems (trek is a verb)

Anyway, gotta go…see ya!

809. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 10, 2012

On a more serious, I just realized that here today in NZ it is 11 September, which makes it 11 years ago that what is known as the attacks on 9/11 took place.

RIP to all those who died on that tragic day.

810. Bobby - September 10, 2012

Star Trek into the Abyss, starring Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio.

When I make a movie:

Star Trek: Dark Matter(s)

811. Christian - September 10, 2012

Is It True that JJ Abrams is a big “Justin Hawkins” Fan, hence the title? He! He! (google it!)

812. Bobby - September 10, 2012

If we’re heading into Milton territory, which tends to get quoted around a lot when a certain Sikh’s around… we’ve got “darkness visible,” “brooding darkness.”

“No light; but rather darkness visible
Served only to discover sights of woe,”

813. stopyerwhining - September 10, 2012

802: “That has to count for something, considering that some were beginning to wonder if there was a movie at all.”

Which “some,” other than you? Nobody was wondering this.

How do you not understand that they’re busy making the f**king thing?

Chill the f**k out. Yeesh.

814. cemode - September 10, 2012

Star Trek Into Madness

815. Phil - September 10, 2012

@ 800. Why, I don’t know. Perhaps it’s time to schedule a colonoscopy?

816. Mawazitus - September 10, 2012

Wait a second. Is the new J.J. Abrams world-without-electricity show actually a secret prequel to Star Trek Into Darkness? This is all beginning to make a bit more sense. Is Cumberbatch actually playing a follicley-gifted Observer, also making Star Trek Into Darkness a sequel to Fringe? Is the whole Abramsverse converging?

817. Bored with this.. - September 10, 2012

Still too bored to care about this… months, now.. and we all get some half confirmed rumor about a title?… this isn’t news.. its boredom. I don’t care a lick anymore

818. LizardGirl - September 10, 2012

@813 Troll

Yeah, actually, if you took the time to read other threads you’d know what I’m talking about. Some posters, NOT me, were saying that JJ was actually making Batman and not Star Trek (I believe they were joking but don’t “quote” me) or that the movie was junk and was being scrapped (probably said out of frustration over the lack of news).

Me thinks, you read a little too much into my comment. Maybe I should have put a emoticon after the sentence you quoted so you wouldn’t have had kittens. And really… you don’t know me so don’t assume you know how I feel. I am chill right now because I got a title. I’m not complaining or whining as your screen name suggests. I’m happy because this is the first official piece of information since wrap and I know I can take it to the bank. I’m more or less, surprised that the majority doesn’t see the basic value in having ANY title at this point, but I haven’t bashed anyone here who’s dissatisfied either. That’s their prerogative to feel pissed. Go back and actually read the thread. Then take your own advice and relax buddy. Deuces.

819. Paunch Show Greg - September 10, 2012

Gene Roddenberry is currently rolling over in his grave faster than the speed of light. The destruction of Star Trek continues. Uh, can we get Rick Berman back yet????

820. dmduncan - September 10, 2012

It’s like an army of Moe, Larry, and Curly clones in here.

821. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 10, 2012

The thing that scares me is that this could be a last Trek. To this stardate I have not heard word. If so, “Star Trek in Darkness”
is not an encouraging title.

If I promise to see this one 5 times, could we at least have confirmation soon that there will be another Star Trek movie after this one? Or, at least a series. Hint, hint.

Some of the best buzz in the other big franchises have mentioned that thier new movie already has a sequel lined up (Spidey), and even the “Final” Nolan Darknight has had speculation that there is another movie that must have it’s story told. This should be Trek’s approach too.
I belive it would be great to learn about a new TV production. Perhaps as a draw to the new apple TV network

Ahh.. I should be settin’ up these deals.

…Ehh, Kracko?!


822. Lou Sytsma (@OldDarth) - September 10, 2012

Could Cumberbatch be playing the Warren Stevens role – Rojan?

The movie title, besides character journeys, could be a reference to inter-galaxial travel.

823. Red Dead Ryan - September 10, 2012


If you’re “Bored with this”, why are you still here?

824. Commodore Adams - September 10, 2012

Does anyone have any assumptions when we might see a trailer and or teaser trailer?

I personally doubt we will see anything with the upcoming Resident Evil movie or Dredd even though the audience seeing afore mentioned movies might be interested in Trek.

I am guessing we wil see something with 007 Skyfall in November.

825. Commodore Adams - September 10, 2012

819. Paunch Show Greg

You assume too much. Gene would be happy that Star Trek is still continuing. And don’t argue semantics by saying “this is not Star Trek.” It’s bull, Rod Roddenberry had a great moment with J.J., watch Trek Nation dude.



I adore the line “Star Trek is about combining spectacle with emotion.”

826. Bowo T. Kirk - September 10, 2012

can’t wait to see this movie hits INDONESIA!….
many people sceptical about the prospect of sci fi and Star Trek movie in Indonesia..but it will be a very big success of Star Trek movie in Indonesia

827. Marja - September 10, 2012

I’m getting to like the title – as long as it’s two lines!

i n t o d a r k n e s s

Some beautiful “Title Cards”/poster designs by folks in this board – you convinced me it’s going to be okay

OK now I can relax and wait EIGHT MONTHS

i’d better stay busy.

828. Joke's On Us - September 10, 2012


“Into Darkness” — this is a reimaging of the “Immunity Syndrome” episode!!

Great idea to use the Khan rumor! Nice try by hiring Benedict to fool us! Very clever to “leak” those fight scene photos early on!


829. filmboy - September 10, 2012

I love that you all have written about the title for as many posts as you have…lol. I still dislike the title. But it is, dare I say, growing on me. I still think it is a bad sign that JJ and company are going dark and “serious” in their follow up.

To me the optimism of Star Trek is needed right now and my hope is that JJ and company realize that. Instead of following Nolan’s lead, forge your own path. Keep the bright optimism and sense of adventure. No need to go too dark with this film. The Avengers stayed optimistic and made billions.

In fact, I would love this next Trek to retain alot of what makes Avengers work: Likeable characters, a real sense of peril, humor that works, a great villain that chews up scenery, a poignant death of a beloved character, and a rousing ending. I am telling you that is a winning formula. I would love nothing more than to walk out of JJ’s sequel and be able to describe it in that same way.

We shall see soon enough. One thing is certain: Marketing is a coming!

830. Devon - September 10, 2012

>>>>>>>Gene Roddenberry is currently rolling over in his grave faster than the speed of light. The destruction of Star Trek continues. Uh, can we get Rick Berman back yet????<<<<<<

What you just said was "The body is now free of sickness and enjoying life again. Uh, can we give it cancer again?" Just think about what you post again.

831. Devon - September 10, 2012

768 – Skydance Productions, which is co-producing the film, has confirmed the title. Anthony who actually has sources has confirmed this. It is done.

832. general zod - September 11, 2012

@819. You do realize that Gene’s wife Majel quit and went to make Earth: Final Conflict and Andromeda because she felt Berman was doing things with Trek that Gene would never have approved, don’t you?

833. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 11, 2012

Even though the threat/peril might be greater than ever, it is the way the characters deal with it in not allowing their minds, hearts and souls to be dragged down by what is happening is what will bring the light to darkness. That is my fervent hope. That is what I have been saying on this site since I started coming here in June 2010 and what I have told Bob Orci – Kirk, Spock, Bones and everyone of the crew are GOOD, kind, well intentioned people who are intelligent and capable and that is what each Star Trek needs to show.

Thank you, Commodore Adams, for posting those links to some of Trek Nation. Just fantastic to watch. I note that JJ Abrams now says he is a fan. I suspect many of those working on Star Trek are now fans, even if they weren’t to start with and it is not just because of the money – no way! It is because they know they are doing something inherently good, special…

834. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 11, 2012

IMDb has changed the title from Untitled Star Trek Sequel to Star Trek Into Darkness some hours back.

835. Jai - September 11, 2012

Didn’t Chris Pine basically say in a recent interview that the sequel sets things up nicely for a threequel ? I’m sure it was mentioned in a Trekmovie article during the past couple of weeks.

The title “Star Trek Into Darkness” makes even more sense if it really is JJ’s version of The Empire Strikes Back, in terms of many things going badly for the heroes and an ending where many issues are unresolved. Kirk & co do eventually save the day at the end of the threequel, but in the overall story arc of the trilogy, things get a hell of a lot worse before they finally get better.

836. Skidalgo - September 11, 2012

Star Trek Into The Black Hole of Grammatical Conundrums

837. Damian - September 11, 2012

Happy for 2 things. One Star Trek is in the title. That was always a must for me and important because I always thought the team should capitalize every possible way on the popularity of Star Trek (2009). Also, as I’ve noted before, Star Trek is not Batman.

Secondly, I’m glad they avoided uses a number. That was always going to be a no win scenario (pun intended), If they used 2, that would have offended Star Trek II fans, of which there are many. Using XII was never going to happen. They were able to avoid using a semicolon type title so they avoided comparisons to the TNG movies (though I always thought that fear was overstated, no one was going to think this was a TNG movie). If they do a 3rd movie, they’ll probably have to find some way to use Star Trek in a similar fashion (making Trek a verb in the title).

838. Damian - September 11, 2012

819–I never had an issue with the spinoffs and was one of the few that liked Nemesis (though reading comments on a recent article showed me there were more of us then I realized). However, Star Trek needed a new team. Berman put out thousands of hours of Star Trek, and it just needed new life. Berman actually would probably tell you the same thing and even if somehow he were asked to return, I doubt he would.

I will say to the detractors, that there was a time when Berman was sitting where Abrams is in the mid 90’s. I think the difference is that Abrams is not going to create 3 TV series and do 4 movies, so you likely won’t see the burnout factor occur.

Had Berman gradually handed the reigns over to someone else (i.e. Manny Coto taking on Enterprise from the start), maybe take a more backseat consultation role, his reign may have been seen more favorably.

839. Navarro - September 11, 2012

I was personally hoping for Star Trek Reloaded and Star Trek Revolutions.

840. Daoud - September 11, 2012

I trek into darkness.
Thou/thee trekkest into darkness.
He/she/it/one treks into darkness.
We trek into darkness.
You/ye trek into darkness.
They trek into darkness.
Trek can trek into being a verb, Keachick.
Trek can also stand as a noun.
Trek can even become a trekking gerund.
Sometimes it can get really trekked up into a participle.
To trek, or not to trek, that is the question, and again a verb.
Trekker, trekkie, trekster, treknology…. trekkist.
Trekkity, trekkity… sounds like a quagmire of derivation.
And a trekkingly trekked good trek was trekked by all.
To thine own trek, trek true.

841. David - September 11, 2012

I still think they could use “Star Trek X2″ as title. This could mean 12 as it could mean “Star Trek X” 2…(“X” for a new kind of Trek)
I’m curious how they will translate it in german. “Darkness ” can have a lot of meanings… a dark mood; the dark, vast space; a black hole, or an empty dark region of space, like we saw it in VOY and TOS…
As long as they don’t translate it totally different like in ST V – “at the edge of the universe”(instead of “at the center of the galaxy”), since the german prologue of TOS (“Spaceship Enterprise) doesn’t include the words “final frontier”, (it is “Space – a vast openness”) the translation of that title wouldn’t have had the same meaning.

842. Jemini - September 11, 2012

voted unsure. It sounds depressing, unless the darkness is the space ;) Hope they didn’t want to emule the dark knight….

843. Jose - September 11, 2012

So they do realize that Brannon Braga went through these title-changing ideas like Ten Years Ago, right?

2001- Enterprise (A Title without the World Star Trek in it)
2002- Star Trek Nemesis (A Title without a Colon, as if you can tell)

Why are we afraid of the Colon and the name of Our Franchise Anyway? Why can’t we embrace what our franchise is instead of put it in a costume and pretend it is something else? And shouldn’t the title say what the movie is rather than purposely stand as ambiguous as possible? You’re buying 6 months of secrecy with a bad title that will last forever.

Now unlike most people, I don’t care if the movie goes dark. Wrath of Khan and First Contact were dark and they’re the best of each of the two generations of films. After how slap happy and over-the-top ADD the last one was, I kind of need these characters to get hit by some reality so they stop acting like they’re being written by the same guys who made the transformers movies suck so bad–Oh wait!

844. Dom - September 11, 2012

Star Trek was often dark. The ‘positive’ message is that we survive long enough to put aside our internal differences and go to interstellar space. It doesn’t mean we evolve into utopian automata who smile all the time! The original Trek was full of flawed humans trying to do their best but screwing things up! Hell, even Kodos the Executioner was a misguided disaster working for the Federation!

The title ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ might offend a section of TNG fans who liked their Star Trek safe and saccharine, but seems fine for this TOS fan. I’m sure DS9 fans won’t have issues either!

845. Cap'n Calhoun - September 11, 2012

@751 “If you look at all the Star Trek posters from “The Motion Picture” through to “Nemesis” They all have one thing in common. There is nary a colon to be seen. It is only when people write these up in print, that the colon gets added.”

Not true. Look in the credits text underneath. All of the posters except for Generations and Nemesis (and obviously 2009) have colons.

846. Great Scott! - September 11, 2012

@843 (Jose) –

847. Dunsel Report - September 11, 2012

#844 Right on.

And anyhow you can’t have a future utopia without battling the darkness.

848. NurseChapelBetterBeInST2 - September 11, 2012

Psh, stupid.


Well duh, it’s dark in space! We know this!

849. Montreal_Paul - September 11, 2012

845. Cap’n Calhoun

All the official titles of all the movies do not have colons. The titles are all stacked. Star Trek above and subtitle below.

When they are written out on boards, people put the colons in. And they will eventually do the same with this one.

I assume you have all the movies on DVD or Bluray? Go check them out and see.

850. True Trek Fan - September 11, 2012

Thanks for raping Star Trek even more, JJ!

With a Star Wars strap on too.


851. Montreal_Paul - September 11, 2012

850. True Trek Fan

That’s a pretty ignorant statement to make when you haven’t even seen the movie and all you have seen is some leaked photos and the title.

I think you should change you name to “True Troll.”

852. AL B - September 11, 2012

NO ROMAN NUMERALS!!!!! NO ALPHA-NUMERIC, Sequencial monicers!! INTO DARKNESS sounds like the trek i have been missing.
Recently, when thinking about TNG and watching the show as a kid 5-10 years old (1993-1998+). It felt like i was exploring the freakin stars! I could watch trek every day and feel like i was there. I know i cant get that feeling back, but “into darkness” isnt far from what i think of and what i feel when i watch trek now. Its a good metaphor for where the new films are headed, and hopefully goes Into Darkness Where No MAN has GONE Before! Fn A JJ! new trek is good trek! al

853. Damian - September 11, 2012

I can’t believe the controversy over a name. Yeah, I would have been upset if they didn’t include Star Trek in the name or if they called it Star Trek 2 (which would have told everyone the team only thought their movies were true Star Trek).

They chose a non-controversial title, which is wise, since you don’t want to alienate the fans into not seeing the movie. I didn’t think for one second the title would reveal anything about the plot. Abrams is too shrewd for that.

I think they wanted to choose a title that did not reveal the story until after you see it, and they also wanted a title that neither said you had to watch the previous 11, while at the same time telling the fans it’s still a part of that larger universe. That’s good enough for me.

854. Vigar2703 - September 11, 2012


855. Cap'n Calhoun - September 11, 2012

@849. Montreal_Paul

They’re stacked in the main logo. Look in the actual credits where the names are listed. Examples:



Generations and Nemesis are the only exceptions out of the first ten films. I’d post poster links, but I’ve had a few posts not go through on TrekMovie recently, and I suspect outside links are the reason.

Believe the end of the end credits of each film (the title generally appears again alongside the union logos and such) usually has, but it depends on if it’s present and how it’s stylized, so don’t know for sure on that one.

856. Trekprincess - September 11, 2012

All I want is a great movie :):)

857. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 11, 2012

#843 – “Why are we afraid of the Colon and the name of Our Franchise Anyway? Why can’t we embrace what our franchise is instead of put it in a costume and pretend it is something else? And shouldn’t the title say what the movie is rather than purposely stand as ambiguous as possible?”

Who is afraid of a colon or the Star Trek name? Who is not embracing the Star Trek franchise? For a start, Star Trek is in the title, where it belongs. I was not aware that not putting a colon in the title is people pretending the franchise is not what it is. Why should the title tell what the story is about? You go see the movie to find out what the story is about. Ambiguity encourages imagination and thought and the title Star Trek Into Darkness does just that.

So you thought the last movie was so slap happy. For me, I saw some pretty angry, frightened people – (Spock almost killing Kirk on the bridge), frightened (Spock’s mother) and grief stricken, crazy and vengeful Nero and crew. Kirk got beaten up at least three times – in the bar by bullying cadets, by Spock and then by Nero. Nero beat him up because of who his counterpart was in the prime universe – someone this Kirk had no knowledge of until he met prime Spock a few hours before. Then two planets were destroyed – one by a supernova and the other one deliberately destroyed.

And you don’t mind if this sequel went even “darker”, as in people and events being even meaner, crazier, sadistic, destructive towards the good crew of the Enterprise/Starfleet/the earth? Because the first movie was so slap happy and “over-the-top ADD”? What in hell does “over-the-top ADD” even mean?

It is this kind of going “darker” that many people, including me, are afraid that Star Trek may become. I don’t want to see this sequel be, for the much of its screentime, a grim, merciless, violent, shadowy (in colour and tone) film. There are so many films like that now. Star Trek was always different, better and that is my fervent hope that this sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, will retain those better, lighter, more hopeful qualities. I want these characters to be able to engage charitably with all they encounter, even when things are tough.

#849 – On IMDb the title is Star Trek Into Dark, no colon. It does not need it. It is just that people are used to seeing something done a certain way that they can’t imagine seeing a different iteration, take, way. It is a little unfortunate really.

Sorry if I seem carried away, even preachy (as some have described me). It is just that I feel strongly about this and always have. No, Star Trek is NOT Batman, Superman, Star Wars, the Matrix, Dredd, X-Men or anything else. Star Trek is its own beautiful, unique franchise. I fear sometimes that the owners Paramount… don’t fully understand this, however I am hopeful that JJ Abrams and his team, as well as the actors playing these great characters do understand.

858. Vigar2703 - September 11, 2012

I’m very curiouse to know how here in ITALY will be translate… Thanks again Dear JJ…

859. Montreal_Paul - September 11, 2012

855. Cap’n Calhoun

Those aren’t the official titles. The official titles appear on the posters and opening credits. When the title comes on screen, it is large, in Trek font and stacked. When it is written out, a colon was always added. The same will be done to this one.

I don’t know why people are all up in arms about two dots!! Holy crap people!

And those who are saying the movie will be horrible… umm… judging from what? A title? Bahahaha… wow.

860. Vigar2703 - September 11, 2012

Very Terrible Title… Sorry, JJ.

861. Jack - September 11, 2012

844. Dom.

Exactly. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

862. SoonerDave - September 11, 2012

Still think you could subtitle “Voyage Into Darkness” with “A Star Trek Adventure” in small print, no colon.

863. boborci - September 11, 2012

just a reminder:


864. I am not Herbert - September 11, 2012

Star Trek: don’t forget to put the seat down… =(

865. I am not Herbert - September 11, 2012

Star Trek: Wipe Three Times

866. I am not Herbert - September 11, 2012

FYI: 9/11 = False Flag

867. Travis - September 11, 2012

@ 355… PAUL B : Hey Jerkoff… Dont get your woman’s hormones started too quickly now! Maybe you should watch the 2009 movie’s Special Features more often! I think i heard over a dozen of times from Bob and Alex that they wanted or in a sence they did put the Botany Bay at the end of the credits to the film! Heres another clue… JJ Abrams intrew with MTV in 2010 saying that Kirk and Khan are MEANT to cross paths with each other… which means pansy its unavoidable!!! Dont get into a hissy fit because i know more Trek than you… You can go ahead and play with your barbie dolls now!!!

868. Aurore - September 11, 2012

@ 863. Roberto Orci

“just a reminder…”



869. Spiked Canon - September 11, 2012

@863 Your Point?

870. Spiked Canon - September 11, 2012

Here’s some I’m sure you considered @BobOrci

Star Trek’s War on Terror
Star Trek and The Bush Doctrine
Star Trek To Kenya Unleashed
The Trouble with Bidens
Trek Back to Israel’s Destruction
Star Trek Into The Middle East

871. Spiked Canon - September 11, 2012


It’s a reference to Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
“Will the movie be a Star Trek take on Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness?” asks Nathan Birch at Uproxx. It’s not as crazy as it might sound. The 1902 novella tells the story of “a crew sailing a boat into unsettling new territory in search of a man who’s gone dangerously mad with power and set himself up as a God.” If you update the setting from Africa to space, and change the main character to Captain Kirk, it “pretty much sounds like a Star Trek plot already.”

872. BulletInTheFace - September 11, 2012

#862: “A Star Trek Adventure”???

That would be 10 times worse. It sounds like a kids’ show.

873. BulletInTheFace - September 11, 2012

One thing’s certain: If it IS based on Heart of Darkness, then Khan isn’t the villain, as he wouldn’t work in that context. Ron Tracy or Garth of Izar, on the other hand, WOULD work.

874. Peter Loader - September 11, 2012

Captain Robert April

One man’s journey into darkness…

875. Mutant Child - September 11, 2012

Sounds cool.
Now for the tagline:

“In Darkness no one can see your camera shaking”


“There are no lens flares… in Darkness.”

Just joking. I liked the camera work and the lighting in 2009 Trek.

876. Boborci - September 11, 2012

869 compare and contrast with this:


877. Dunsel Report - September 11, 2012

Hard to understand people think the spirit of Star Trek is in jeopardy when in 2000 they were tolerating stories about Tuvok being mind-controlled by chanting Bajoran mystics in the Delta Quadrant.

878. Vultan - September 11, 2012


Nothing too surprising there. Incompetence is spread throughout history. The same happened with Pearl Harbor.

879. boborci - September 11, 2012

878except totally contradicts 863.

880. Red Dead Ryan - September 11, 2012

The Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen because they needed an event to justify the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was their wanted man, not Osama bin Laden. bin Laden was allowed to escape because the Republicans knew the al-Queda leader was their ticket to winning the 2004 election. Which ended up being the case when bin Laden put out a tape a few days before the vote.

881. boborci - September 11, 2012

and contradicts official testimony of General Chiarelli, who reveals on page 8 n 9 of his interview that pentagon was running drills simulating air attack on wtc. http://www.scribd.com/doc/51154680/GSA-B115-RDOD03012858-Fdr-Entire-Contents-CMH-Intvw-2002-02-05-NEIT-532-Chiarelli-Pete-063

882. PaulB - September 11, 2012

#867 – Travis, what the hell are you talking about? Your reply to my message at #355 makes no sense at all. I wasn’t replying to you, and I don’t know what happened to change the message numbers. I was replying (in 355) to Christopher Roberts (if my memory serves), NOT to you. Nothing in my comment applied to your comment, so if you would STOP and THINK for a minute before posting the crap you posted at #867, you’d know that.

To be clear: I didn’t reply to you. Comment #347 was originally addressed to me about my “sneering” comment, and my reply in #355 had NOTHING to do with you.

So back off, chill out, and grow up.

883. Jack - September 11, 2012

871. Why does it HAVE to be a reference to Heart of Darkness. Was First Contact a reference to First Wives Club or Contact? It could be. It could mean plenty — heck, Milton used the word darkness in Paradise Lost, and somebody we’ve met previously on Star Trek is fond of quoting Milton.

And Bob,

“President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.”

Why don’t I remember hearing this? The story became — Bush (and intelligence) was incompetent… which this doesn’t necessarily rule out. So what’s the real story? If this was the case, could one argue that 9/11 was a pre-emptive attack?

I hope we can talk about this stuff more openly now without being called unamerican and traitorous (although criticizing the goverment is perfectly fine, apparently, when the President’s a democrat).

884. Harry Ballz - September 11, 2012

Bob Orci

did you ever check out the Black Pope?

Scary stuff!

885. Boborci - September 11, 2012

883. It means incompetence theory is a lie. They wer targeting AQ. Pentagon was running drills simulating exact attacks. So question is, why is bysh and adminustration lying about never having imagined such attacks? Why are they peddling incompetence theory?

886. Commodore Adams - September 11, 2012

857. Rose by any other name is Keachick – September 11, 2012

You always seem preachy, you have a strong opinion. Many non trek fans love the movie but I hear enough people saying its too much bubblegum. I wouldn’t mind a darker Star Trek and not always but one dark Star Trek movie wont hurt. To expect Star Trek to be the same after 46 years is ludicrous and rather narrow in view. As a guy who grew up with Star Trek for over two decades, going to conventions, collecting uniform insignia, starship models, not to mention a delta shield decal on my truck and buying Star Trek blu-ray’s on their release dates (because I want the best of the best) I would consider myself a Trek geek…. I am very open to the changes being made to Star Trek.

Half the trek fans I know are open to change, the others are not. And those not open to change or a little darkness are the boring ones, the ones who lack colour.

I think you are taking the “potential” changes to Star Trek far too seriously. Star Trek is what it is. It will change and grow. Want the original stuff then keep watching TOS and TNG cuz that is as original as you can get. DS9, VOY, ENT, the movies have all changed what Star Trek is, these new movies are simply blazing a new path. And there is nothing wrong with that.

887. Cap'n Calhoun - September 11, 2012

@859. Montreal_Paul

“Those aren’t the official titles. The official titles appear on the posters and opening credits.”

Not sure what you thought I was talking about, but I was reading that directly from the posters. Although I don’t know why titles on the closing credits (as in my other example) would hold any less weight.

It’s rare if ever that colons are written in a logo that breaks where the colon would be, even if the colon is officially in the title.

888. Montreal_Paul - September 11, 2012

887. Cap’n Calhoun

So then I don’t know what you are talking about. All the movie opening titles and official movie posters don’t have colons.

889. Jack - September 11, 2012

885. Wow.

890. BOborci - September 11, 2012

889 care to elaborate?

891. Vultan - September 11, 2012


Yes, on the surface that does seem very suspicious, and perhaps there’s something to it. But keep in mind the military goes through countless theories and contingency plans on a daily basis. What else does the Pentagon have to do with their enormous, bloated budget? Sit around and dream up anything and everything no matter how wild it seems. It’s the one thing they and conspiracy theorists have in common.

You might also be interested to know Hollywood came up with an attack on the WTC using planes before 9/11. Look up the short-lived X-Files spin-off The Lone Gunmen. The motives behind the attack in the show are different (or are similar depending on your point of view), but the details of the plan are eerie to say the least.

892. dmduncan - September 11, 2012

NIST was full of sh*t on Bldg 7. The evidence is that it was in freefall, and that means demolition


It also looks very much like Dick Cheney gave stand down orders not to shoot down hijacked aircraft prior to 9/11, which would increase the chances of success of any 9/11 type attack.


Cheney, along with Rumsfeld, was also instrumental in organizing FEMA during the Carter administration.

And now we have FEMA camps allegedly for holding lots and lots of illegal aliens — but which will work just as well for indefinitely detaining misbehaving Americans in the event of martial law.

Then there’s the Operation Northwoods proposal. Look at how thorough they were in the details of how their scheme would work:


And keep in mind — innocent Americans were going to be killed by Operation Northwoods!

893. Bob Tompkins - September 11, 2012

Star Trek: Into Darkness works just as well, perhaps even better as a title.
When we see the teasers and trailers, anyone care to wager that the voiceover won’t put the pregnant pause signifying the colon into the read? If the 4 words are read without the break, they will sound ridiculous.
Star Trek
[a beat, resumes forbodingly]
Into Darkness
Coming in May to a theater near you.

894.  moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - September 12, 2012

I’m so offended. I was hoping for something more happy. Something uplifting…that shows the beautiful nature of the human race, with no war, tension or plot. …Like some of the more inspiring titles from previous incarnations of Trek. Something like “Balance of Terror,” or “The Doomsday Machine.” “into Darkness,” is so…dark. :|

895. boborci - September 12, 2012

894. lol!

896. Aurore - September 12, 2012

I never cared about the “colon controversy”. Nor do I care about the word “Darkness”.

It’s just that, when Damon Lindelof said that you were struggling in order to find a title , I expected something else. What? I myself do not know exactly, but, I think I would have “recognized” that something if I had seen it. That is how I feel.

But then again, as I said before, “Star Trek : The future Begins” is not what led me to see the last movie.

Excellent word-of-mouth did.

897. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

#886 – I do not believe my view is a narrow one at all – quite the opposite. I am not sure what you would have these characters be and yet they still be the people we already know.

Dark is actually rather devoid of colour, literally and figuratively. War and destruction tends to turn everything to brown/red, literally and figuratively. Much of what is colour and variation is annihilated, leaving an ashen appearance. Funny thing is – the actual darkness that is much of space, if we are to believe our senses if we look up at unpolluted clear night sky or see the pictures taken from large telescopes, is not that dank colourless that the “dark” of what I think many want. It has a depth, a vividness, a potency. The kind of “darkness” that trailers to movies like Dredd seem to depict is anything but that. Is that what people want Star Trek to be more like?

The title is Star Trek Into Darkness, not Star Trek into Dank Decay.

“As a guy who grew up with Star Trek for over two decades, going to conventions, collecting uniform insignia, starship models, not to mention a delta shield decal on my truck and buying Star Trek blu-ray’s on their release dates (because I want the best of the best) I would consider myself a Trek geek…”

My impression is that you seem bored and rather spoiled. So having the money and easy access to all this merchandise somehow makes you more open to change and less narrow in view? Frankly, I doubt it. Change just for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing. In fact, it may be insensitive and damaging.

I have never said that Star Trek should be just as it was in the TOS series – that’s been many others who can’t seem to get past how Spock was (virtually unemotional and celibate) or who obsess about who this movie’s villain should be, as in someone from the 1960’s TOS series, and that was even before the writers said that the villain for this movie was someone known to Star Trek canon. In fact, I have been saying almost everything but this…

Is this preachy enough for you?

898. The Last Vulcan - September 12, 2012

Still on the fence as to whether boborci posting as Boborci and BOborci is the real thing and I ONCE AGAIN call on Anthony to fix this darn forum so that we know that we are talking to the right guy. This frustration with fakers has gone on long enough.

Oh, and in case anyone cares, I’ll repeat my position on the new title.





Thank you. :)

899. Bob Tompkins - September 12, 2012

Many are in the camp that believe President Shrub…errr Bush knew all about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time and, indeed was even in on the planning, perhaps to the point of ‘helping along’ the collapse of the Trade Center buildings.
I put these folks into the same craziness category as the Birthers: people who see conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies.
There is no denying that Bush was in the main saddened by the death of so many, but intellectually knew full well that al Qaeda had played right into his hands insofar as his plans to invade Iraq, plans he formulated in some sense long before he ever assumed the Presidency.
In that sense, Bush was happy about the 9/11 attacks. It made it easy for him to get the war he wanted.
As for Birthers, it’s plain they never took a Civics class in school- or they slept through it. President Obama’s mother, S. Ann Dunham was a Citizen of the United States of America. The moment Barack Obama exited her womb and drew his first brfeath, he was a citizen of the United States of America as well. It doesn’t matter if he was born in Hawai’i, or in Kenya, or on Mars. Citizenship was conferred to him by this woman’s bloodline, not by where he was born. How this matter ever took on any life and has been propagated by a co-operative press is beyond all reason.
It never had traction.

900. Jai - September 12, 2012

If the guy who posted #863 really is Bob Orci, I’m wondering if that’s a major hint about the storyline of STID…

Either a reference to events in ST09 (the destruction of Vulcan ? What the fleet was actually doing in the Laurentian system ?) and the fallout in STID, or some standalone events in STID that act as the catalyst for something big.

Probably with some kind of conspiracy involving Starfleet…

901. Spiked Canon - September 12, 2012

@boborci Of course we were targeting Al Queda. Why do YOU or anyone else think they need to know all the inner workings and plans of our government? Last time I checked it’s been 11 years since a terrosist attack in this country. Where’s the praise?!?!?! If you want to get political, first of all keep it out of here; second, just put it in one of your screen plays like the rest of the political wackos in hollywood.

902. Spiked Canon - September 12, 2012

@900 no, follow him on twitter sometime. He’s obsessed with conspiracy theories

903. Damian - September 12, 2012

You know a thread has gone on too long when we start talking about ridiculous conspiracy theories that our government somehow attacked itself.

I do agree with 899 that this whole birther thing is ridiculous. Even Karl Rove, Karl Rove for crying out loud, no friend to liberals or Democrats, thinks the whole birther thing is ridiculous. I also agree with 899 that 9/11, while it played into neoconservative plans, was not some pre-planned elaborate Bush Administration plot to attack Iraq. First of all, the planning for 09/11 started soon after the 1993 WTC bombing, long before anyone knew there was a George W Bush. I’ve heard and read all the conspiracy theories about 09/11 and there are how many holes in all those theories. It can be rather entertaining, though, that people actually believe some of this crap.

To me, Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. All they care about is preserving their power, and they will do anything to hold on to power and keep others (independants and 3rd parties) out of power. You want a conspiracy, how about that. You want a government in the US that balances budgets, responds to the people, and doesn’t pander to special interests, vote for someone else.

904. Damian - September 12, 2012

901–I consider myself more or less balanced (I hate both parties equally). But I must admit, as much as I disliked the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, I too have to admit there were no terrorist attacks on the US since 2001, and not for lack of trying on the part of Al Qaeda. I also have to give credit to all the people working to keep us safe, especially our military men and women.

905. Craiger - September 12, 2012


906. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2012




Wake up!

907. Damian - September 12, 2012

You know what. Some people here are actually freaking me out. I’ll leave you guys in your little closets imagining your wild conspiracies. I mean, suddenly the Bush Administration gets in and in 8 short months links up with Al Qaeda to concoct some wild conspiracy all in an attempt to attack Saddam Hussein. Wow. Or wait, maybe Bush knew he was going to be President in 2001 and he started making plans after the 1993 bombing, Or maybe this started before that even. I’ve seem the various conspiracies and can find wide gaping holes in all of them. I’d buy the attacks occurred because Bush was imcompetent far sooner than he hatched this elaborate scheme to take revenge on Hussein for an assassination plot against Bush’s father, esp. when he seemed to show a lack of respect for his father. I mean, even your most ardent Democrats who hated Bush don’t even buy the conspiracies some are spouting.

Anyway…..what was the fleet doing in the Laurentian System?

908. Stop Whining Already - September 12, 2012

898. The Last Vulcan

How so? That’s the stupidest statement to date! You can say this without seeing the movie? Just by the title?

People, people. IT’S A FREAKING TITLE! Good Lord… Get a life! You are the reason why people laugh at Trekkies!

909. Damian - September 12, 2012

Now I’m getting agitated. I find myself defending the Bush Administration, and they screwed so many real things up. Arrgh. Our country has too many real problems like runaway deficits, grossly imbalanced budgets, a jobless recovery because of the gross incompetence of our 2 political parties to be worried about weird, outlandish conspiracy theories.

910. Damian - September 12, 2012

908 Agree. Some people never heard don’t judge a book by its cover.

911. Cap'n Calhoun - September 12, 2012

@888. Montreal_Paul

The final movie posters (not the teaser posters) have the title listed twice: Once in the stylized logo, and once in the small text of the film credits generally found at the bottom. This is the section that almost inevitably starts with “PARAMOUNT PICTURES presents”. You can usually find the MPAA rating, the studio logo, and (for more recent films) the web site listed here.

Very, very few films include the colon in the stylized logo, especially if the title is structured as [Series title]: [Film title]. This is normally handled by a line break instead. However, the credits at the bottom (where the film title is often found in quotation marks) lists the “official” title, which may have additional punctuation and even differ slightly from the wording in the logo. For example, The Avengers is more properly (if awkwardly) listed as “Marvel’s The Avengers” in this text, which is how the film is listed in IMDB, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix, Amazon, etc. (And if having the studio in the title throws you off, you aren’t the only one; Avengers is the only film I can think of that did so.)

Per this text (and other official publicity materials), the official titles of the Star Trek films are:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Star Trek VI:The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek Generations
Star Trek: First Contact
Star Trek: Insurrection
Star Trek Nemesis

Anyway, these are the “official titles” of the films, and they are listed this way in all publicity materials for the film where a graphical logo is not being used.

Note that I’m not disputing that the colon will probably not appear in the logo on the poster or the logo on the title screen (or rather would not have appeared, had the title had one), but you can’t reasonably claim that ‘none of the other titles had colons’ and that people are just ‘putting them in’.

As previously noted, the titles for Generations and Nemesis did not have colons, which kind of worked for Generations but seemed a tad silly for Nemesis.

Incidentally, glad to see that Anthony Corrected the text of the article by removing Nemesis as an example of a title with a colon.

912. Montreal_Paul - September 12, 2012

And I am sure… once the movie is out and it’s on DVD and Bluray… and people write about it after the fact… it will be listed as Star Trek: Into Darkness.

I am not sure why so many people are up in arms about a colon. Seriously a very odd thing to nit pick about. I really don’t see how Star Trek: Into Darkness is fine yet Star Trek Into Darkness is a slap in the face and the movie will suck.

I give up on this. I think “Into Darkness” is a great title. It’s different and it stands up.

For people that have said that Trek isn’t dark. There have been TOS episodes that were. Look at Mirror, Mirror or Balance of Terror or The Doomsday Machine… just to name a few. These all had a darker tone to them. TNG was the least dark of all the series. I liked the tone of DS9 and Enterprise.

So, in the end folks, remember. It is only a movie title. Wait until the movie is out and you have actually seen it before criticizing it.

913. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2012

No doubt the new movie is going to tackle harsh social changes such as what we have recently gone through as a nation. The important thing is that we do not lose our humanity along with the Constitution.

Star Trek into Darkness…


914. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2012

Hey Anthony!

It may be time for an article about Star Trek’s darkest moments.

915. Damian - September 12, 2012

912–I maybe could see if someone is upset about Into Darkness as a title, though it still seems a bit silly. But all the controversy over whether a colon should be there is ridiculous. Can’t some people see they are using Trek as a verb. Like take a star trek into darkness. At the same time it can be considered a proper grammatical title Star Trek—Into Darkness.

There have been dark titles in all forms of Star Trek. Not just the original series, but how about Night Terrors from TNG, The Changing Face of Evil for Deep Space Nine, or even Nemesis. Not exactly optimistic sounding titles.

916. trekprincess - September 12, 2012

Bob Orci any word on when we the fans might expect the first trailer and is Star Trek Into Darkness the official title care to share with us.:):)

917. MJ - September 12, 2012

Don’t like this title at all — at first glance it comes across like Trek’s version of Heart of Darkness.

It’s funny though how everyone seems to accept this exclusive as the real deal, however, they refuse to accept Anthony’s previous exclusive on the villain being Khan??? Make of you mind, all you wafflers out there. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which of Anthony’s reports you want to believe — that is disingenuous.

More from me next week when I return from vacation.

918. Montreal_Paul - September 12, 2012


The added proof of the web domains helps. You are right though, this may not be the final title. To be honest, I didn’t read the entire article, I skimmed in on my phone… when I saw the headline that it was confirmed, I had assumed that it was confirmed by Paramount or JJ & gang.

I do like the “proposed” confirmed title… but unlike you, I never even thought about Heart Of Darkness.

919. The Last Vulcan - September 12, 2012

@908, no, it may be the most insightful comment to date. Roddenberry’s Trek is NOT DARK, as it does not involve the main characters ripping themselves apart through their own failings and self-doubts about falling into evil. When violence is applied it is not in the sadistic demonic vicious manner which marks modern “dark” movies. Roddenberry’s Trek is optimistic about society and its future while dark movies only portray tomorrow as apocalyptic and dog eat dog. Therefore the title indicates that the new movie will embrace and immerse itself in this modern yet thoroughly ghastly, gruesome, and gristly genre and it:


920. Montreal_Paul - September 12, 2012

@ 919. The Last Vulcan

You can tell all that… from the title. Really. Care to share how you come to this conclusion… from only the title?

921. Damian - September 12, 2012

919–Can we wait to see what the movie is about first. The title does not give much away there. Maybe it will be dark and ugly as you indicate, in which case your concern could be valid. But maybe it could mean the crew has to face down darkness and make good come out of it. We just don’t know yet.

922. Jai - September 12, 2012

Re: #915:

“There have been dark titles in all forms of Star Trek. Not just the original series, but how about Night Terrors from TNG, The Changing Face of Evil for Deep Space Nine, or even Nemesis. Not exactly optimistic sounding titles.”

The later seasons of DS9 were full of such titles: “Apocalypse Rising”, “In Purgatory’s Shadow” etc etc etc. So calling the sequel STID is nothing unusual for the Star Trek franchise.

Re: #918:

“but unlike you, I never even thought about Heart Of Darkness.”

Me neither. One of the first things I thought of was the title of the brilliant, and very dark, DS9 episode “In the Pale Moonlight” (itself a Batman reference, funnily enough).

923. Boborci - September 12, 2012

909. Much of our monetary problems can be traced to the cost of war and defence, so the causes of war should interest you. Take, for example, Rumafeld’s admission on 9/10 that the Pentagon couldnt account for 2.3 TRILLION!

924. trekprincess - September 12, 2012

Boborci I really want to know what this means for our beloved heroes Star Trek Into Darkness OMG I am really impatient trekkie.

925. jamesingeneva - September 12, 2012

Hey Boborci, while you’re on can you comment on this?


Rumor has it Mr. James T Kirk’s fan poster on Comment 243 is the legit teaser poster? I figure it isn’t but I never know with you guys lol

926. Damian - September 12, 2012

923–You see, that’s what I mean. I’m defending the Bush administration in the sense that I don’t believe they orchestrated, or even allowed 9/11 to happen because they wanted Iraq (there certainly were far easier ways to accomplish a war on Iraq then some complicated scheme involving Al Qaeda).

But yes, they were fiscally irresponsible. Both Bush and Obama have perpetrated indefensible record deficits that my daughter and her children will have to pay. I by no means think Bush was a good President, just that I don’t believe this particular conspiracy. But did his administration (esp, Rumsfeld and Cheney) use ththe attacks for their own neoconservative ends, absolutely. That much was obvious.

A shame guys like that give conservatives a bad name. I consider myself a right of center conservative. Unfortunately, because of neoconservatives, I get grouped into that looney lot. I say I’m conservative and people automatically assume I’m some gun toting, fanatical warmonger.

927. Phil - September 12, 2012

@923. Only if you want to ignore the entitlement elephant in the room.

928. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

Once again, bldg 7 was in freefall.

Facts that disprove the status quo theory do tend to hurt when you first meet them.

And weird outlandish conspiracy theories?

I think a more appropriate response would be outrage toward those in government who would even think up in such detail and then SUGGEST such things as Operation Northwoods, which came from the very highest levels of the MIC.

The fact — FACT — that they did come up with Operation Northwoods, however Kennedy rightly decided not to accept it, should make all people question what other schemes men of great power think up in secret.

Or not. Return to your Matrix and enjoy your phony steak, if you prefer.

Don’t expect me to.

929. Damian - September 12, 2012

927–Agree. Absolutely as Bob suggest, the Pentagon needs to be looked at, and unlike some of my fellow “conservatives” I advocate a policy of less interference in other countries. But entitlements also are a huge factor. Any politician that tells you they can fix are budget woes without changes to entitlements is a liar (there I said it).

Before I’m willing to pay higher taxes to fix the deficit, I want an real plan to fix entitlement spending (not some fake, fantasy plan). Don’t ask me for more money if it’s just to maintain the existing overbloated system.

So to Democrats I would say you have to accept the realities that entitlements need to be fixed, including Social Security and Medicare. You are lying if you say higher taxes alone will fix the fiscal problems of this nation.

To Republicans I would say you have to accept the realities of meaningful tax reform, including eliminating many tax deductions. You are lying if you say entitlement reform alone will fix the fiscal problems of this nation.

But neither party will make such bold moves. They will continue to pander to their bases and sell a lousy bill of goods to this nation. Our two parties are gutless and ruining this great nation. Vote someone else.

Ok, I have to get off my soapbox. I just get upset because obviously our politicians are not learning any lessons from Europe. We are headed down the same exact path and I can’t fathom why people think the results here will be any different.

Where is the Laurentian system, BTW.

930. Damian - September 12, 2012

928–Then vote for the OTHER guy (or girl–want to be equal). That is the only way you will see any meaningful change. Expecting Republicans and Democrats to change is like expecting a zebra to change their stripes. It ain’t gonna happen.

I’ve got a life to live, a family to feed, a job to work at. I can’t sit around thinking the government is out to get me. My God, I would live in a cave and never come out. All I can do, all any of us can do, is VOTE. Vote intelligently. And please, PLEASE, don’t pull the party lever. Look at who you are voting for. I get so sick of people saying they won’t vote 3rd party or independant because they have no chance. Really, if everyone voted who they really wanted, our political landscape would be a lot different.

931. Vultan - September 12, 2012

Damian, you make some very good points. In fact, you seem like a sane, levelheaded fellow.

What the heck are you doing here?!


932. boborci - September 12, 2012

926.”But did his administration (esp, Rumsfeld and Cheney) use ththe attacks for their own neoconservative ends, absolutely. That much was obvious.”

if this were a legitimate criminal/murder investigation, you would’ve just granted motive.

933. Damian - September 12, 2012

932–Not necessarily. All I’m saying is they used the opportunity of 9/11 for other things. That does not necessarily mean they planned 9/11 (I still can’t fathom how they could concoct such a scheme in 8 months–when every news story and legit documentary I have seen indicates it took Al Qaeda years to plan this–long before we ever heard of George W).

I mean if someone drops a 20 on the ground and I used the opportunity to pick it up (after they are gone and I don’t know who it is, for the record), that does not mean I stole it.

934. Damian - September 12, 2012

Is the word memory alpha blocked. I’ve tried posting a comment about it several times and it doesn’t stick.

935. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012


Except that doesn’t prove the Bush administration masterminded the attacks. You’d have to expand that reasoning to include the Clinton administration as well, who took office just before the first WTC attacks. It just doesn’t make sense for the Bush administration to come up with that idea just nine months into office. Not to mention be able to keep it a total secret in an age of twenty-four hour news and the internet.

The 9/11 attacks took years of planning. The perpetrators began setting up 9/11 not long after the WTC bombing.

Now, if you were saying the Bush administration knew of the iminent attacks,and deliberately did nothing to stop them, I would agree with you. Various sources, for the last year or so prior to 9/11, had been warning of a massive attack involving passenger jetliners.

936. Damian - September 12, 2012

Ok, memory alpha not blocked, something else must be blocked. I did find the Laurentian system noted there, though. So that solves one of life’s little mysteries.

937. Damian - September 12, 2012

935–I could buy the didn’t do anything to stop it. Motive would then be the question. Was it just that they didn’t believe the threat or was it part of a grand neoconservative scheme to ignite a war. I’m just not willing to commit myself on either front. It may be decades before we find out the real truth here. I’ll admit, part of me wants to believe this was just incompetence, that a sitting President, no matter who he or she is, would ever allow an attack of this magnitude to occur just for political ends. The cynic in me says that is entirely possible.

But I completely agree with your point that the timing for an orchestrated attack just does not add up. Really, to carry it out, would have meant that Bush and co. knew they would be in office years before or that Clinton was inexplicably in on the grand scheme.

938. boborci - September 12, 2012

935. youve granted motive. now all that is left is means and opportunity.

939. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012


It’s been reported that one of the main goals of the Bush adminstration when they came into office was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Bush and co. were apparently discussing it well before 9/11. They needed a reason to get the power from Congress and the Senate to do it, and Osama bin Laden gave them one. Without bin Laden, the Iraq war would not have happened.

940. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012

There’s no evidence indicating that the Bush administration collaborated with the terrorists, or that the government concocted the whole scheme and pinned the blame on a former ally who defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

941. Vultan - September 12, 2012


Plus, the more people you involve in a conspiracy the greater chances of its failure, and 9/11 would’ve taken hundreds if not thousands of conspirators to properly orchestrate.

And for a “shadow government” in the ’70s that couldn’t properly carry out a hotel break-in without getting caught….

942. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012



943. Damian - September 12, 2012

939–The cynic in me agrees with your points. I just hope in my heart that that is not the way it went down, that no President would willfully allow the mass murder of thousands of people just to get one guy. Again, something we may not learn for decades.

I agree fully with your 940 comment. Had the attacks occured 3, 4 years later, then yeah maybe I could buy conspiracy theory (that could have helped with re-election in 2004 too, since the public generally supports the President during the start up to a war). But 8 months after taking office. That’s some marathon planning. With that kind of time limit, somebody would have screwed up and let the secret out. No way you could bottle up that kind of coordination and all the work that would be required to put something like that together in a few months.

In the end, Bob Orci and others here believe Bush orchestrated 09/11. There’s nothing I or anyone else could say that would change that, so I won’t. I’ve said my piece. Do I believe Bush (and Clinton for that matter, since planning began years before 2001) could have been incompetent or allowed the attacks to occur for political ends, that may be possible. Do I believe they orchestrated and carried out the attacks, no. I just don’t see how that’s possible in 8 months with the extensive planning and coordination required for that. Years, maybe, not months.

944. Damian - September 12, 2012

941–LOL. If something can be screwed up, the government sure would have found a way to make that happen.

945. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2012

I would think that in this day and age that the “old way” of doing things has passed. We can only hope that those in control are truly “conservative” (yeah, conservative, unfortunately the devil’s in the definition) in thier values and actions.

There is a saying. To a man with only a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

By the way, “The Cloud Minders,” was an amazing Trek episode.
We should all check it out again.

Kirk would never stand for torture, or would he?
Any examples? I wonder.


Archer, yes.

Kirk, NEVER!

946. Damian - September 12, 2012

Anyway, how did the title of the next Star Trek film become a discussion about 9/11 conspiracy theories anyway? I’m just not seeing the connection (unless Bob Orci is giving a clue on the plot, or just trying to deflect attention from the topic–he did kind of throw the 9/11 thing out of nowhere).

947. boborci - September 12, 2012


The official story is that 911 was A CONSPIRACY perpetrated by 20 men. Do you attribute magic powers to those 20 men that Americans don’t have? Does Al Qaeda have magical abilities to perpetrate conspiracies that others don’t?

948. boborci - September 12, 2012

just cuz it was 911 yesterday

949. Vultan - September 12, 2012


I know. Right. I mean, you’d think Tricky Dick, this evil mastermind lurking in the shadows of the Oval Office, could come up with some better covert operatives than a bunch of bumbling stooges like Liddy, Hunt and the rest.

US Presidents are a lot of things. Ernst Blofeld they ain’t.

950. Vultan - September 12, 2012


19 hijackers carried out the attacks. No magic involved. Just box cutters and years of planning.

Magic comes with your theories, and some very large plot holes.

951. Vultan - September 12, 2012

Star Trek Into Darkness will be hopeful. It will be optimistic.
Just like Bob.


952. boborci - September 12, 2012

950. 20 since you gotta count bin laden. Your arguments contradicting themselves. You say 911 is a conspiracy that is impossible to pull of without a major conspiracy and then in the same breath say it was perpetraded by a small conspiracy. So which is it? Does a conspiracy need thousands of people in the know or not? If you accept the official story, then your answer has to be NOT.

953. Phil - September 12, 2012

@932. No, it’s not obvious…and no evidence to support it. To believe this true, as it’s been pointed out, the Clinton Administration whould have had to had knowledge of the plan. Considering that the Bush Administration isn’t given credit for being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, how is it now that we need to believe these bunglers were able to mastermind these global events to their own ends? Funny thing is, the conversations sound similar to commentary on Pearl Harbor. FDR knew, secret pacts, etc… Lots of stuff is obvious with hindsite, but if the strength of an alternative explaination is summed up by, ‘isn’t it obvious’, well the reply is, no, it’s not. What we know about available intelligence prior to 9/11, it’s very plausible to believe that any combination of hubris, stupidity, or just plain laziness prevented anyone from foiling the hijackings.

954. Damian - September 12, 2012

952–There were a lot more than 20 men involved. Many levels of Al Qaeda were involved in 9/11. And unlike an alleged plot that members of the US Government would be involved with, members of Al Qaeda were not worried about having to keep their involvement a secret.

955. boborci - September 12, 2012


the OBVIOUS line was a quote from the person I was arguing with, a person who beleives the official story like you do. And even they aknowledge 911 served neocon agenda. Almost EVERYBODY agrees with that.

956. Damian - September 12, 2012

953–Don’t give Bob another conspiracy. He’ll be saying FDR orchestrated WWII next :)

957. Damian - September 12, 2012

955–Agreeing it served their ends is a lot different that thinking they orchestrated the whole thing.

958. Damian - September 12, 2012

955–Let’s put it in a more Star Trekkie way. The malaise of the latter years of Berman Star Trek served your ends in the sense it allowed you to write a Star Trek movie. But that does not mean you orchestrated his downfall.

(Just a note, I was a Berman Trek fan too, but even I acknowledged his Star Trek was no longer reaching the masses).

959. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

Is Boborci and boborci the same person?

Many thousands of people have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to get two men – Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Just saying.

“Can’t some people see they are using Trek as a verb. Like take a star trek into darkness. At the same time it can be considered a proper grammatical title Star Trek—Into Darkness.”

Incorrect. The word “trek” has not become a verb because this title does not have a colon in the title. “Like take a star trek into darkness” – the word “trek” is a noun, just as in the title. TAKE is the verb!

960. Damian - September 12, 2012

959–All I meant is there intent may be to say you are taking a star trek into darkness. Sorry, it’s been a long time since I was in English class.

But thanks for bringing us back on topic:)

961. boborci - September 12, 2012

957. You are right It is different. But thats we are taking baby steps here byt first discussing motive. Did Bin Laden get what he wanted? Did he get us out of the middle east and live happily ever after? No. Did bushco get what they wanted? Did they get to goto to the middle east like they said they wanted in their PNAC report? Did they get Hussein?

The first baby step you took and should admit to taking is that you acklowedge the Neo-Cons had motive. You said so yourself, unprompted. Does that prove they did it? no. Like in any murder investiigation, you could find a couple of suspects who had motive. And only one did it. But at least admit what you have already admitted. Say it loud. BUSHCO had motive.

962. Daoud - September 12, 2012

Wait… serious question here….. Is “Into” capitalized??

Is it:

Star Trek into Darkness… or
Star Trek Into Darkness….

Or are we going to have a conspiracy of all caps and it’s
@Boborci…. What do you think Gore would have done differently, confronted with the 9/11 situation. I don’t think Gore would have gone through with the planned Iraq invasion, but certainly with Afghanistan. I had always hoped that Fringe’s alt universe would have been one in which Gore had one. Too soon, I guess. Maybe not so much now.
In any case, two things no government in history ever gave: honesty and accountablility.

Looking forward to how you and Alex and Damon have worked subtle nods of our current decades into the plot of STID….

963. Damian - September 12, 2012

Still, lots of people have motives to do lots of things. Doesn’t mean everyone does everything. The facts of the case to me do not add up to participation in 09/11. Negligence or willful negligence, maybe, actually taking part, no. The evidence I see leads me to believe this was orchestrated by Al Qaeda alone, beginning years before anyone ever heard of George W.

964. Phil - September 12, 2012

@955. So how does that explain the Obama Administration, unless he’s a closet Neocon?

965. boborci - September 12, 2012

955.what about Obama? Has he pulled us out of any wars? Has he closed Guantanamo? Has he repealled the patriot act? What’s your point?

966. Vultan - September 12, 2012


Eh, not really. You have 20 to 30 AQ extremists versus an untold number of government officials involved in the planning and execution of the attacks. Really depends on which particular theory you’re going with from there.

If you believe Building 7 was a controlled detonation, add some more agents to the overall conspiracy, possibly involving personnel within the New York City Police and Fire Departments, and engineers, and investigative boards, both private and public. If you believe the hijackers didn’t really get on those planes, add some airline officials to the mix. On and on and on, with each piece, each theory it involves more and more people, decreasing your chances for a successful operation.

A smaller group could do it—did do it.

967. boborci - September 12, 2012

963. Agreeing with you. Have already said motive is not the everythying. In a classic criminal investigation, you need MOTIVE, MEANS, and OPPORTUNITY. We have not discussed the latter two. Just marvelling that you refuse to say what you have said. They had motive. How can we move onto to other parts of the theory if you won’t play fair and ackwoledge what you have already said?

968. Montreal_Paul - September 12, 2012

Uh, can we keep politics off the boards please. I am sure there are political based boards on conspiracy theories out there.

969. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

@boborci – OK, it appears that you are the genuine Roberto Orci. It would have been nice if you could have clarified this for me and others and not just assume that we would “get it”. Why do you ignore my questions? Have I offended you in some way? It’s never been my intention, but I’m sorry to say that I feel a little offended by you ignoring me, not once but twice now.

970. Montreal_Paul - September 12, 2012

Oh, and just to post something “on topic”…

“Simon Pegg has become the first cast member to comment on the new movie title by tweeting (@simonpegg) that “Star Trek” is a verb, not a noun. He boldly confirms that the title is “Star Trek Into Darkness”.”

971. Ahmed - September 12, 2012

@ 965. boborci – September 12, 2012

“955.what about Obama? Has he pulled us out of any wars? Has he closed Guantanamo? Has he repealled the patriot act? What’s your point?”

How about the fact that he ended the Iraq war ???

972. boborci - September 12, 2012

969. Sorry. What were your two questions?

973. boborci - September 12, 2012

968. Not politics. History. We are arguing about history;)

974. boborci - September 12, 2012

962 Can’t discuss titles. Have wondered what Gore woulda done. Fringe woulda been good place to speculate.

975. Aurore - September 12, 2012

“The fact — FACT — that they did come up with Operation Northwoods, however Kennedy rightly decided not to accept it, should make all people question what other schemes men of great power think up in secret.”

I don’t remember ever hearing about Operation Northwoods (will have to read about this). However, for some reason , your post made me think of a man called Smedley Butler…

976. Jefferies Tuber - September 12, 2012

965. boborci – September 12, 2012

Reflects a naive, childlike understanding of civics… not unlike the childlike desire for a simple explanation of 9/11 like conspiracy. Obama ended the war in Iraq, scheduled the end of war in Afghanistan for 2014 and there’s a thing that adults do called being Senators. Senators can block anything, so no policy can change without the assent of all 100 Senators, including closing Guantanamo.

Amazing that you’re rejecting incompetence and going all-in on vast-reaching conspiracy.

Do Paramount and Summit endorse your reckless endangerment of their investments in ENDERS GAME and STAR TREK? You do realize that these Truther comments could end up on Drudge and lead to a conservative/military boycott of Star Trek. Right? As I said above, you can do more than kill Star Trek. You can hurt Star Trek. WTF.

977. boborci - September 12, 2012

975. FYI — Northwoods


978. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

#972 – The first one, you have answered, I think. The person with the username Boborci is not you, I take it. It is just that while Anthony has been away, there has been a few imposters/sockpuppets? coming here, so I am not sure if you are one and the same person – the real Roberto Orci – writer/producer of this Star Trek movie sequel as the person with the name Boborci (upper case b).

The other question was to do with when English speaking countries outside of the USA would get to see People Like Us and/or when we might expect to see release of blu-ray/DVDs of the movie. Those questions were ignored by you even though you were on this site discussing other things with posters here, like politics, not remotely connected with the Star Trek movie or any other movie you have been involved in making.

I have read good things about PLU. Are you not satisfied/happy with your contribution with regard to this film?

It just would have been nice to have got a response to my questions, even if it is “Can’t tell you anything at this stage”. We know you are tongue-tied when it comes to what you can say about Star Trek Into Darkness, but surely that does not apply to other movies, like People Like Us.

I just wonder what it has to take. That’s all. Anyway, thank you for your response and questions.

979. boborci - September 12, 2012

976. I am not going all in on anything. I am questioning the official story. IT could be the 911 report is covering up something more innocent. Perhaps the cover up is a result of the US not wanting to reveal exactly how much Al Qaeda had infiltrated our intelligence (so that’s how they knew we were conducting drills on 911 that confused our responses). Or perhaps they are protecting the knowledge that 911 was a state sponsored op by another country. Who knows But the idea that we would accept the word of the Bushco which lied so much that if 911 went as they said it did (it would be one of the ONLY things they reported accurately) seems irresponsible.

980. Aurore - September 12, 2012

@ 977. boborci – September 12, 2012

Thank you.

981. boborci - September 12, 2012

976. You are quite incorrect. President can close Guantanamo by executive order. Patriot act legality predicated on continued declared State of Emergency which is also decreed by Presidential Executive order. As for war, he is THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF and can pull troops out of any conflict with the utterance of a word.

And by the way, even when you need Senators, you only need a majority (not all 100). Thanks for the civics lesson.

982. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

How can Simon Pegg say “trek” is a verb in the context of the title “Star Trek Into Darkness”? I mean, seriously? Come on…

If the title was “We Star Trek Into Darkness”, then I would agree that “trek” is a verb. Is that what we are supposed to believe the title means? Is that not making assumptions if we are simply supposed to put an unsaid/unwritten “we” before the words, “star trek”?

What the hell has happened to basic understanding of english grammar? Good grief.

983. boborci - September 12, 2012

978. sometimes I go by boborci and sometimes Boborci. I don’t always remember to de-capitalize my name.

I liked PLU a lot, but don’t know when it comes out in other countries! Thanks for asking.

984. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

930. Damian – September 12, 2012

928–Then vote for the OTHER guy (or girl–want to be equal). That is the only way you will see any meaningful change.


No, actually, you are about as wrong as you can possibly be about that. After 2 straight presidents running on promises which they then broke and actually governed 180 degrees the opposite after the election — a process that goes back at LEAST since Woodrow Wilson — it SHOULD still be fresh in people’s minds that appearances do not equal realities and that words do not equal actions.

After all that hope and change, things have remained remarkably the same. And that is not an accident.

Oh change is coming. And it isn’t going to have much to do with the voting lever. But it does have to do with an epidemic failure of people to look under the surface, and it will have to do with facts and realities that are not going to spare you simply because you pay no attention to them.

“Ignorance is bliss” is not a good survival strategy.

985. Ahmed - September 12, 2012

@ 983. boborci – September 12, 2012

“978. sometimes I go by boborci and sometimes Boborci. I don’t always remember to de-capitalize my name. ”

Interesting, I thought that the real Bob will only go by boborci.

Anthony should come with a way to insure unique log-on for users to avoid imposters.

986. mikejohnson - September 12, 2012

Boborci, just give them the following link and get back to work. These Trek comics aren’t gonna plot themselves.


987. boborci - September 12, 2012

I always try to be boborci but sometimes the device I am using capitalizes and I don’t notice.

988. Damian - September 12, 2012

984–I meant people should not always assume you have to vote for a Democrat or Republican.

967–I agree there was motive. Again, there are motives to do lots of things. But that is about it for me. It’s the other parts I don’t agree with. I just don’t believe that there was enough time to allow for this mastermind conspiracy. It was too short a period of time, too many people would have been involved due to the lack of time, and somebody would have blown the whistle. Again, had this occurred 2003 or 2004, maybe I could see it. Had the Bush Administration been a successor to a Republican Administration with the same people, maybe. But not in 8 months with all the critical people necessary (Secretary of Defense, VP, etc) being all new people.

989. boborci - September 12, 2012

986. You’re right. Back to work. Heads back in tthe sand everybody!

990. Damian - September 12, 2012

984–Another point I was trying to make is voting Democrat or Republican and expecting change is insanity (doing the same thing and expecting something different). At least voting for someone outside the 2 parties may offer real, meaningful change, not guaranteed, but better that continually voting for the same quacks and expecting some miraculous change.

991. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

966: “If you believe Building 7 was a controlled detonation,”

Here’s the problem, Vultan. The burden of proof is on you to explain how bldg 7 got into freefall. The facts say it was.

NIST can’t change those facts. And they have the same problem you do.

Those are the facts. That is the evidence. Bldg 7 was in freefall. Now you have to explain it, which you cannot do with the status quo model that fire brought it down.

All your conjectures about who would and would not squeal if it was demolitioned do not change the fact that the building was in freefall, and that NIST got that blatantly wrong.

Sorry. But that is what the evidence shows. And what’s worse for you agents of inertia is that the news media you respect isn’t telling you this — they aren’t even “on the case!”

And sadly that is true about many things that are important these days.

That’s why you need a news media that works for the people not the corporate/state interests. Because when you have what we have, you only get garbage — fast food information for brains adapted to levity and simple narratives that they can understand and forget quickly.

992. Damian - September 12, 2012

979– I don’t accept all the details that have come out (as I noted, I already accept the possibility they may have been negligent). Just that I accept that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks and that they weren’t orchestrated by our government (and not because of any love for Bush). Outside of that, I’m open to possibilities.

993. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

988. Damian – September 12, 2012

984–I meant people should not always assume you have to vote for a Democrat or Republican.


That’s the game. But it doesn’t matter if you vote democrat or republican because the status quo remains unchanged. Democrats and republicans are two football teams playing by the same rules, and as long as you vote for those, you vote in the same game.

Game changers are NOT ALLOWED. Your vote will not count toward the election of a viable candidate unless it is cast for the republican or democratic nominee.

994. Damian - September 12, 2012

991–Somehow if this were some vast conspiracy, I don’t think the talking heads at MSNBC would sit on it. I mean, who’s going to tell Al Sharpton to keep his mouth shut? :)

995. Damian - September 12, 2012

993–And if you want a real conspiracy, that is one I can most definetly buy. I mean, awfully suspicious that when Ross Perot was leading in the polls in 1992 he suddenly dropped out (whether you liked Perot or not, you have to admit it’s suspicious). Or how often the Democrats tried to undermine Ralph Nader. It’s awfully funny too that the one possible party that had some legs, the Reform Party was undermined by one year having Pat Buchanan run and another Ralph Nader (2 candidates that couldn’t be farther apart and hardly fit the Reform Party platform, which was more centrist).

I fully believe that if a 3rd party candidate really was doing well in the polls and was a threat, the 2 parties would conspire to undermine that candidate by any means.

996. Vultan - September 12, 2012


Care to explain why Building 7 would be demolished in the midst of the chaos of that day? What was the motive? Certainly wasn’t to kill more people since the building was evacuated when it went down. So was it to destroy secret documents? Well, if this shadow government is so powerful and intelligent, why not just bag up all the documents in the night, drive them to a remote location, and burn them? Seems far simpler.

And unless the documents were kept at the Watergate, they could’ve probably gotten away with it. ;)

997. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

941: “And for a “shadow government” in the ’70s that couldn’t properly carry out a hotel break-in without getting caught….”

That wasn’t the shadow government. That was THE government doing things in the shadows. The president and his crooks.

The shadow government is an oligarchy that influences the decisions of those who have the power, and are themselves sometimes the ones who have it. And it isn’t ONE single ring but a consortium of rings with a common agenda.

Sometimes they are in the government, like Averell Harriman, Prescott Bush, and GHW Bush, sometimes they are in foreign governments, and sometimes they are in government only as representatives of corporate powers.

998. Vultan - September 12, 2012


Ah, forgive. How can I be deaf with ears like this? ;)

But it is a little convenient for this shadow government to be only present when conspiracies are successful. Lamont Cranston would be envious.

999. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

996. Vultan – September 12, 2012


Care to explain why Building 7 would be demolished in the midst of the chaos of that day? What was the motive?


I can’t explain why, I can only speculate and my speculations don’t count for anything. It’s also off the point. When the evidence shows that the building was in free fall, then Houston we have a problem.

When you have a dead body, motive is irrelevant regarding the FACT of the dead body. I mean it’s not like if you don’t have a motive then the dead body is going to disappear. The crime was done, whether you can explain a motive or not.

Also, the shadow government is not bureaucratic, it’s aristocratic. Don’t think of it as a shadowy version of the public government with all its bureaucratic vices and files of paperwork in bureau headquarters’ offices.

1000. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

It is odd that nobody has mentioned here the attack on the American Embassy in Libya on 11 September this year, of all dates, and where four of the staff were killed, including the US ambassador himself. From the footage I saw on the TV news, the place looked totally gutted by fire.

Thank you, Bob Orci, for your response. Yes, I agree, those comics won’t write themselves…:)

1001. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

OMG There are now over 1,000 posts on this thread and we weren’t even trying!

1002. Damian - September 12, 2012

998–Also, the Bush administration couldn’t keep a lid on a jar. How many things came out about the war in Iraq, things going on in Afghanistan, not to mention things that came out domestically that they didn’t want you to find out. I find it hard to believe that too this day, not one person of import divulged this secret covert attack perpetrated by Bush to the press. I mean, I’m no Bush apologist, but I’d hardly say all the press, including MSNBC people present and past or the NY Times–frequently accused of being anti Republican, has Bush’s back here. I mean, I really can’t see Keith Olbermann keeping a lid on this. Also, why would Al Qaeda, of all groups, accept the blame and allow their numbers to be decimated by attacks to protect the Bush Administration without nary a word. I mean, none of it makes sense. I sure as Hell would think they would use this in propaganda. It has Al Qaeda advertising all over it.

1003. Vultan - September 12, 2012


Ignoring motive doesn’t make the crime disappear, but it is paramount in following clues in order to establish who precisely the criminals are and in catching and prosecuting said criminals—that is, if you consider yourself a detective and are interested in legitimate, objective investigation.

Otherwise, you’re just a theorist.

1004. Damian - September 12, 2012

1000–I noticed that myself. Obviously done on 09/11 on purpose. 9/11, no matter whether you believe the conspiracy theories or not, is always a sad day. The fact remains thousands of innocent people died that day and I can’t help thinking of the people that fell to their deaths out of the WTC. Just awful thinking about that (not to mention the passengers on the jets and the people working in the offices at the time).

1005. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

998: “But it is a little convenient for this shadow government to be only present when conspiracies are successful. Lamont Cranston would be envious.”

Who said they’re only around when conspiracies are successful? They are operating right now, in broad daylight, using drones to conduct their Open Conspiracy methodology in public.

Perhaps Fareed Zachariah openly plagiarized that New Yorker piece in his silly anti-Second Amendment lecture for Time, because he didn’t think anyone would turn his sorry ass in.

1006. Damian - September 12, 2012

Well, this has been interesting. I’m afraid I have to bow out, though it’s been a fascinating discussion (one I actually had not planned on joining). They may be knocking on our doors any minute now. By tomorrow nobody will know we ever existed ;)

1007. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

1003. Vultan – September 12, 2012

Oh come on, dude. If it was demo’d then I think it’s safe to say it wasn’t by Al Qaeda. Who or which group was in on it I do not know, but it was most likely some domestic authority, and that is Operation Northwoods-level psychopathology.

Point is the official story about its collapse is BS, and the zombie news isn’t interested in telling you because the implications are terrible.

Who were tenants of bldg 7? Lots of government, including the DOD and the CIA — yes, the same CIA which Operation Northwoods was going to use to wreak havoc in America to blame on Castro.

1008. bardicjim - September 12, 2012

I think there is going to be a reflective political climate in this Trek film. They are going to reference WW3 and use current political situations to explain the need for an eugenics race, thus creating Khan. However, Khan is more than just a name. It is a title.

I think Bob is messing with us and testing the waters for a very political Star Trek with mirrored circumstances within the Federation itself. The greatest danger, into Darkness, is going to be a False Flag incident and the Enterprise Crew are going to get to the bottom of it.

1009. The Last Vulcan - September 12, 2012

@920, if the title was Star Trek: Let’s Play With Tribbles, I’d have just about the same sense of where it was headed. Thanks to Chris Nolan and his ilk (Tarantino, etc.) motion pictures are now firmly in the Clockwork Orange sphere of ultraviolence. Dark has become a way to sell a movie as Mr. Nolan is well aware with his exceptionally successful darkening of Batman and Superman to come. JJ and clan didn’t just fall off the turnip shuttle so they know exactly what they’re doing when they drop Dark into the title. It equates to heroes struggling with their inner demons who try to pull them into being antiheros, lots of hand wringing, and revolting levels of violence which are designed to thrill the 16 year old sadists who are the primary group of movie ticket buyers. That definition of Dark is 100% at odds with the Roddenberry vision of the scifi future and much more in phase with Prometheus. Gene wouldn’t even let his crew be in conflict with each other, let alone fall into the Dark genre. So, I maintain:


BTW, if the boborci on this thread is the real Roberto Orci, I’ll snip off my pointy ears with dull kitchen shears. He doesn’t write like boborci, is providing a higher wordcount than boborci does in a year, and IMHO anyone who is discussing these topics with him in the belief that he is Roberto Orci is being fooled.


Thank you.

1010. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

And when I said “drones” in 1005, I did of course mean the human variety.

1011. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

No plot spoilers of course, but this is what John Cho thought about working on the sequel:


#1009 – Occasionally, Bob Orci has written quite a lot in a post, more than something akin to a text, but not that often. If it is a subject he is interested in and has the time, then he has written a fair amount.

1012. The Last Vulcan - September 12, 2012

@1011. I have my dull kitchen shears at hand and the pointy ears are ready to hit the floor if it is him. :)

1013. Dom - September 12, 2012

1009. The Last Vulcan: ‘Thanks to Chris Nolan and his ilk (Tarantino, etc.) motion pictures are now firmly in the Clockwork Orange sphere of ultraviolence. Dark has become a way to sell a movie as Mr. Nolan is well aware with his exceptionally successful darkening of Batman and Superman to come’

Clockwork Orange is 40 years old. Dirty Harry, Spaghetti Westerns, The Exorcist, The French Connection, White Heat, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity . . . all dark movies. All older. The Dark Knight Returns, Batman Year One, heck, even the early Batman comics, stripped of their limited colour palette . . . dark comic books, dark stories. Dark has always sold well and is nothing new!

‘JJ and clan didn’t just fall off the turnip shuttle so they know exactly what they’re doing when they drop Dark into the title . . . revolting levels of violence which are designed to thrill the 16 year old sadists who are the primary group of movie ticket buyers.’


‘That definition of Dark is 100% at odds with the Roddenberry vision of the scifi future and much more in phase with Prometheus. Gene wouldn’t even let his crew be in conflict with each other, let alone fall into the Dark genre.’

Hooey! That’s ‘Church of Roddenberry’ TNG-era revisionist history at its worst! It was positive in TOS that we get into space without killing each other, but humans are still often basket cases in the TOS era! Kodos, Dr Adams, miners massacring the Horta through ignorance, Roger Corby turning himself into a machine for illicit ends, the list goes on! Darkness was absolutely part of the original Trek, be it the moody lighting, serial killers possessing humans (Redjac in a story from the writer of the novel Psycho!) or sinister ‘angels’ turning children into killers. Star Trek was an action adventure series and darkness was always a part of it.

‘So, I maintain:

So I maintain you’ve watched far less of Star Trek than you think or you’re so into worshipping the older Roddenberry’s rather bonkers futurist attitudes of the 1980s that your understanding of Star Trek (original version) is completely warped!

1014. boborci - September 12, 2012

1009 said: “BTW, if the boborci on this thread is the real Roberto Orci, I’ll snip off my pointy ears with dull kitchen shears. He doesn’t write like boborci, is providing a higher wordcount than boborci does in a year, and IMHO anyone who is discussing these topics with him in the belief that he is Roberto Orci is being fooled.”


Talk about a conspiracy!

1015. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012


The fire from the falling debris from when the planes hit the towers, plus the north tower’s collapse brought down building 7. The north tower was close enough to building 7 for the collapsing steal beams and buring material to cause significant damage. Building 7 burned for almost five hours after the collapse of the north tower. Plenty of time for the blaze to cause fatal weakness in the structure.

And you’d have to consider all the equipment and explosives needed for a demo. Not to mention a lot of empty space in the building would be needed to set it all up, and the time it would take to do so. I find it unlikely that such an endeavor could have occurred over the weekend prior to 9/11.

As for the attacks in Egypt, and Lybia, well, it just goes to show that interventions can backfire. Getting rid of dictators just allowed the radicals to fill the vaccuum. Both Moammar Ghaddafi and Hosni Mubarak were allies of the west. Just like Saddam Hussein was prior to the Kuwait invasion. Even Bashar Al-Assad was courted by the west after 9/11 to aid in the torture interrogations of 9/11, al-Queda and Taliban suspects.

1016. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

1015. Red Dead Ryan – September 12, 2012

I suggest you watch all three videos proving the free fall of bldg 7. I linked to the third. The others are there too. You’ve given the official story, which can no longer be taken seriously because the building was in free fall. Not a cascading failure like WTC 1 and 2.

1017. boborci - September 12, 2012


Once could argue, if they were a nutty conspiracy theorist, the following:

If you are investigating the cause of WTC 7 collapse, along with the twin towers and you are told ALQ did it, then here is what you know: you know that the alleged perpetrators of this attack have ONLY ever used explosives against their targets. In fact, they attacked the very same WTC complex before WITH EXPLOSIVES. So what is the first thing you are going to look for or test for if you are investigating mysterious collapse of buildings? EXPLOSIVES!!!

But guess what? NIST DID NOT TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE on any of the towers. Not even to rule it out.

So answer me this: Why?!?

I’m sure your answer will simply be: INCOMPETENCE. If that is the case however, their conclusions cannot be trusted at all and and the cause of the collapse becomes, again, an open question with no satisfactory answer!

1018. Jefferies Tuber - September 12, 2012

981. boborci – September 12, 2012

Your reply is appreciated. A few things. Since 2010, the GOP has included budget provisions to block any spending on anything related to closing Guantanamo or opening a new facility. You can read all about it here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40754.pdf or you can just read the operative language prohibiting the use of defense funding: “to construct or modify a facility within the United States to house detainees transferred from the Guantanamo detention facility” or “to transfer, release or assist in the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees to or within the United States.”

Also, a Senator does not merely have the right to hold open debate [the filibuster], but also an informal right to place holds on everything from funds to judicial appointments. So yeah, you only need 60 Senators to close debate, but it only takes one to place a hold. We’re only debating history, so there’s no reason to get into the rest of the politics. But your summary of recent history and law was incomplete.

As for the long-ago root subject here, the title: I’ll learn to love it. But it’s worrying that two of your sequel properties ended up with ‘Dark’ in the title. Along with the black shirts and ‘bad Starfleet’ ripples in the comics and BC’s costume, the title projects a trendy darkness that’s anachronistic to Roddenberry’s vision. Just once I’d like to have seen one of the Supreme Court defend Roddenberry’s aspirational utopianism. Instead we go into darkness.

1019. boborci - September 12, 2012

1016. You don’t even need the video. NIST was FORCED to admit under questioning that free fall speed at onset of collapse of wtc7 was a fact.

1020. Craiger - September 12, 2012

Did anyone see the Youtube video I posted with Clinton?

1021. boborci - September 12, 2012

1015 said: “The fire from the falling debris from when the planes hit the towers, plus the north tower’s collapse brought down building 7. The north tower was close enough to building 7 for the collapsing steal beams and burinng material to cause significant damage. Building 7 burned for almost five hours after the collapse of the north tower. Plenty of time for the blaze to cause fatal weakness in the structure.”

Then you are in disagreement with the official NIST report which doesn not allege that debris caused any structural damage. According to the offical gov report, wtc 7 fell as a result of a previously never before seen phenomenon called “thermal expansion” which was only the result of fire. Since you disagree with the offical story, does that make you a conspiracy theorist?

1022. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012

Building 7 was a totally different design than the twin towers. So it stands to reason that it would collapse in a different manner.

Yeah, maybe they should have done explosives tests, but at the same time, the wreckage was sifted through for human remains, and as such, there would have been evidence of explosives. Wiring, pieces of fuel tanks, etc.

1023. Jefferies Tuber - September 12, 2012

Anthony, this Truther thread is like a giant pool of leaking gasoline. Are you ready to pay for bandwidth if Drudge links to it?

1024. Craiger - September 12, 2012

Have we determined if this is the real Bob Orci?

1025. boborci - September 12, 2012

1022. Uh-uh. You don’t get away that easily. Maybe they shoulda tested for explosives? Are you kidding? EVEN AN INTERN AT THE FBI WOULD KNOW THAT THE FIRST THING YOU WOULD DO IS TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES WHEN YOUR SUPPOSED ATTACKERS HAVE NEVER USED ANYTHING BUT!! IF someone on my writing staff was working on an Alias episode, and they were writing one about an FBI investigator looking into this kind of crime, and they didn’t write the investigator testing for explosives, THEY WOULD BE FIRED!! And we’re talking about a meaningless TV show here! But you are fine with gov body tasked with getting to the bottom of greatest crime/attack on US soil in history not testing for the only weapon that the alleged perpetrators HAVE EVER USED?!

THEY DID NOT TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DETERMINE IF EXPLOSIVES WERE PRESENT BECAUSE THE BUILDINGS WERE PULVERIZED! Sifting through the wreckage you expect them to find a Wile E. Coyote Acme bomb? FBI claims they didn’t even find the black boxes of the two flights that crashed into the twin towers! But you expect to find wiring?

Disclaimer: boborci is an internet character designed for entertainment pusposes only. Any similarity to Roberto Orci is strictly coincidental.

1026. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012


Maybe, maybe not. I just went by what I saw from the photos. A ten story gash on the side of the building, obviously caused by falling debris.

But I did also make mention that the building collapsed because of the fire. I just didn’t specify thermal expansion. The fire would obviously cause structural damage, otherwise the building would not have collapsed.

1027. Montreal_Paul - September 12, 2012

973. boborci

Ah history! Has the US ever rewritten history book to make it seem like something never happened? Here in Quebec, they rewrote the history books so that the battle on the Plains of Abraham (where the British won against the French) never happened. Amazing.

1028. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

1022. Red Dead Ryan – September 12, 2012

Ryan, you really need to look at the evidence, and not speculate about what they “would have” found or what “would have been” there. The evidence is king here, and it’s saying free fall.

That’s a big problem for the official story. So when Silverstein famously told them to “pull it,” that tends to agree with the demolition evidence. Silverstein didn’t say to “pull THEM,” i.e., the firefighters. He said pull “IT.”

But that is nothing compared to the actual evidence that the building was in free fall.

1029. boborci - September 12, 2012

1018 And thanks for your polite tone. I truly support the utopian view that you express. You are right about the way things SHOULD be. But the fact is the last “declared” war (as in congressionally approved) was WW2. Your ideals (and mine) are not quite in sync with the reality of current presidential powers.

1030. boborci - September 12, 2012

1027. Right?

1031. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

1019. boborci – September 12, 2012

Agreed, Bob. I just want people to click, watch, and SEE for themselves what NIST did wrong and what really happened.

1032. boborci - September 12, 2012

FYI my comments here have little to do with the movie. This is just a hang out, and yesterday happened to be 911. To think anything else would be a paranoid conspiracy.

1033. Craiger - September 12, 2012

The same people that believe 9/11 was an inside probably also believe that we never landed on the Moon that is all done in a Hollywood studio.

1034. Craiger - September 12, 2012

Clinton on 9/11:


1035. boborci - September 12, 2012

1015 said: “”And you’d have to consider all the equipment and explosives needed for a demo. Not to mention a lot of empty space in the building would be needed to set it all up, and the time it would take to do so. I find it unlikely that such an endeavor could have occurred over the weekend prior to 9/11.”

According to the official story, the failure of a single column lead to global collapse. If that is true, then explosives placed on this single column would also do the job. Again, that only works if you beleive the offical story.

1036. boborci - September 12, 2012

1033 A classic change of subjects designed to close critical thinking.
Feel free to comment on the actual arguments we are arguing, like, WHY DIDN’T NIST TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES WHEN ALQ HAS ONLY EVER USED EXPLOSIVES? TICK TOCK. WHY?

1037. Craiger - September 12, 2012

And no one who was working at the buildings saw people plating demolition charges around the building and thought to call the FBI, NSA, CIA or the local Police to report suspicious activity?

1038. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012


There would have been pieces of explosive materials found in the building 7 wreckage. It wouldn’t have all been pulverized. Small fragents, perhaps, but something would have been found. A lot of explosives would have been needed to bring the building down, and a lot of wiring would have been needed as well. That’s assuming conventional building demo was involved, of course.

1039. boborci - September 12, 2012

1038. Avoiding question. NIST DID NOT LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES. They say so. They ruled it out BEFORE THEY LOOKED!

You ignored argument that they claim BLACK BOXES COULDN”T EVEN BE FOUND (which has never happend, which are designed to survive anything) but you expect them to find bomb parts (which ARE NOT DESIGNED TO SRUVIVE ANYTHING) when they are not even looking for evidence of bombs?


1040. Craiger - September 12, 2012

Because their weren’t any.

1041. Star Trek Voyeur - September 12, 2012

105. Boborci – September 7, 2012
“Give me your first choice of titles!”

2 Trek or not 2 Trek ….

1042. boborci - September 12, 2012

1040. So why not test for it just to rule it out. Easy. Also called the sceintific method. Your attitude discredits you as a crtitical thinker. Your argument is that a gov body taksed with expliaining what they themselves call a mysterious collapse does not look or explosives because they know ahead of time that there are none even as they are trying to explain mysterious collapse.

I won’t insult your intelligence because I understand that the horror of considering other theories is difficult and can cause otherwise smart people to say truly stupid things.

1043. Craiger - September 12, 2012


1044. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

Yes, NIST assumed their conclusion before their investigation and worked backwards from that conclusion to fit the evidence. The exact opposite of what you are supposed to do. They didn’t test for explosives, and the wreckage was removed.

1045. boborci - September 12, 2012

1043 ah yes. The famous popluar mechanics article. Where shall we start? Give me a minute….

1046. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

1040. Craiger – September 12, 2012

Because their weren’t any.


So the reason they didn’t look for explosives is because there weren’t any?

And how did NIST know there weren’t any explosives without first looking for some and finding none?

1047. boborci - September 12, 2012

1043 Start here:


1048. Craiger - September 12, 2012

Again because they never found any.

1049. boborci - September 12, 2012

1043 and again, that article was written before NIST’S final report, so it cannot answer what you cannot answer:

WHy didn’t NIST test for explosives when ALQ had only ever used explosives?

1050. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012


But that column was found to be weak AFTER the collapse. How would anybody know that column was weak beforehand? Maybe the people who built the building, but then it would come down to faulty construction if that was the case.

Yeah, I’ve seen video of the building, and I’ll admit, it does look like a controlled demo. And I’m familiar with Larry Silverstein. He did say “pull it”, but he was referring the firefighters in the building. There were witnesses there. They all knew at that point the building wasn’t worth saving, and they were needed elsewhere.

Look, just because the building collapsed in a “demo-like” manner doesn’t mean a controlled demolition occurred.

And why, if the building was brought down by explosives, has there never been any documents related to the planning of the demo released? Wouldn’t somebody have some sort of hard proof? Wouldn’t somebody want to speak out about it?

1051. Craiger - September 12, 2012

This is the final report:


1052. boborci - September 12, 2012

1048 Your denial is amazing. THEY DID NOT LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES. THEY SAID SO. So for you to say that they looked and didn’t find any is the height of intellectual dishonesty. But I get it. the “comfort” conspiracy theorists get from their conspiracies isn’t for everyone,

1053. Craiger - September 12, 2012


1054. boborci - September 12, 2012

1053 great. So what does Pm say about ruling out explosives without testing for exposives?

1055. Red Dead Ryan - September 12, 2012

Okay, I agree that a test for explosives should have been done, if only to rule it out. But hindsight is also 20/20. Everyone saw the planes hit the towers. The buildings fell. We know explosives DID NOT bring down those towers. They tried that in ’93 and it didn’t work because the foundation was too strong. And that was a very powerful bomb they used. So I don’t know why they would feel the need to use explosives as well as hijacking planes.

As for the black boxes, maybe they weren’t as indestructable as previously thought? They could have disintegrated in the explosion, crushed under the collapse of the tons of steel beams, maybe they landed on a roof of a building? Or maybe someone stole them and has them in their possession?

9/11 was an unprecedented event.

1056. boborci - September 12, 2012

1053 It says nothing because it came out years before. So you are bringing up something that is not related to current discussion.

1057. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

1048. Craiger – September 12, 2012

Again because they never found any.


You can’t claim there were none because they never found any, unless they looked for some and didn’t find any. Which they didn’t do.

You’ll have to come up with something better than that, unless you mean to suggest that NIST scientists have some mysterious faculty of knowledge which permits them to completely bypass the senses and come to conclusions without consulting any physical evidence at all.

1058. Commodore Adams - September 12, 2012

@ boborci

Granted, you don’t want to divulge anything about the new movie and frankly I wont argue with that. I spoiled much of the 2009 movie for myself by reading so many articles, so I shall avoid that this time around and only watch the trailers. Would it be too much to ask?…Will a teaser trailer or trailer for Into Darkness release before January 2013?


1059. boborci - September 12, 2012

1056 such bullshit. Why would you, as head of investigators trying to find out what happened, would you not test for explosives? Why? why/ Cuz you saw planes hit? Why wouldn’t you want to know if planes had explosives? After all, some of the callers said they witnessed hijackers claiming they had bombs. WHY NOT TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES. There is no good reason, and you know it.

Multiple witnesses said they heard bombs. NBC reported inteview with FBI officical who said they were thinking bombs. firefighters said they heard bombs. Civilians reported they heard bombs JOHN KERRY (Democratic nominee) said (look it up on youtube) that wtc came down in controlled demo. Why would you not test for bombs?


1060. Commodore Adams - September 12, 2012

970. Montreal_Paul – September 12, 2012
Oh, and just to post something “on topic”…

“Simon Pegg has become the first cast member to comment on the new movie title by tweeting (@simonpegg) that “Star Trek” is a verb, not a noun. He boldly confirms that the title is “Star Trek Into Darkness”.”
Well…. Star Trek is both, depending on the context one would use it in or how one should choose to perceive it. Star trek consists of two words (star a noun and trek a verb). Funny enough it is still both when categorizing the two words as a whole. Star Trek is a noun in describing a thing, the show and everything in it as a whole. It is also a verb in action as in a ‘trek through the stars’. wow did I just geek out. All I wanted to say was I’m glad the name is confirmed :P

1061. boborci - September 12, 2012

1058 I think that is a good time to expect a trailer, but no promises:)

1062. boborci - September 12, 2012

1056 said: “We know explosives DID NOT bring down those towers.”

You say that, without irony, knowing that NIST did not test for explosives! How in hell can you say no explosives were used when no one looked for evidence of explosives? You realize how illogical that sounds, right?

1063. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

Reading this reminds me of a conversation I had with my 10 year old daughter who could not find her homework book. I told her to look for it, however she said that it is not here. I asked if she had actually looked for it. She said, no, then she said she couldn’t find because it is not here.

We call this “pediatric logic”…LOL

1064. dmduncan - September 12, 2012


But Ryan, you can’t do science the way you do speculation about the Star Trek sequel. In science there are actual physical laws involved that you have to follow. You can’t make stuff up.

As the physics teacher is trying to explain in the video, the building could not collapse under its own weight AND fall at free fall. It can only fall at free fall if some external force suddenly removes all the support structures at the base.

Fire will not do that. Even if you are arguing collapse by fire, you can’t get free fall SPEED by natural collapse by that fire. Understand? You CAN get it by controlled demolition, however.

The issue is the implication of what free fall SPEED MEANS given the laws of physics, not what some guy on Trekmovie thinks about how physics works.

Quite simply, the building fell too damned FAST for fire to have been the cause. Explanation of that begins around the 1:20 mark.

As he points out in the video, building 7 went from full support to NO support INSTANTLY. The structure didn’t gradually weaken and then START collapsing. It went into free fall SPEED immediately.

The collapse was caused by the simultaneous failure of 82 support columns through 8 floors within a fraction of a second of each other.

That’s not consistent with fire. It is consistent with demolitions.

1065. Vultan - September 12, 2012

A lengthy article detailing the collapse of Building 7:


Interesting reading, particularly the interviews with the firefighters who were there. No doubt the NIST report is incomplete, but the firemen—the witnesses—complete it.

1066. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

The building stayed level while it fell, meaning it had NO support across the entire base, meaning all 82 columns had to fail simultaneously within a fraction of a second.

That is profound.

1067. dmduncan - September 12, 2012


Hey, you know what’s NOT in that classic old link?

Free fall!

1068. mikejohnson - September 12, 2012


As a longtime Orci minion I can assure you it’s really Bob. I know his typo patterns like a fingerprint.

And seriously, everybody go read that book I linked to above.


1069. boborci - September 12, 2012

1065 Artc=icle out of date because, as stated previously, NIST did not ite structural damage as being a contributing factor. So your post is IRRELEVANT. Period. and you sitll have not asnwered why NIST did not test for explosives.

1070. boborci - September 12, 2012

1066, Why not cite what you found compelling. What did firefighters say that you love?

1071. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

Look man, the measurable evidence in the video indicates that the NIST 3 Stage Model is FALSE. The building ACTUALLY falls FASTER than the best NIST official-theory 3 Stage Model can account for.

The fact of the matter is there’s a real mystery here which demolition actually explains and which the NIST models do not.

1072. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

The word “trek” is both a noun and a verb, in the same way words like “walk”, “run”, “jog” can be both nouns and verbs, depending on the context in which they are used.

Unless you are saying “a star treks across the galaxy” (which is a sentence), then “trek” is still a noun. “(a) star trek across the galaxy” is a phrase, not a sentence.

1073. Nony - September 12, 2012

Wow, come back after a day to read some more fun Star Trek debate, on this, y’know, Star Trek site, and these comments are super off-topic. *leaves again*

1074. Vultan - September 12, 2012

It’s getting late. It’s been fun… I suppose, but arguing over this has become tiresome. There’s only so many research links you can throw back and forth before it comes down to dueling web browsers.

But I’ve come to the realization that conspiracy has become something of a religion for some. There’s the Christ figure (JFK), the devil/evil entity (LBJ, Nixon, Bush, the shadow government, take your pick), and even angels from above (aliens) and demons lurking in the shadows (men in black, CIA).

Okay, I’m joking… sort of… but conspiracy theorists do seem to need it as comfort just as those in opposition have their own—my own—comfort zone of intellectual thought. Not a criticism, simply a realization. And if I’m right, I say go with it. Religion (or philosophy, if you will) can be a comforting, spiritually enriching thing, and as long as you don’t take it so seriously that you find yourself ramming a plane into a building or some other violent action… well, it’s okay then.

And hopefully we’ve shared some ideas here and pushed each other out of our respective comfort zones, if only for a moment.


1075. Vultan - September 12, 2012

Ah, okay, didn’t see your questions before, but if you read the interviews with the firefighters, one of them clearly says the building didn’t look right to him, that he thought a collapse was imminent.


1076. boborci - September 12, 2012

1074 You are leaving without answering serious question:

How could NIST not test for explosives when every other AlQ attack involved explosives. You are not answering because even you know know that simply saying “incompetence” as the answer is unsatisfactory.

I’m trying to help you here, but you are not making it easy.

1077. Rose by any other name is Keachick - September 12, 2012

As far as I can see, the only other phenomenon to cause such a free fall so quickly would be an earthquake. There were no reports of seismic activity in New York at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

The earthquake that hit Christchurch on 22 February 2011 caused a five storey building to free fall about as fast causing total collapse, but that quake was between 6 and 7 on the Richter scale and fairly close to the surface.

1078. boborci - September 12, 2012

1075. PEACE indeed.

1079. boborci - September 12, 2012

1065 is right, That is straight science. Gotta get past that before you can say any other dumb thing.

1080. boborci - September 12, 2012

by the way… Bin Laden DENIED responsibility for 911! Why?


1081. Harry Ballz - September 12, 2012

Bob, I know you love a good conspiracy, but you usually only get this “chatty” after a few pints.

C’mon, you can tell us……what’s your drink of choice tonight? :>)

1082. boborci - September 12, 2012

1082 Red Wine!

1083. dmduncan - September 12, 2012

And NIST refuses to release their modeling data for anyone to check.

Ba da boom *TEESH*

When the technoaristocrats speak, don’t make your job to listen and nod.

1084. boborci - September 12, 2012

1082 But I don’t need booze to get me going on 911!

1085. Harry Ballz - September 12, 2012

Hmmmmm, I’m betting you came up with Red Matter after staring at your wineglass for a while. M’yeah, that must be it! :>)

1086. Harry Ballz - September 12, 2012

Hey, did Tom Hanks end up abandoning his “Oswald did it alone” JFK special?

I haven’t heard anything for months!

1087. Boborci - September 12, 2012

1086. Hope so for his own sake!

1088. Harry Ballz - September 12, 2012

Bob, as you know, when it comes to the matter of who killed JFK, I am convinced LBJ and his cabal killed Kennedy, but I wondered what you thought as to who were the culprits. As Wesley Crusher would say, “I would really like to know”.

1089. Phil - September 12, 2012

Christ, everyone is a f***king structural engineer now. This is just as bad as listening to the NASA insider debunk the moon landings, only to find out the insider was the gardner who got fired for drinking on the job. This is just nuts…

1090. RenderedToast - September 13, 2012

So as we move onto 9/11 and JFK somehow…

Benedict Cumberbatch is Sybok right?

1091. bardicjim - September 13, 2012

The burning temperature of Jet fuel is nowhere near hot enough to create the molten pools of metal found at the disaster site. Thermite explains it though as it burns at a temperature hot enough to melt steel. This explains the angled slices and melted look of some of the surviving girders. In order to do this it does not need a massive bomb, just some primers. Also these parts of the building are behind the scenes in access shaft area’s. People ain’t gonna see it being set up and it sure could have been done long before the day and over a long period of time. Like maybe when the new Ethernet network was being laid out. Also Al-Qaeda does not exist as a force per-se, but as a list of Middle eastern Militants funded by the CIA in the 1980’s. Even if they were the ones who flew the planes into the towers does not mean to say they were on the payroll.

1092. Bemused Whale - September 13, 2012

Hmm I came here to comment on the new Star Trek title and I’m greeted with what looks like 9/11 conspiracies…fascinating :P

1093. bardicjim - September 13, 2012

The new film looks like it is gonna have dark politics and it’s what bob is talking about so personally I’m going with it.

1094. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012


Simple fact. “They” out number us.

How are you gonna keep your daughters safe?

1095. SoonerDave - September 13, 2012

This thread has turned into complete idiocy.

1096. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

No SonnerDave.

It’s a…

“Decent into Darkeness.”

Howz that for a title!?

Seriously though, I was just trying to provoke a little conversation about the population count. Probably out of line trying that here.

To me, the muslim pop crisis was the REAL crazy “logic” behind many of those who supported military actions in the past 20 years.

Six years ago I even watched a reasoned statistician on CSPAN give a presentation about population count and the muslim world, they said they are having five times as many children as us. The implication is that the threat of an over-populated muslim race has outweighed the logic of peace. That was supposed to be bedrock of our religions and governments.

Personaly I reject that line of thinking. But I still worry about the next generation, That’s why I asked “How are you gonna keep your daughters safe?”

Personally I think good conversation is healthy and might just stop the hate.

How’z that for complete idiocy?.

1097. TREKWEBMASTER - September 13, 2012


Liberty and Freedom…are more than just words!


1098. Phil - September 13, 2012

@1092. Het, Star Trek is science fiction. Why not add a little fantasy to the mix…

1099. Langor12 - September 13, 2012

As long as Zoe Saldana is in it.They can call it whatever they want

1100. Gary S. - September 13, 2012

Not sure where I read it,
But About a month ago,
There was an artice saying that Hanks and his producing partners were were working on a JFK assassination drama called “Parkland. “

1101. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

1090. RenderedToast

Cumby is probably going to be a new character.

He did say that once on set, he had to quickly come up with a persona for the character. That to me indicates he is a pivatol character in the movie and also a new Trek character.

Probably a genius who has invented a machine like the Genesis device that creates galaxies, or something as way over the top that creates a strong moral dilema.

1102. boborci - September 13, 2012

democtratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, is clearly a nut as he tells us his understanding that WTC 7 brought down by controlled demo.


1103. Phil - September 13, 2012

@1102. Okay, is John Kerry a structural engineer? Or a demolitions expert? And how about showing the full transcript of the answer, instead of cutting it off at the magic phrase? Could it be that he was just wrong in his observation?

1104. boborci - September 13, 2012

1034. meanigless and destructive rhetoric from a man who lies about blowjobs. means nothing.

1105. boborci - September 13, 2012

1103. Everything you said COULD be right. But if your arguments are going to come down to ‘HE COULD BE WRONG, then I guess I can use that argument about Bush blaming ALQ. He could be wrong. He is certainly thought of as being infinitely dumber than Kerry.

Putting that aside, lets take a quick tally of the score here:

1.WTC7 looks like controlled demo — even Dan Rather said so on CBS.
2. Witnesses heard explosions within the building and from outside.
3. Owner Silverstein says they made the decision to “pull it.” (though he later recanted and said he meant firefighters).
4. Presidential candidate with classified clearance says he believes it to be controlled demo.
5. Suspects have ONLY used bombs before
6. GOV does not test for bombs.
7. Gov fails to explain how gravitational collapse can happen symmetrically at free fall speed without explosives.

Score is not good for the coincidence theorists.

and again, no one has taken a stab at answering why you would not test for explosives while investigating crimes of mad bombers.

at what point do your “maybe’s” and “could bes” turn into logic. And why wouldn’t you buy Kerry’s explanation that they feared building would fall, so they blew it up to control its fall?

I know this is hard and painful. Thanks for playing.

1106. boborci - September 13, 2012


1107. boborci - September 13, 2012

1104. Imagine what a real investigation could do!

1108. boborci - September 13, 2012

1104. But here. Since you can’t be bothered to investigate the most significant historical even of our lifetime, here is John Kerry’s full answer.


1109. Phil - September 13, 2012

@1108 ‘Can’t be bothered’?? I’ll admit these are fun reads, but frankly, you have no clue what’s on my reading list. We will have to agree to disagree, because I really don’t have a lot of tolerance for anyone who feels the need to strengthen their case by marginalizing those who don’t agree…..cheers.

1110. boborci - September 13, 2012

1103. You want to hear from structural engineers then? Okay. Here you go! Nothing but engineers!


1111. boborci - September 13, 2012

1110. Great. Tell me your reading list. Have you read the 911 Comission Report? Have you read anything at all regarding this subject? If so, what? Or are you just basing your arguments on the “news.” Or are you just trusting the word of the super trustworthy BushCheney clan? Do tell.

You are here risking nothing anonymously as you argue things you know nothing about. I am here risking everything. Forgive me if appear to be marginalizing you.

1112. boborci - September 13, 2012

oops! Take 2. Nothing but Engineers!


1113. Craiger - September 13, 2012

Dan Rather who got fired from CBS because he didn’t fact check the guy who typed up some fake Bush National Guard records on a computer claiming they were on a typewriter.

1114. Craiger - September 13, 2012

Now Rather is on HDNet now AxisTV a channel hardly anyone watches.

1115. boborci - September 13, 2012

1113. Pointless argument. Jennings said it looked like controlled demo, too. Everyone agrees it looks like controlled demo. Even some believers of official story on this board say so. So why are you wasting time trying to score meaningless points instead of arguing the actual issues?

1116. boborci - September 13, 2012

meant 1114

1117. Phil - September 13, 2012

I risk nothing by posting as Phil DeBrier. The only thing at debate at this point is how much do I value the actual evidence and investigation, as opposed to conjecture and opinion of others. And again, without any information you conclude I’m a tool of Bush Cheney? Because I don’t happen to agree with you. You have struck me as being a reasonable guy in the past, not to sure why this is a ‘my way or the highway’ issue with you. Really, all I ask is some evidence. If that makes me a tool, then I guess I’m a tool. Have a nice day….

1118. boborci - September 13, 2012

1114 according to your logic, Dan Rather is not to be trusted. He believes the offical story. Therefore official story is not to be trusted?

See why you are wasting our time? Bring your A game or stay home.

1119. Damian - September 13, 2012

Wow. Bob’s really taking this too heart. I admit, he brings up some interesting points. But there’s nothing there to convince me that the Bush administration perpetrated the attacks. Why is it so hard for some people here to believe Al Qaeda committed these attacks. They’ve made it clear in their own statements they want Americans dead. They sure as hell are not some innocent bystander that is being falsely accused.

As for Bob’s statements that they always used bombs, the planes were like huge bombs themselves. Besides, they already tried a bomb, a very powerful bomb, in 1993 and it didn’t work. It’s silly to think they would try bombs again in 2001 to bring down the WTC.

I’ll concede neocons used this event to their advantage, But the overwhelming evidence to me suggest, even insist it was Al Qaeda. I don’t accept everything the media tells me. I’ve seen and read many reports about 9/11.

I agree with what someone else here said. The Bush Administration had trouble walking and chewing gum. And all of a sudden they carry off the mastermind plot of destroying WTC and part of the Pentagon (not to mention almost the White House), and it goes without a hitch mostly, AND, not one single person of consequence has spoken up about it, even accidently. And they pull this off in only 8 months. And all just because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein. With all the leaks that occurred, I find it nearly impossible they could have kept a lid on it.

I know some here don’t trust the press. But do you really think someone like Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd or Al Sharpton would really keep a lid on something like this. They hated Bush with every fiber of their being and this would have been the ultimate break for them. They would have been absolutely giddy.

1120. boborci - September 13, 2012

1118. This board is full of evidence which you continue to ignore. HAs nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. But you are not dealing with evidence, like:

1.Free fall speed of wtc 7 collapse, admitted to by NIST and impossible without bombs.
2. Owner of WTC saying they decided to PULL IT.
3. Presidential candidate saying it was controlled demo.
4. Dozens of wintesses saying they heard bombs.
5. Gov not looking for bombs. Why?

etc, etc…

You haveAll 5 points above are FACTS. You have not addressed EVEN 1. So when you say that I am judging you without info, you seem to be applying the same rigorous standards of logic that you apply to 911. Sorry to be a pain. As I said I know this is hard. I respect your position and mean no insult. But we are talking about one of the most important moments in our lives which changed the course of history and I have very little tolerance for lazyiness on this subject. YOu can believe whatever you want, but at least STUDY IT.

1121. Damian - September 13, 2012

Some people are really getting hung up on the Building 7 thing as well. Sure it’s suspicious. It had US government offices in there. But that’s still a far cry from saying Bush orchestrated the attacks.

Another equally plausible explanation could be with offices like DOD being in there, that there were government and military secrets that they had to protect, and they building was unsecured after the towers collapse (there’s not denying the building was heavily damaged and I don’t see anyway they could have saved it regardless).

1122. boborci - September 13, 2012

1120. Forget the Bush administration and answer the question! Maybe ALQ planted bombs in wtc. So why not look? Basic fndamental question. WHY NOT LOOK?!

1123. boborci - September 13, 2012

1122. Again, NIST (gov) does not cite any significant damage to building wtc 7 as reason for its collapse. Defenders of the offical story don’t even know the offical story!

1124. boborci - September 13, 2012

1120. You’ve seen many reports about 911? Which ones?

1125. boborci - September 13, 2012

1122. Wait. Are you saying that maybe the building was demolished to protect gov secrets? That is a valid theory! For you to go there means you agree that it seems to be controlled demo, right?

When talking about wtc 7, we need not assign blame to bushco to determine if it is controlled demo or not. As discussed, ALQ coulda wired the building. But you seem to agree that controlled demo is the best explanation for what happend to 7, right?

1126. RAMA - September 13, 2012

Conspiracy theorists tend to be the most clueless people on the planet, far from discovering any revelations, they actually tend to only spread misinformation, following the path of least resistance (and any mental rigor).

The engineering reasons for the collapse of the WTC were well understood not long after the collapse, and was due to it’s unique construction methods, used for the first time on that particular building. Aside from this and Occam’s razor, you don’t need much else in deciding the conspiracy theorists, are once again full of hot air, and not much else.

As for the movie, don’t care what it’s called, they just missed another opportunity to put out a trailer (the Sept 8th anniversary).

1127. boborci - September 13, 2012

1127. You are confused. Offical story itself is a CONSPIRACY THEORY in that it alleges that a shadowy orginzation operating in 73 countrues (according to state department) perpetrated greates attack on US soil in history. Care to clarify your statement?

1128. I am not Herbert - September 13, 2012

“Star Trek” should not be bringing us “into Darkness”… =(

“Star Trek” should seek to be “the (Galactic) Federation of LIGHT!” <3

1129. boborci - September 13, 2012


In 2007, Dr. S Shyam Sunder, head of NIST (gov body investigating) said, “truthfully, I don’tt really know what caused WTC 7 to collapse. We̵’ve had trouble getting a handle on building no. 7” So when you say the engineering reasons for the collapse were well understood immediately, you have the very officals you are relying on contradicting you.

So you’ve made 2 points so far on this discussion, but of which are demonstrably confused.

Wanna keep playing?

1130. Red Dead Ryan - September 13, 2012


Is it possible, that seeing how the building was already on fire, that someone decided that they might as well rig a demo to ensure the building falls in a manner that doesn’t do any more damage to surrounding buildings? That explosives would only be needed on the very bottom floors?

It could be that building 7 just wasn’t worth saving at that point, with the fires, and exterior damage done by falling debris. So they figured that the best way to ensure that the building stops burning is by collapsing it. The fire trucks and firefighers were needed where the towers collapsed.

Also to destroy important documents? But the rigging could have been done after the attacks when the general public was long gone from the area.

I doubt the rigging could have been done before the attacks, as the chances of being seen would have been far greater. If building 7 had been emptied of workers a week or so prior to 9/11, then I could see that.

1131. Avi - September 13, 2012

Oh sorry, Garryyyy!,
Dang, Khannnnnn!
Shoot– Just hope it will be a good movie! Ready for the popcorn.

1132. boborci - September 13, 2012

1130. that is what John Kerry believes and what the owner of the complex (Silverstein) literally said before recanting.

1133. I am not Herbert - September 13, 2012

let go of 9/11… see it for what i was… an attempt to keep us down, in the lower vibrations of fear and hate and war (a crime against humanity)

We will not be manipulated by the Darkness!!

Let us come together (Unify) in Peace and Love and Light! <3

1134. Red Dead Ryan - September 13, 2012


But do you think the building was rigged before or after the attacks?

1135. boborci - September 13, 2012

1134. That is the million dollar question, isn’t it? What do you think?

1136. Red Dead Ryan - September 13, 2012

Actually, its entirely possible that the building 7 was rigged a week or so prior to 9/11. Airline stocks were being sold off en masse weeks prior to the attacks. And the WTC was only a few blocks away from Wall Street.

The building could have been rigged during the night, with smaller devices carried in and installed so as not to be noticed. Cover of darkness in the weeks prior, yeah, okay, kind of makes sense.

No hard proof, though. Food for thought.

1137. Hans Gruber - September 13, 2012

The whole WTC attack was a cover act so that my criminal partners and I could collect 200 Billion dolllars in negotiatble bonds from WTC 7, which we then collapsed in free fall to cover up our crime. I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask.

I’m living great right now on an undisclosed island in the South Pacific. Life is good!

1138. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

OK. I am going to add my Bldg 7 point.

In 2003 I was in a restaurant eating lunch when after espousing several conspiracy theories about 911 a salesman next to me said, “Y’know, I have a brother who is in the Navy Seals and he told me they blew up that building because it was so bad off.”

Now I am pretty sharp at spotting a liar, or one prone to exagerate, and I am familiar with that days events, especially around 5:20 pm. I had seen that the building had suffered MAJOR damage from the falling North tower. So, it was already in my head that that building was going to fall at some point soon thereafter. The salesman continued, “My brother said that the building was declared unsafe, and the call was put out to the Navy Seals to bring it down completely.”

Now he said this with such certainty and matter of fact attitude that (naturally) I had to believe him. So that’s where my beef stops with #7. Yes there was a cover up about the detonation, but you know what? Through the pain and terror excited that day by the perps, by days end, the story belonged to us. And whatever narative was going to come out of it, it was going to be written by us. And on that day it was the terrorists fault completely.

Yes, there was obvious maleficence on the part of those in charge here, but until there is a REAL trial about these stories, we can only speculate. And since there has been no trial, there is a lack of justice. And that justice will never be served by killing others.

Someday though, we wil all know the truth. And those are the days for which I live.

1139. Damian - September 13, 2012

Bob, I’m not denying anything about building 7. However, they flew planes into the twin towers. Why would they do that if they just put bombs in the building. I’ve also seen video footage multiple times of the collapse of both towers, sometimes in slow motion, sometimes with engineers and architecs explaining the process step by step. The buildings (esp, the south tower where it is even more obvious) start to collapse at the point of impact. I’ve also heard many reports about how the burning jet fuel led to the weakening of the steel and why the towers collapsed the way they did.

1140. Red Dead Ryan - September 13, 2012


Wait, weren’t you killed by John McClane? Twenty-five years ago? Or are you Hans Gruber, Jr.?

1141. boborci - September 13, 2012

1138. Very interesting, but not sure about your point. Are you saying, yes, there was a coverup of the cause of wtc 7 collapse, but it was innocent because marines did it to prevent worse collapse?

1142. Damian - September 13, 2012

I’ve seen and read my share of reports about 9/11 over the years. Some from official news organizations that you seem to hold in comtempt, some from documentaries shows on the History Channel, the Discovery Channel and the National Geographic Channel. I’ve also read my fair share of reports on the internet (not always the best source for info) and yes, I’ve even read links attached to Wikipedia and articles in Wikipedia about 9/11. Usually each year around 9/11 I try to learn something new about what happened.

1143. CJS - September 13, 2012

The most attention Orci has paid to Trek Movie in months and it’s to argue the merits of a crackpot conspiracy theory.

Besides, everyone knows that it was the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people and under the supervision of the reverse vampires that caused 911.

1144. boborci - September 13, 2012

1143. feel free to actually address any point made.

1145. boborci - September 13, 2012

meant 1145

1146. Daoud - September 13, 2012

Bob, I hope that the way out of darkness… is where Kirk and Spock come in. I know you can’t talk about it, or even the comics… but here’s hoping the two of them are the light.
As to our mundane (literal sense) existence…. we’re doomed when we don’t have enough to do, to think about it, to strive for. Crazy as it is to realize, Star Trek, is a missing element from the optimism of the 1970’s… We need it back, and we need it stat. Anything you can do to encourage JJ along, and get the threequel underway a.s.a.p., rather than “wait and see” would really be appreciated.
As to the truth. It’s out there. And, it’s out there. Way out.

1147. Damian - September 13, 2012

Wait, what was this topic about again :)

Haven’t seen this many comments since it was leaked Khan was supposed to be in the new movie (I’m still in denial about that BTW).

1148. Phil - September 13, 2012

I must be a glutton for punishment. Not DOD offices, but the SEC. So, if you want to play the ‘who to blame’ game, and setting aside the observation that the building came down because a million tons of debris fell on it, maybe Wall Street insiders did the deed to derail SEC investigations.

To correct the NIST quote, what they said was that the impact of debris, by themselves was not enough to cause the failure of the building. Specifically, they blamed the failure of fire supression systems, though what I wonder is that in the event of catastrophic events how do you do about protecting the fire supression systems (sprinklers, water supply) without addressing the survivability of the overall structure.What this converstaion is doing is illustrating how engineering codes evolve and are strengthened – as an example, the WTC’s were both designed to withstand the impact of a 737, (as an impact lateral live load) , but the introduction of fuel into the building envelope, the design of the fire treating on the stuructual steel, or the protection of fire supression systems were all considered as subsets to the design guidelings, basically, no consideration was given to the concept that a catastropic event would compromise all aspects of a structures safety systems. So, if you were sitting in a structural design class prior to 9/11, the assumption would be that to see the type of devastation that occured in the WTC, you would need uncontrolled events occuring over hours, or even days, to see these kinds of collapses, and what happened on 11 September occured in minutes, so you had multiple failures of all structural systems over a short amount of time. NIST was one over several investigative bodies ( SEI/ASCE, SFPE, NFPA, AISC, CTBUH) and SEAoNY, all NGO’s, by the way) and they all arrived at similar conclusions. Why is this important? These guys have been working up updating building codes for structures across the country to upgrde building to account for these types of events. It will probably take 100 years for the work to be done, but you do what you do when evil sets out to destroy. Second, for any conspiracy theory to have validity you have to consider all involved. It’s easy to throw rocks at the NIST reports, or any gov’t report, for that matter because you have a built in audience that believes the feds are bad. But when you look at the number of people in the private sector who were also involved, in order for the theories to hold water you have to accept that hundreds of thousands of others had to be bought off as well, and the engineers, designers, and contractors in the construction trades have no reason to just buy off on this.

1149. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

1141. boborci

Yes. There was obvioulsy a coverup about most all that happened that day. Yes, the towers fell and a whole slab of girders hit Building 7, crashing through the part facing the towers. Most views of 7 are hard to find online. In some you can obviously see how bad off it was.

There had not yet been so much speculation online about that fact that that building even fell that day in 2003, but being the News-hawk I am I was aware of the impending controversy and (like here at TM) I wanted to fan the flames a bit while telling the story so as to elicite some good conversation with a stranger (the salesman who told me the story).
Though I was hundreds of miles away from that days events and a couple years removed, I did not know that I was within “a few degrees” of separation from the “truth” of that days “actual events.” But seeing the look in this guy’s eyes, and hearing the few things he said, I was left a bit speechless. Something that happens to me when I hear the truth. What more can you add to the truth. Sorry but that’s as close as I got to the real story. But I think it is AMAZING TO SEE the mountain of videos and testimony online about that day, and then turn a deaf ear to it all because us idiots all saw it online.

We can all smell a Rat right (no I do not mean DemocRat)? Even at Shaksville there is obvious problems with the story. Have you heard that there is no debris from the plane crash in Shanksville because it went throught the earth into an abandoned mine?! Yup that’s REAL 911 truth there. Right from out leaders mouths. Oh well, at least thay (APARENTLY) still rest in peace. But that’s OK with all of us? Right?

1150. boborci - September 13, 2012

1146 “anythying you can do to encourage JJ along…”

You mean besides writing the script? Despite the seeming slant of the conversation above, we (JJ, Damon, ALEX, Bryan, Jeff Chernov, etc…) all recognize the fact that optimism is in the DNA of Trek. We will never lose that, regardless of what any title might seem to imply.

1151. Phil - September 13, 2012

And yeah, that’s one of the reasons I like the design of the new Enterprise. It gives nod to the beauty of structure, and hopefully the collective knowledge of centuries of engineers who sometimes had to learn the cost of failure the hard way. Seeing an Enterprise with multiple redundant systems and capable of holding together in harsh conditions was a refreshing change from the TNG era, where it seemed that all it would take is one little failure to strand the crew somewhere in the middle of nowhere….

1152. boborci - September 13, 2012

1150 “because millions of tons of debris fell on it…”

I have already told you that the OFFICIAL NIST (GOV) report on wtc 7 does not cite debris falling on the building as being a contributing cause to collapse. You are defending the offical story without knowing the official story!

1153. Damian - September 13, 2012

1148–One thing I’ve learned about those that subscribe to conspiracy theories is that no amount of facts of figures will change their minds. They’ll just keep telling you those facts are forged. And if that’s the case, what do you have to prove anything? I can only accept what I see with my own eyes, what I hear and what I read. Does it all make sense and fit together. At the end of the day, with the evidence I can see and the sense I can make, there is no doubt in my mind these attacks were committed by Al Qaeda. They had motive, they had the means and the capability (partly due to our own smug belief at the time that no one would ever attack us at home). And the evidence is there for all the world to see. Yes, things happed after that are suspicious, but I would need more than just supposition and suspicion to convince me Al Qaeda is just an innocent bystander in all this.

1154. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

1150. boborci

HA! Here’s hoping that this one has a momentous closing moral speech just like Shatner used to give so well. Heck you may want to hire Shat as a coach for that scene! HA!!

1155. Red Shirt Diaries - September 13, 2012

— 1137

Hans, bubbie, I find your explanation just as plausible as some of the fairy tales I am reading from Orci, Duncan and others here.

We fans get no news on the sequel from JJ and Orci, but as a concelation prize we have to read through this ridiculous crap? I want some f’n sequel news, not Orci’s political-conspiracy wet dreams. :-(

1156. boborci - September 13, 2012

1150 regarding fuel

Uhuh, because when they designed the WTC, engineers designed the buildings to withstand the impact of FUEL-LESS PLANES, which are so common in the skies above America.

1157. Damian - September 13, 2012

1150–That’s good to hear. For me as long as at the end of the story the characters do not give up their humanity, I’m fine.

1151–TNG, DS9, Voyager all had redundant systems. They always had backups and secondary back ups (I remember O’Brien complaining how DS9 didn’t have those backups which caused problems). Now, if the story depended on it, suddenly one failure would cause problems, but that’s the case across the board in any movie, show.

1158. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

1153. Damian

I guess I proved you worng?!

1159. Phil - September 13, 2012

Oh, come on, our friend from down under was busting Mr. Bob’s chops for not being on top of the international distribution of PLU, even though a few of us told her that he probably had no involvement in the overseas distribution. Of course, if he WAS handling all that, then I owe a few people an apology…..

1160. Jack - September 13, 2012

The general weakness in a lot of conspiracy is that they assume levels of competence and organization that often don’t exist — complex plans need to go off without a hitch and a lot of little people need to shut up forever about what they were involved in…

Kind of like making a movie, I suppose. Although, the plot might be kept secret through a lot of work,

Not saying they don’t happen. But it’s tough getting non-secret plans off the ground, let alone secret ones. And, of course, people believe what they want to believe, and it’s easy to dismiss conspiracy theories with no concrete evidence.

But I remember hearing constantly from people on the street that news stories are decided from above — that either the government or the parent corp dictated the news. Fox news aside, in print, in my limited experience as a reporter, it’s pretty tough to slant the news, apart from headlines and where you put it in the paper — because a bunch of other outlets are covering the same story… I’m not talking about columns or opinion lieces, but on the ground reporting. Of course, governments, corporatiobs, NGOs and individuals all try to control what gets out there. And they always have. But usually, if stories are sourced properly, they get in — they might never get noticed, like that MSNBC story… but… I’m talking generalities. But usually a reporter’s ego is such that they won’t let their stories get butchered. They’ll gripe somewhere.

t’s easier now, to slant stories, of course, because stories are so brief, there are much fewer sources, and people don’t always distinguish between opinion-filled blogs and actual new stories…

So I wonder whether the writers of that PM thing, while sure, they could have been assigned to debunk conspiracy theories, but I’d be surprised of they did it while knowing the truth. Debunking conspiracy theories is a tempting thing to do , because the logic can be do sketchy.

Just asking here, but why would they have tested for explosives (and this is an incredible amount of rubble) — when there was no obvious evidence of an explosion — millions of people saw the planes hit, thousands there saw this happen… Sure, now we have reports after the fact of hearing things… But…

It’s absolutely possible. Again, if anybody would try to pull this off, it would be Cheney and company. Heck, one of the first things they did was make it legal to assassinate foreign leaders.

A lot of conspiracy theories use the absence of evidence as evidence. Or this idea of how things should have happened.

And the wacky is easier to believe than evidence — look at creationism and climate change denial…

1161. Damian - September 13, 2012

1156–That actually would not surprise me. Don’t forget though, things were much different in the 60’s when they first set out designing the WTC.

1162. boborci - September 13, 2012

1155 I have not cited a single fact as being forged. I have mainly stuck to Mainstream elements in the public domain, Like Kerry, silverstein, Nist report, etc..

Free fall speed acknowledged by NIST.
Kerry cites belief of controlled demo
Witnesses say they heard bombs.

Which of the above are ignoring evidence or facts?

I have found that coincidence theorists tend to generalize about what they pervcieve to be conspiracy theorists (despite offical story being a conspiracy).

I am open to any fact that changes my mind. Give me one! What FACT have you presented that we are ignoring?

1163. Damian - September 13, 2012

And they were thinking along the ideas of an accidental crash into the WTC. In 1960, no one really though someone would deliberately fly a plane into a building to try to destroy it. That changes the perspective a bit.

1164. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

1150 regarding fuel…

I always heard it was a FULLY loaded 707. Would’nt that include fuel?

1165. boborci - September 13, 2012

1165 A building does not know the context of a plane crashing into it, so it is irrelevant.

1166. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

It does if the planes ARE going as fast as they said.

400-500 knots? Pfft!

1167. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

Knots!? Nauts? Nuts.

1168. Chris Roberts - September 13, 2012

Bemused, slightly facinated but I can’t say I believe in this particular conspiracy theory. Certainly not to the implied extend that the US Goverment would murder over two thousand people in NYC going about their daily business – ultimately to justify a future foreign policy.

boborci said… “Again, NIST (gov) does not cite any significant damage to building wtc 7 as reason for its collapse. Defenders of the offical story don’t even know the offical story!”

After a simple cursory search…


1169. Phil - September 13, 2012

@1156. Not quite, the assumptions were to design for the impact loads, and that the rated assemblies and supression systems inside would not be compromised to the extent that they were. The eventually of a fire would have been considered from a smoking accident, arson, or a localized failure – adequate for what was considered the main threat from fire at the time, hopelessly inadequate to contain what happened on 9/11. You have to remember these buildings were designed in the early sixties – if you told a designer then to prepare for 747’s dive bombing the structures he would have laughed you out of the building, and got back to designing for what was considered a much more likely event, a hurricane.

1170. boborci - September 13, 2012

1162 “No obvious evidence of an explosion?”

Are you serious? This isn’t hindsight.

from CNN, on the very day:


DOZENS OF WTINESSES say ethey heard explosions.
CNN reports suspicion of bombs above…

So what the hell are you talking about when you say there was no evidence of explosives?

1171. Red Shirt Diaries - September 13, 2012

Wow Chris Roberts,

Allow me to respond for many of us here who I know are completely flabbergasted to learn that the building collapsed from debris hitting it, which started fires that got out of control due to the WTC centers water lines no long being operable. What a complete shock to learn this!


Orci, how about some sequel news instead of these silly conspiracy mental games?

1172. 911MadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

The Bush administration reminds me of Star Trek Nemisis.

Captain Bushcard broke his little ship looking for his whale.

1173. Vultan - September 13, 2012


No, I can’t answer why the NIST didn’t specifically test for explosives. Neither can you. We can only theorize.

I suppose you could contact them and ask them why. But keep in mind that while the NIST led the investigation it wasn’t the only participant. Others included: the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Structural Engineers Association of New York, and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Plus, there was the many firefighters and police officers on the scene who could probably give an educated guess on just what was happening with that building.

Maybe they can help in answering your question. I can’t. But as I stated before, the motive for demolition just doesn’t add up.

1174. boborci - September 13, 2012

1168. Cursory indeed.

A summary of the report is not the report. And as I said above, debris was not a cause of structural damage. Even in the article summarizing the actual report you cite, debris is credited only with STARTING THE FIRE (as opposed to the bombs that witnesses inside reported) which NIST then claims is the sole reason for STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE. According to their report, no matter how these particular fires got started, it was only these fires that collapsed the building.

Summary. NIST cites only FIRE as reason for structural Collapse.

Any questions?

1175. Vultan - September 13, 2012

Correction: “there WERE the many firefighters…”

1176. boborci - September 13, 2012

1175. Motive for demo doesn’t add up? Lets just go with the offical theory:

Bin Laden wanted to destroy the WTC complext any way he could. that is the offical story, right? So what do you mean when you say there is no motive for demo?

1177. boborci - September 13, 2012

1173. Would love to give some sequel news, but after reading some of these comments, we may have to dumb down the movie a bit before releasing it;)

1178. 911MadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

1171. Red Shirt Diaries

You missed the saliant point. Bombs going off?

Take a moment to look at the BOTTOM corners of that building.


All four corners fail.
All four corners fail one time.
All four corners had NO significant damage.

It all the vids it looks to me like the whole building fell from the base collapsing – at all four corners simultaneously. Logically, the obvious certainty is that the building was “rigged” that way.

The mystery lyes with the motive.

But I say that has yet to be fully thought of.

1179. Damian - September 13, 2012

1176–I think he means motive for the US govt.

1180. Red Shirt Diaries - September 13, 2012

Bob, what a crock of a response. This is the NIST summary on their own website that Chris Roberts directed you to. Read it and stop waffling like a bad politician.

Where is the sequel news we’ve all been waiting for? When is the teaser coming out. When are we going to get a couple of freaking still shots? These are the things I care about in posting here on Trekmovie.com.

1181. Damian - September 13, 2012

1178–For me it’s the twin towers collapse. They most obviously collapsed at the point of impact by the planes. Even my untrained eye can see that.

1182. Vultan - September 13, 2012


Well, if Bin Laden was behind it, his fuse was a little late; there wasn’t anyone in the building for him to kill.

1183. Phil - September 13, 2012

@1152. Now you are the one not reading the material – they point to the lack of availability of water for fire supression systems, which does beg the question – in the event of catastrophic events how do you go about protecting the fire supression systems (sprinklers, water supply) without addressing the survivability of the overall structure? Again, this is a structural and design issue, and does not point to conspiracy. The bottom line is that WTC7 was beaten to death – no one blow was fatal, it died from a thousand cuts.

1184. Damian - September 13, 2012

We’re really hung up on Bldg 7. To be honest, until today, I haven’t really thought of Bldg 7 in years. Sure it’s suspicious. For me what’s not is the attack itself. That part seemed pretty clear to me, esp. after looking at it from various angles and from various sources over the years.

1185. Red Shirt Diaries - September 13, 2012

Building 7, a minor building compared to the Twin Towers, is the focus simply because it the easiest one for the conspiracty crazies to latch on to. That is why Orci and his usual conspiracy cronies here are bringing it up AGAIN.

And again, I want some Trek sequel news from Orci instead of the old recycled conspiracy crap that he and a couple of others revisit over and over on this site.

1186. Damian - September 13, 2012

Anyway, gotta go. My daughter has swim class. In any event, it’s probably time for me to bow out anyway. I’m finding I’m repeating myself, which I hate doing.

Good night all. Looking forward to seeing the first trailer Bob.

1187. Chris Roberts - September 13, 2012

@1174. BobOrci – “Summary. NIST cites only FIRE as reason for structural Collapse.

Any questions?”

Top of my list would be:

How do you sleep at night?

What makes you or I so expert to doubt official bodies who investigated this and found that a fire did in fact bring a building down?

1188. boborci - September 13, 2012

1183. Does not change my only point:

NIST cites ONLY FIRE as the cause of the never before observed phenomenon in sky scraper fires called “thermal expansion” as contributing to the simultaneous and symmetrical free fall STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE of entire building.

1189. boborci - September 13, 2012

Boborci is a trademarked internet character designed for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to Roberto Orci is grounds for a legal action.

1190. trekprincess - September 13, 2012

Bob said to me via Twitter that it will probably be Xmas when we will see the first trailer for the Star Trek Into Darkness film

1191. Vultan - September 13, 2012


Agreed. I for one would like to know if the Enterprise crew is going to be prosecuted for the destruction of Vulcan. It was magically the only ship to survive the battle. And Nero wanted a conference with Pike. C’mon, something was going on there. And did you see the way the surface of the planet was in free fall into the singularity? Looked like a controlled demolition to me.


1192. boborci - September 13, 2012

1189. Its called logic. Why didn’t NIST test for explosives. How you you scientifically rule them out without looking for them? How come NIST will not makes its models available for peer review? How come Kerry says he thinks it was controlled demo? How come you doubt official story of WMD in Iraq?

1193. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

1192. boborci

Dude. I ‘splained that one above to you already. I guess it’s not official. But it made complete sense to me. For a salesguy to come up with that, off the top of his head, and in a no-nonsense fashion.

Gotta be true. Makes sense.

1194. boborci - September 13, 2012

here is a former 911 Commission member telling us to doubt official story!


1195. Jack - September 13, 2012

Fine. i’m wrong. I meant to say controlled explosions — (and I’m thinking of demolitions I’ve seen, where there are a shitload of explosions at once) but again, would explosions happen in a building that was on fire? And collapsing? Explosions don’t automatically mean explosives, do they?

My job is to ask dumb, obvious questions. Did anybody at the time publically call for testing for explosives? What’s the usual procedure in a massive fire where explosions are heard? Is testing for explosives a standard procedure that was overruled in this case? How would they have tested for explosions in such a huge pile of rubble? I have no answers.

There were bazillions of responders there who had plenty of experience with fires, have any of them questioned the decisio nnot to test for explosions?

Like I said — my Explosion bit aside — it’s not impossible. And I don’t think asking questions makes any one of us an idiot. Assuming does nobody any good.

But, that day, there were reports of explosions all over the city, and in other cities. And most (all.) of them were false. No, that doesn’t make the bomb theory impossible.

Hearing explosions doesn’t automatically equal bombs/controlled detonation. You’re right, it could. Is there substantive evidence that two big jets filled with fuel couldn’t have caused all the damage taht was caused? Or theories from people qualified to comment? Sure, there’s no precedent…

Are you saying it’s a massive conspiracy/ experts are still afraid of retribution (either direct or just scorn from colleagues and a label like ‘anti-American’? Like I said, entirely possible — but look at other possibilities. If they’re ruled out, you’re left with conspiracy, I suppose.

I’ve seen Loose Change and years ago, read a lot of the building 7 stuff. i wasn’t convinced. Some interesting questions were raised though. But I’m not an expert.

You have resources, dig into this, so to speak, for a film project.

Dumb it down, like you did for the first one? Maybe a supernova brought down the building. I keed. ;).

1196. Red Shirt Diaries - September 13, 2012

Scotty, please beam me out of here.

1197. Jack - September 13, 2012

1187. What makes you or I so expert to doubt official bodies who investigated this and found that a fire did in fact bring a building down?

Whoa. I’ m skeptical, but we should doubt — shit does indeed get made up. And, yeah, we’re willing to believ all sorts of propaganda.

My question about the comparison to WMDs is that, even at the time, there were plenty of people who questioned the US claim. And the investigation was, relatively, small. A few people on the ground.

But this is was in the middle of a huge city, with thousands involved, from multiple agencies. Tonnes of civilians, Again, totally possible, but i think making they lied about WMDs therefore they lied about this argument, while possible, isn’t quite the same kettle of fish. They lied and said they had evidence of WMD when they knew it was sketch y and had been discredited. And that got out. And, yep, they tried to destroy and discredit Joe Whatshisname. And they bungled it. But, just practically, we’re talking here about an extremely complicated plan. Way more complicated than a lie in the State of the Union address.

Walk me though the theories — is it that explosives we placed in the building (or buildings) at some point before the attacks? Days, weeks, months? Possible? Any evidence? Or are we saying they rushed in after they evacuated it and planted a bunch of explosives? Fine, and don’t bite my head off, but is there any evidence?

The question: Why didn’t ‘they’ test for explosives, is valid. But ‘because they were covering up a controlled demolition’ isn’t the only answer.

1198. boborci - September 13, 2012

you said: “Fine. i’m wrong. I meant to say controlled explosions — (and I’m thinking of demolitions I’ve seen, where there are a shitload of explosions at once) but again, would explosions happen in a building that was on fire? And collapsing? Explosions don’t automatically mean explosives, do they?”

correct. So what you due is to TEST for explosives to see if there were any or not. Right?


you also said, “Are you saying it’s a massive conspiracy/ experts are still afraid of retribution (either direct or just scorn from colleagues and a label like ‘anti-American’? Like I said, entirely possible — but look at other possibilities. If they’re ruled out, you’re left with conspiracy, I suppose.


Official story narrates a massive conspiracy by international organization ALQ). It could be that, or the backers of the conspiracy could be someone else. Don’t know. But defenders and detractors of the official story all agree that the US was the victim of a massive conspiracy.


You also said: “experts are still afraid of retribution (either direct or just scorn from colleagues and a label like ‘anti-American’?

Experts only given evidence cleared by gov. So they can only use what they are given. Doesn’t make them complicit. if FBi says to NIST “THERE WERE NO BOMBS. ONLY FIRE. MAKE IT WORK!” then that is what they do. Doesn’t make them knowing accomplices.

And finally, there are over a thousand experts who have come forward despite fear of retribution. here they are:


1199. boborci - September 13, 2012

you said “There were bazillions of responders there who had plenty of experience with fires, have any of them questioned the decisio nnot to test for explosions?”

These very people you are talking about reported EXPLOSIONS and BOMBS!

1200. Red Shirt Diaries - September 13, 2012

Scotty, beam me out of here NOW please.

1201. Jack - September 13, 2012

Okay. Let me look through this stuff before I drink the tasty Orci Kool-Aid… ;).

They reported bombs on a day when everybody thought every explosion was a bomb — again, totally possible they were bombs. Could it be possible they weren’t? I’m not trying to be a dick here — just asking questions.

1202. boborci - September 13, 2012


What makes me an expert?

Perhaps it’s what I do for a living. I am a writer/rproducer. All I do all day and every day is read or write bullshit stories. Thousands of bullshit stories go through my mind in a year. I am an expert in bullshit stories. Therefore, I know a bullshit story when I see, hear, or read one;)

1203. boborci - September 13, 2012

1203 Totally possible they weren’t. So what any rational person with one point above an idiot IQ who is in charge of investigating what happened the day that we were attacked by mad bombers who had attacked those buildings before WITH BOMBS would do is RUN TESTS LOOKING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE. Right?

1204. Jack - September 13, 2012

BTW, this may be a conspiracy to prevent me from getting any work done today. Trying to write a story on oil companies fleecing consumers (obvious, yes — but evidence is needed) and how ‘drill, baby, drill’ would do nothing to lower gas prices…

1205. boborci - September 13, 2012

Boborci is a trademarked internet character designed for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to Roberto Orci is grounds for a legal action.

1206. boborci - September 13, 2012

1206. Ha! You can bet your ass I should be doing something else, but I am being selfish today. Glad you can join me. Article sounds interesting.

1207. Jack - September 13, 2012

“So what any rational person with one point above an idiot IQ who is in charge of investigating what happened the day that we were attacked by mad bombers who had attacked those buildings before WITH BOMBS would do is RUN TESTS LOOKING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE”

Fair enough. Wait, when did they start putting smart, rational people who think for themselves, and aren’t trying to blow the people above them, in charge?

1208. Chris Roberts - September 13, 2012

Okay. Let’s say the US Goverment *theoretically* wanted to make 9/11 a much worse event than any planned terrorism was capable of. So they knew an AQ attack on the WTC was going to happen.

When exactly were these so called explosives, demolition charges placed in the WTC buildings then?

How could people work there for many days, weeks and not know?

Tell me how is that even possible?

And don’t spout me any anti semitism about Zionists, who didn’t turn up for work that morning. That’s just offensive.

1209. Chris Roberts - September 13, 2012

1189. Logic merely allows you to be wrong with authority.

1210. Jack - September 13, 2012

Went to the 911 site and, apparently, Skynet has taken over. Is it wrong that I’m hearing Julianne Moore’s voice from Eagle Eye? No, she was much more direct.

“You have reached the correct page for your Joomla! site, however it’s not quite ready yet. Please be patient while our servers prepare your working space. It could take as long as 1 hour for your site to be prepared. Please check back or refresh this page periodically. If after 1 hour you are still seeing this page, please click here to submit a support ticket.”

1211. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 13, 2012

“1177. boborci – September 13, 2012
1173. Would love to give some sequel news, but after reading some of these comments, we may have to dumb down the movie a bit before releasing it;)”

That was out of line – really, it was. Just who are you? Whoever you are, get over yourself!

1212. boborci - September 13, 2012

1211. out of line but FUNNY! Always go with FUNNY!

1213. Jack - September 13, 2012

1212. I thought it was funny. Come on, smiley emoticons make all comments friendly!

If Osama Bin Laden had included one in his name, he might still be alive.

BTW, I’ve always found that troubling — the murder of the guy without a trial and the disposal of the body. Sure, it makes sense that they wanted to avoid retribution. But, it — and the public cheering in the streets (that a man was killed in his home wihtout a trial, regardless of who he was) didn’t sit well…

1214. Montreal_Paul - September 13, 2012

1212. boborci

Definitely out of line. Not really funny at all.

1215. boborci - September 13, 2012

1211. I’m sorry, but did I miss your answers to just a handful of questions like the following:

Why not test for explosives?
why does Kerry believe wtc 7 result of controlled demo?
How can wtc 7 fall symmetrically at free fall speed as a result only of asymmetrical fire?

1216. boborci - September 13, 2012

1216. what think skins around here. Geez. You wouldn’t last two minutes in my shoes reading what some of you guys write about us!

1217. boborci - September 13, 2012

Correction: think = thin

1218. Aurore - September 13, 2012

1177. boborci – September 13, 2012
“….. but after reading some of these comments, we may have to dumb down the movie a bit before releasing it;)”


Do that, and, I will kick your Star Trek fan’s a** into darknesss….with all due respect, sir.


1219. boborci - September 13, 2012

1215/ Geez, don’t get me started on that. The US finally catches Darth Vader and they throw his helmet in the ocean without even showing it to us?

1220. boborci - September 13, 2012

1220 Nice! Fair enough!

1221. Phil - September 13, 2012

Man, the auto filter must be working overtime on this site right now, considering how screwed up the post cross references are…

1222. Jack - September 13, 2012

Dude, your post numbers are totally different than the ones I see here. Conspiracy?

Must get to work. Thanks for a fun/disturbing discussion.

So, obviously, this is the thinly veiled social allegory we’ll be seeing in the next movie?

1223. Montreal_Paul - September 13, 2012

1216. boborci

I have a thick skin, I work in the biz in Canada. I just didn’t find it as funny as you did. :)

But I agree with your comment at 1219.

1224. Chris Roberts - September 13, 2012

boborci – ” what think skins around here. Geez. You wouldn’t last two minutes in my shoes reading what some of you guys write about us!”

Oh, if only it were that easy to swap places.

1225. Chris Roberts - September 13, 2012

Correction: think = thin


1226. Vultan - September 13, 2012


Sort of like when Nero wasn’t captured but rather killed/allowed to die.
Hmm… life imitates “art.”

1227. Vultan - September 13, 2012

That didn’t sit well with me either. Letting Nero die rather than bring him to trial, plus Spock’s flippant remark in the moment, just didn’t seem like Trek to me. I don’t know. Maybe some poetic justice was called for. Maybe have Nero captured and sent to a Fed prison—with a Vulcan counselor overseeing him! Maybe Spock Prime.

1228. NuFan - September 13, 2012

Hah! The trekkies can dish it out, but they can’t take it at all!

1229. Jack - September 13, 2012

1213 was responding to Keachick, not Bob — he hadn’t made his post yet when I started writing mine.

I’m a sychophant but even I have limits.

We really do have thin skins here (and by here I mean the Internet), me included.

Seriously, you’d think we were Sarah Palin, dishing it out but not being able to, er, take it.

The bad guy dying at the end is kind of a movie default, isn’t it? Unless it’s Lex Luthor? I think it was a little out of character — for Nimoy’s Spock — but, it mostly worked. Although ‘not really’ doesn’t seem very Nimoy/Spocky. But hey, this was Muppet Babies Trek.

1230. boborci - September 13, 2012

Chris roberts says: “Okay. Let’s say the US Goverment *theoretically* wanted to make 9/11 a much worse event than any planned terrorism was capable of. So they knew an AQ attack on the WTC was going to happen.

When exactly were these so called explosives, demolition charges placed in the WTC buildings then?

How could people work there for many days, weeks and not know?

Tell me how is that even possible?

And don’t spout me any anti semitism about Zionists, who didn’t turn up for work that morning. That’s just offensive.”


Hmm have never considered such a question. I guess I would start by seeing if there were any classified or national security related renovation projects in recent months or years and see if it coulda been done that way.


Well Lookey here! Just one possiibility. 15 million dollar renovation of WTC 7 emergency command center (obvoiusly a national security related matter) started in 99. I’m shocked!

Well lookey here!


1231. Jack - September 13, 2012

1230. That’s why you were so quiet for the last half hour. ;).

1232. Jack - September 13, 2012

1230. That’s why you were so quiet for the last half hour. ;).

1233. Vultan - September 13, 2012


Ha! Muppet Babies Trek!

I remember watching that on Saturday mornings.
Thanks, Jack, for the nostalgia trip and a good laugh.


1234. Jefferies Tuber - September 13, 2012

1177. The desperate attack of an arrogant person challenged by people he deems his inferiors. You got owned by Chris Roberts, dude. No freefall. Heat causes thermal expansion. Frame falls before exterior, creating appearance of a uniform fall. Kerry and Silverstein’s ideas describe a rational response to a non-scientific view of the video. Each building’s fall was preceded by popping and exploding sounds because steel was being ripped from steel internally.

Owned. Go to Ojai and walk it off.

1235. Vultan - September 13, 2012

“When your world looks kinda weird and wish that you weren’t there…”

1236. Chris Roberts - September 13, 2012

@1230. Jesus Bob… you’re really into these overcooked conspiracy theories.

And you keep dragging everything back to WTC7. The path of least resistance.

1237. P Technobabble - September 13, 2012

I said something earlier that got my post booted so I’ll say it this way:
there’s more here than meets the eye.

1238. Chris Roberts - September 13, 2012

Do I think the Bush administration took advantage of the situation. Yes.

Do I think 9/11 was preplanned for by both the US Gov. and AQ. Nope.

Three hijacked planes got lucky and a fourth was denied.

None of the evidence I can see is that conclusive.

Testimony from shell-shocked individuals likely fleeing for the lives, because WWIII had apparently just started.

Why would they look for evidence of explosives? A couple thousand gallons of jet fuel? The most videoed event in history. So no suicide bombers in hiding on every floor. The windows would’ve shattered outward before the planes arrived, or carried on doing so afterwards.

So John Kelly thought WTC7 was demolished. Maybe he didn’t understand the question asked of him. He’s a politician… and as we all know they never talk a load of old “vote for me” crap on the spur of the moment. You know, like saying of rape – “a woman’s body has ways of shutting down that whole thing.”

1239. Phil - September 13, 2012

Salomon Smith Barney was the primary tenet in WTC7. The building had some gov’t offices, but nothing you would not find elsewhere in the United States. TI work is common everywhere, but now you have to draw in another group of people who need to be bought off to keep this plot a secret – Building & Safety, utilities, and whatever representatives of the buildings owners who are involved. Not to mention the leasing agents, contractors, and all those SSB workers coming and going every day.

1240. P Technobabble - September 13, 2012

Now I feel stupid *hangs head in shame* My post was there. I’m going to slap myself silly.

1241. Craiger - September 13, 2012

Are we still sure this is the real Bob Orci? I thought Bob was a busy man with all his film and TV projects he has going on?

1242. Phil - September 13, 2012

@1241 Beginning to wonder…

1243. boborci - September 13, 2012

1234 Huh? NIST admits freefall Of wtc 7 in Press conference.


Apology accepted.

1244. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 13, 2012

I have not been the one “dishing it out” to people like Bob Orci or JJ Abrams etc the way many others on the internet have. The Bad Robot team have been repeatedly called hacks and criticized for the creative choices they have made when doing film or television work. I even recall some people wanting Abrams to die because of how they thought he had *destroyed*, “raped” their Star Trek. I have not been the one who has accused of the producers… of “dumbing down Star Trek for ADD driven masses” or other such garbage.

Maybe my skin is not as thick as other people’s – I don’t know. I have been described as “preachy” because I can be quite ardent with my views/feelings sometimes and for calling out what I think is wrong – like people writing that they want a director dead or others calling an actor’s gf a “beard” or “whore”. To me, this kind of writing is wrong – it is scandalous, harsh and unkind – morally reprehensible.

Jack is right – this thread is disturbing but unfortunately none of it has been amusing to me.

First of all – we are told this:
#1189 – boborci: “Boborci is a trademarked internet character designed for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to Roberto Orci is grounds for a legal action.”

That’s handy. No accountability. and then we get:

“boborci – September 13, 2012
What makes me an expert?
Perhaps it’s what I do for a living. I am a writer/rproducer. All I do all day and every day is read or write bullshit stories. Thousands of bullshit stories go through my mind in a year. I am an expert in bullshit stories. Therefore, I know a bullshit story when I see, hear, or read one;)”

In other words, you are now Roberto Orci, writer/producer. Which is it?
This “boborci” is now even laughing at his own un-funny jokes.

@ boborci – stop asking people questions that they can’t possibly answer and then berating them for not answering. If you want answers, go find them yourself.

FWIW, I think it is possible that a part of the US government (perhaps the president(s) were deliberately not informed) may have had something to do with what happened on 9/11, but I seriously doubt that anyone could prove it for sure. Those behind the conspiracy would have just seen the 3,000+ people who died as “collateral damage”. (BTW, not all those people who died that day were just American citizens. Many people from other countries also worked in the Twin Towers).

These questions should be kept in the foremost of people’s minds, but what’s going on here is just crap.

I don’t know what is happening with Bob Orci (also known as Roberto Orci, a writer/producer of Star Trek Into Darkness) but if you are one and the same person, you need to lay off the wine and/or whatever else you may be taking, and get some sleep. 9/11 happened over 11 years ago. What happened then is what happened. Nothing can change that or bring back those who were lost. I am truly sorry.

Please – be a little kind to yourself and to people here. We are not your enemies.

1245. Daoud - September 13, 2012

It’s Bob. Follow twitter, and you’ll recognize him anywhere. :) And he deserves some “time on other things” too! Bob, can I buy you a beer?

@1239/Phil. Yes, Salomon Smith Barney had the top 19 floors. Of 47 floors. (47: interesting number to have there!)
However, among things such as SEC on a few floors, was also the Secret Service, who had major investigative operations… and the New York City Emergency Command that Giuliani had put there after the 93 bombing. WTC7 is fishy. Read the Wikipedia page, which has over a hundred valid references, and you’ll see Bob isn’t out in left field. Center field, sure, but not left field. The Secret Service lost *evidence* in countless cases that it couldn’t re-create. The SEC had no problems as most of theirs were electronic records and backed up.
@Bob…. back at 1146 “anythying you can do to encourage JJ along…”
Of course I know you’ve written the script… but I was talking about the “threequel”… Does this mean what I think!?!?! You’ve written the script for the THIRD film already!??? That would be awesome if so. But I presume you were referring to the sequel in that response you had at 1150 (by my screen’s counting): “You mean besides writing the script?”.
But hey, I can hope you guys are so smahht you’ve written Star Trek 3 already and you just inadvertently admitted such. :)

1246. Hugh Hoyland - September 13, 2012

Bob, thanks for those links man.

I’ve been working on a sci-fi script that’s ment to be a metaphor for the current state of our society.

Have you ever thought about doing something like that?

Remember that a lot of classic sci-fi movies like Starship Troopers were metaphors. I think you could make a killer “1984” that a lot of younger people would dig and get a lot of info out of at the same time.

1247. Jack - September 13, 2012

Whoa, Keachick — a little, lame joke about having to dumb down the movie, not directed at you… and we get this? ;). Maybe we’re the ones who need a little wine.;).


1248. Boborci - September 13, 2012

1236. Path If least resistence is a good phrase in that a building gravitationally collapsing on itself will fall through the path of least resistance whIch is Never into its own footprint which is the path of most resistance.

1249. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 13, 2012

The numbering of posts is askew.

1250. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

1109. Phil – September 13, 2012

Pfft! Dude you are out of your league here. NIST got busted purveying false data. NIST first said the building could not be in free fall, then they got FORCED by the so called “amateurs” you are trying to ridicule to protect your lazy view of reality into CHANGING their story because your so called “experts” apparently don’t know how to examine evidence and do simple arithmetic.

If you want to launch a criticism at least make it half way intelligent.

And if anyone is in the position of the gardener in your NASA fraud example, it’s the “expert” NIST scientists who were trying to sell BS and got caught.

1251. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

As I already posted above, the 3 stage collapse model of 5.4 seconds is WRONG. The DATA you clowns are referring to at that NIST site is WRONG.

The building WAS in free fall.

The FIRST video I posted a link to ALREADY covered that IN DETAIL. NIST apparently had some trouble counting from the moment when the fall of the structure actually began.

1252. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

It’s amazing how willing people are to be deluded. TWA Flight 800 is another great example of that.

150 witnesses. Light going UP to aircraft. Aircraft explodes.

How did the FBI deal with that information? They said all those witnesses must have been mistaken about the direction they saw the light traveling!!!


YOUR FBI ladies and gentlemen. Give them a round of applause.

1253. Chris Roberts - September 13, 2012

1248. Let’s say you could prove, without a shadow of a doubt WTC7 had been rigged for demolition.

What would that achieve?

So US Goverment offices in that building are the reason it had to be purposely destroyed. Presumably to protect their classified secrets, in the shadow of anarchy and more attacks on NY. Even that wouldn’t necessarily be connected to anything else that day.

Why do it though? Such a suspicious act would feed conspiracy theorists yourself even more and apply the same perverse logic elsewhere.

Although I’ve got to admit, stupidity and ill-thought out strategies were the hallmark of the Administration.

1254. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 13, 2012

“boborci – September 13, 2012
1216. what think skins around here. Geez. You wouldn’t last two minutes in my shoes reading what some of you guys write about us!”

I was responding to this post. I was just reiterating that I have not been one of those people, but that I am a bit confused/concerned by how this boborci is behaving on this thread.

1255. Montreal_Paul - September 13, 2012

1254. Keachick (that Rose girl)

I have to agree with you.

1256. Vultan - September 13, 2012


That’s what I keep coming back to. If their goal was to destroy sensitive documents, why not just, you know, take them somewhere remote and burn them or give them a generous coating of government blackout? Destroying an entire building, where anyone can happen upon these documents in the rubble, seems awfully theatrical and sloppy for a shadowy government operation.

I suppose one could make the argument that the building was secretly installed with a sort of scuttling measure. In the event of a disaster or major breach in security, a button is pushed and the building is destroyed.

But according to the official reports, some of the documents there did survive. So….

1257. boborci - September 13, 2012

1253 sounds like you and Vultan are starting to accept the fact that fire cannot explain WTC symmetrical fall! Is that right? Are you seeing how doubt about offical story of collapse is highly suspect? then I’ll speculate on your questions.

1258. Vultan - September 13, 2012


Simply theorizing as to the motive—in YOUR conspiracy theory.

1259. boborci - September 13, 2012

1259 meant “do you see how doubting offical story of wtc 7 collapse is not crazy?”

1260. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

Sorry boborci,. The WTC 7 thing is a red herring.

Just coincidence that the tower fell on it. They had to get rid of the building after that, and apparently a quick decision was made to take it down before it got too bad.

No one will ever take responsibility for that order though. Understandable in my mind. But they should be held to account for thier actions. To do nothing now is just to invite dangerous speculation.

My two cents.

1261. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

Dropping the building to protect paperwork does not strike me as a credible motive. Not even for the Bush administration.

And once again we have two issues here: The fact of free fall and what it implies, and motive. The first is obvious, the second is not.

And the Phds at NIST who got utterly SCHOOLED on the evidence by a physics teacher are trying awfully hard to make the bldg 7 questions go away, to the point of ethical violations in practicing junk science, since they obviously got caught trying to make the evidence fit the computer modeling, when IT DID NOT.

Not only is it NOT crazy to look at the bldg 7 evidence — it is an embarrassing admission of ignorance for those who suggest otherwise.

1262. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

Yes. and it also explains the BBC reporter who had already received this info through other channels. Apparently they did expect it to fall.

This is also supported by the video of the firefighter in the street who was yelling at those two guys at the phone booth to, “take off this things coming down soon!”

No cents left.

1263. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

Shit! I should have typed, “out of loose change.”

1264. boborci - September 13, 2012

1261. mine and Kerry’s and dozens of wintesses and firefighters and over a 1000 architects and engineers and half of the rest of the world.

Hell, even the 911 comission memebers themselves question what has been told to them by the gov!


1265. Vultan - September 13, 2012


To give a very Clintonian answer: Depends of what you mean by the word doubt. If by doubt you mean to suspect this particular part of the official story within reason because it contains conflicting bits of information and deserves further investigation by an independent team of respected engineers and scientists, then yes, that seems reasonable to me, if only to quell the ongoing suspicions and sometimes vulgar accusations this subject brings up in discussions on the 9/11 attacks. Though at this point that seems a task worthy of Mr. Sisyphus.

1266. Damian - September 13, 2012

I think people here need to face the fact that we are not going to change each other’s minds here. There are some people here who believe the Bush Administration initiated these attacks. That this bumbling administration that couldn’t keep a lid on anything somehow managed the ultimate whitewash of all time. I’m sorry that I can’t give the Administration that much credit.

1252–One huge difference. There were literally thousands of eyewitnesses to 9/11 and countless cameras watching things as they happened. Something you did not have with 800.

What do I really believe, based on the vast amounts of information I’ve seen.

1. This was an Al Qaeda attack with no involvement from the Bush Administration. As an aside, prior to the attacks Bush was promoting a more isolationist policy and had been critical of Clinton’s nation building.

2. Do I believe the administration knew of the attacks before they happened and allowed it to occur to make it easier to get Iraq. No. There were fare easier ways to wag the dog there. What I believe is that our various “intelligence” bureaus all had different pieces of the puzzle, but because everyone in government is so protective of their turf, no one shared that information. That is a failure that goes back as far as the Clinton administration.

3. Did suspicious things occur after, especially WTC 7 that some here seem so obsessive about. I will grant you that. But I think it more likely they were trying to keep a lid on government secrets that may have been there that were now insecure.

At the end of the day, I can’t obsess over it. You know, I have a life to live. I’m as cynical as the next person about the government. But am I paranoid that the CIA or FBI are watching my every move or trying to influence my life. No. Frankly, I’m not that important. Like Captain Christopher (Tomorrow is Yesterday), I’ve made no major contributions.

1267. Damian - September 13, 2012

Bob, a sequel question if you know.

Is John Eaves going to be working on the next film as a production illustrator/designer? I was just thinking of him because I always get those “Ships of the Line” characters and he always has some of the best illustrations. He’s done some good work on the films going back to First Contact.

1268. TreMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

1266. Damian

I’ve made no major contributions.

To me, it looks like you gave a damn.


1269. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2012

Hey. Looks like Spielberg’s Lincoln has it’s 1st trailer out, and that movie is coming out in November 2012.

An X-mas Trek trailer is fine with me.

1270. boborci - September 13, 2012

1266 I love all of you coincidence theorists. you make a great audience for fiction, which is what I do for a living. So THANKS!! See you guys on Nov 22. Looking forward to your arguments that one bullet caused a thousand wounds.

1271. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

Media creates a consensus reality. Those who find the glitches in consensus reality are then attacked as “crazy” and “nuts” for going against what everyone magically knows to be true. They attempt to make us outcasts. And this pressure makes a good number of us back down and not speak out, strengthening the consensus reality for everyone else.

Luckily, some of us are like deep sea creatures that thrive around volcanic vents under great heat and pressure.

1272. Damian - September 13, 2012

1191–LOL. Esp, about freefalling Vulcan,

Maybe the Federation engineered it because there were elements that wanted to go to war with the Romulans. Admiral Archer was convinced that his beagle was beamed to Romulus and they refuse to give him back :)

1273. Damian - September 13, 2012

1270–Bob, I am going by the facts that I have seen. And I do not take things at face value. It just happens that in this case, most of the facts fit. Other than WTC 7 that you seemed so concerned about, all the pieces fit that this was an Al Qaeda attack. I don’t see it as coincidence at all. If this were a criminal court case, there’s plenty of evidence to show this was Al Qaeda through and through.

1274. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

1265. Vultan – September 13, 2012

That’s what NIST was supposed to do, and they blew it and won’t even release their modeling data for anyone to check. So you really have to blame NIST for creating an atmosphere of ongoing suspicion. Whatever they were doing at NIST, it wasn’t very scientific. When you do real science you WANT people to independently corroborate your results.

NIST is intentionally making that impossible to do.

1275. Damian - September 13, 2012

Anyway. Time for bed all. Gotta go to work tomorrow. I somehow keep telling myself I’ll stop posting on this topic because I really have nothing new to add, but somehow, I keep getting sucked back in :)

1276. Other Guy - September 13, 2012

How the do cell phones work on a runaway jet anyhow?

1277. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

1275: “I somehow keep telling myself I’ll stop posting on this topic because I really have nothing new to add, but somehow, I keep getting sucked back in :)”

If you THINK something new, then you’ve ADDED something new.

1278. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

To put what Bob has been hammering away at in here in posts like 1203, in terms which this place might find more appropriate:

If this were the premise of a Star Trek movie and Spock didn’t test for explosives, Bob would be harangued for writing unbelievable nonsense.

1279. VZXxx - September 13, 2012

Stat Trekk is best when ther is no villain!

1280. LizardGirl - September 13, 2012

@1244 Keachick (in case numbers get jacked up, it’s in agreement to her response to one of boborci’s posts)


1281. VZXxx - September 13, 2012

Conspiracy about 911? Now that’s bullshit


1282. boborci - September 13, 2012

1281 So you don’t believe the governments assertion that we were the victims of a massive conspiracy perpetrated by al Qaeda, who according to the state department, was operating in 73 countries under the direction of Bin Laden?

1283. boborci - September 13, 2012

1280 Indeed! as DM points out, many of you applied much more rigorous logical scrutiny to trek 09 and the title of the new movie than you have to the most significant event you’ve ever lived through.

1284. boborci - September 13, 2012

1277 On that we agree. Keep getting sucked in, too! Good night. Thanks for debating. worthy conversation.

1285. boborci - September 13, 2012

1275. Hi coincidence theorists. Only focusing on wtc 7 because we gotta take baby steps before we can run. this is a big topic, and without zeroing in on one thing at a time, there is no useful conversation to be had. We can pick another aspect to focus on if you like. Picking one thing to argue about at a time is the only way to discuss this smartly online, IMHO.

So if you would prefer to focus on something else, Like the fact that firefighters and emergency workers reported seeing molten steel, even though jet fuel can NEVER GET HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEl, we can! I just figured you would appreciate one thing at a time. In fact — feel free to put forth ANY element of the official story for our collective scrutiny. Identity of Hijackers? Failure of Norad? Warnings or no warnings? Surprise or no susprise? History of Al Qaeda? Whatever you want, we can zero in on and see where the evidence leads.

1286. boborci - September 13, 2012

yo Trekmovie.com What the hell happened to my last post? Did you delete it? Are you censoring me? U sure you want to do that?

1287. boborci - September 13, 2012

1289. oops there it is! sorry trekmovie!

1288. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

This place experiences a lot of glitches for some reason.

1289. boborci - September 13, 2012

now it’s gone again. WTF?

1290. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

Your posts 1282 – 1287 still visible on my screen.

1291. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

But numbering all screwy tonight.

1292. dmduncan - September 13, 2012

Bedtime. I’m out!

1293. boborci - September 13, 2012

NOW IT’S gone again. Guys, where is my last post?

1294. boborci - September 13, 2012

1234. just curious if you noticed how wrong you were based on subsequent posts. no apology? i would respect you if u fessed up.

1295. boborci - September 13, 2012

shit. number is wrong again. wtf, trekmovie?

1296. boborci - September 13, 2012

are any one of you coicidence theorists gonna give me even half an answer to the followimg question:

Why didn’t NIST (gov) test for explosives? anyone? Bueller?

1297. boborci - September 13, 2012

1248. Let’s say you could prove, without a shadow of a doubt WTC7 had been rigged for demolition.

What would that achieve?

So US Goverment offices in that building are the reason it had to be purposely destroyed. Presumably to protect their classified secrets, in the shadow of anarchy and more attacks on NY. Even that wouldn’t necessarily be connected to anything else that day.

Why do it though? Such a suspicious act would feed conspiracy theorists yourself even more and apply the same perverse logic elsewhere.

Although I’ve got to admit, stupidity and ill-thought out strategies were the hallmark of the Administration.


what r u saying? r u agreeing that evidence for controlled demo is compelling?

1298. Jack - September 14, 2012

1296. Why didn’t NIST (gov) test for explosives? anyone? Bueller?

Dunno. Maybe nobody even considered the idea of planes AND elaborate bombs inside the building (wasn’t that previous bomb a 1300 lb bomb in a truck) as part of the same attack? Maybe they thought terrorists wouldn’t be capable of bombing a building (the last one certainly didn’t bring a bui;ding down)? Maybe they just assumed the plane attack was enough to cause all the damage — a bunch of rubble did hit 7, no? Maybe it was a shadowy conspiracy from within? All possible. Fear of PR nightmare if it’s known that they were testing for explosives (as the idea of a bunch of terrorists successfully bringing down a building by putting in hidden explosives months or years before, and, presumably, timing this to coincide with a dual plane attack… well, is a lot scarier than terrorists hijacking planes with box cutters)? Budget cuts?

And maybe the idea seemed too outlandish at the time, as a lot of folks are saying here? I could speculate all day. Honestly, don’t know.

heck, if there were explosives, maybe the exposives were there as some sort of failsafe and went off (accidentally or deliberately) after the attack — if deliberately, perhaps to prevent nosing around inside the building… dunno. But what’s the evidence — other than that they heard explosions after a building was hit by other buildings that collapsed because they HAD BEEN SLAMMED INTO BY JETPLANES — and that explosions weren’t tested for? I know — you’re going to tell me you’ve already told me ;).

Seriously, not trying to be a moron — but could explosives be detected in so much concrete rubble?

Again, is the lack of testing the smoking gun here? :).

It’s like saying — Cumberbatch dyed his hair and beefed up, therefore he’s playing Khan. Sure it’s possible, but there are other possibilities.

But, yeah. We, you (and they) should be asking questions. Could you get away with writing a ‘fictionalized’ 911 conspiracy script without being blacklisted — it’s been 11 years. Dunno.

BTW. Were you asking this question back then?

1299. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 14, 2012

“boborci – September 13, 2012
1266 I love all of you coincidence theorists. you make a great audience for fiction, which is what I do for a living. So THANKS!! See you guys on Nov 22. Looking forward to your arguments that one bullet caused a thousand wounds.”

What a sneering and sarcastic post! Is this what drinking wine does to you or are you always so insistent and bitchy? As well as a little threatening as in – “yo Trekmovie.com What the hell happened to my last post? Did you delete it? Are you censoring me? *U SURE YOU WANT TO DO THAT?”

Well, boborci, Anthony can do just that – delete your post(s).

I’m not sure if this boborci is trolling us or not.

Anyway, what’s happening on November 22? I hope you can get off that big high horse with the big whip long enough to answer this question.

*My emphasis (words in upper case)

1300. Red Shirt Diaries - September 14, 2012

Keachick said: “What a sneering and sarcastic post! Is this what drinking wine does to you or are you always so insistent and bitchy? As well as a little threatening as in – “yo Trekmovie.com What the hell happened to my last post? Did you delete it? Are you censoring me? *U SURE YOU WANT TO DO THAT?” ”

Keachick, you are completely correct. It’s like Orci had a wine binge or an argument with the wife (or both), and then we get stuck having to listen to both this condescending attitude, plus his repetitive conspiracy nut bullcrap once again.

I want to hear about the sequal and Trek topics. I for one would encourage Anthony to shut down this thread, as it has become embarassing to Orci and Trekmovie.com.

1301. bardicjim - September 14, 2012


1302. Daoud - September 14, 2012

Captain Kirk, and Captain Quirky Bob…. there’s no reason we can’t have both.
I’m more than glad to hear Bob talk about some of what has inspired the depth of content coming in Star Trek Into Darkness. If anyone thinks he hasn’t been influenced by world events in writing this script with Alex and Damon, anyone’s not paying attention.
All the Secret Service investigative files in WTC7 were destroyed. That’s undeniable. Whether by consequence of bending steel in the thermos bottle oven that floors 5 through 7 became at the point structual steel softens (by ASTM E-119 this is only 1000 degrees F) the building came down and burned. All evidence the Service had on George S-r-s manipulating currency was in there. That’s conveeeeeeeeeeeenient. Even Paul Krugman notes how S-r-s moves money not only in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually triggers that crisis for fun and profit. Currency manipulation is the realm of the Secret Service. And they did those investigations out of their New York Office.

1303. Hugh Hoyland - September 14, 2012

lol Its not embarassing, quite a few times over the years, not only has Bob Orci delved into “controversial topics” on these very boards, but a lot of us have. Sometimes those discussions get heated. Feelings get hurt, blood pressures rise. But life continues.

And how many times can we talk about the sequels title? As far as I know its going to be “Star Trek into Darkness”. Thats it man, unless they change it, thats the title. (I like it myself, some dont). Thats the way of things, the way of the Force. :]

1304. Dadio - September 14, 2012

1296. Why didn’t NIST test for explosives?

They were told not to.

1305. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 14, 2012

1303. Hugh Hoyland

Buckle up!

1306. Montreal_Paul - September 14, 2012

I agree with 1300. Red Shirt Diaries… Anthony, please shut down this thread. I, for one, am sick of the 9/11 talk. Is this not a forum for the Trek movie? I come on here for that. If I want to read about 9/11 theories and conspiracy theories, I will find a forum for that. I really don’t care if it is Bob Orci talking about it… I really don’t want to read any of that crap.

Enough already… you guys made your arguments. Bob, if it really is you, you made your point on what you believe. And the other people, you made your point too. So leave it alone now or exchange emails and do it privately.

1307. VZX - September 14, 2012

Ok, I can’t believe I’m getting sucked into this, but here is some logic for ya:

Why? If there was a conspiracy about the WTC attacks, then why? To what end? And, for that matter, who?

To me, it was just a bunch of religious fanatics that just want to watch the USA burn, and they give their lives for that. Why does it have to be more than that? Why does there ever have to be more to any major tragedy? Are we really doing a service to humanity to continually search for “hidden truths”, even where there aren’t any?

OK, yeah, I get a little tired of all the conspiracy theories. I just finished debating the moon and Mars landings with another idiot and then I see this stuff on here. Can you believe there are people that think the Curiosity rover is a conspiracy? W. T. F.

1308. Damian - September 14, 2012

1307–China built the moon :)

1309. Damian - September 14, 2012

The far side even says “Made in China”

1310. Other Guy - September 14, 2012

1307. VZX…

“To me, it was just a bunch of religious fanatics that just want to watch the USA burn, and they give their lives for that. Why does it have to be more than that? Why does there ever have to be more to any major tragedy? Are we really doing a service to humanity to continually search for “hidden truths”, even where there aren’t any?”

Yeah, exactly. On both sides.

1311. The Last Vulcan - September 14, 2012

@1013, you’re representative of the generation which has been exposed to Torquemada-level sadism as a matter of course so it is obvious that you have lost all perspective. You have no concept whatsoever about what defines a modicum of violence applied for legitimate dramatic purposes and what constitutes dark subject matter which is designed to depress and disgust while titillating the reptilian brain. I feel sorry for you and for the billions of other people who have been brainwashed into thinking that dark subjects are suitable for entertainment purposes.

To everyone else: This is UNFORTUNATELY what happens when websites are left on autopilot for days or even weeks at a time, and is the main reason why the vast majority of active forums are assigned MODERATORS who monitor the activity on the site on a daily or even hourly basis. It has always been inexplicable why Anthony chooses to run this site on such a laissez-faire manner so that so many people can be SUCKERED INTO THINKING THAT THIS GUY IS ROBERTO ORCI when he’s likely some teenage wanker getting his lolz. Anyone who thinks he is deserves a citation as an HONORARY CAPTAIN DUNSEL. AND unfortunately Anthony deserves a scolding for letting this go on for years without a simple fix.

1312. Jack - September 14, 2012

Wait, so when a conversation goes in a direction you don’t like, you want it shut down? I don’t want to read this – so it should be censored? Come on, this embarrassing to Trekmovie stuff seems a bit silly. All sorts of stuff gets discussed here.

Disagree, voice your frustration with the direction — but call for the thread to be shut down? Why not just stop reading? Not that these are private discussions — but people seem to be freaking out that someone was passionately discussing and debating a few folks on here. So what? The guy wasn’t insulting all Trek fans. The jibes were directed at the folks he was responding to.

And, come on, Keachick — the post numbers were going crazy. I think that’s all he meant by ‘WTF TrekMovie.’ The mechanics of the site itself — not Anthony and not faithful readers.

Surely we can have a spirited debate without righteous indignation.

1313. Other Guy - September 14, 2012

1311. The Last Vulcan

1st paragraph = PERFECT!

2nd paragraph = Conspiracy Therory.

1314. Montreal_Paul - September 14, 2012

1312. Jack

It has nothing to do with the thread. This is a forum for the Trek movie. Stick to the topic… or find a 9/11 forum. No one said they should be censored – just moved to a proper forum. If I want to read or discuss 9/11 theories, I will find a forum for said topic. I come back here and have to skim through all the drivel to see if anything is posted to the actual topic. Surely you can understand that. How would you like to filter through 1000 comments about Quebec politics?

1315. Aurore - September 14, 2012

“1312. Jack – September 14, 2012
Wait, so when a conversation goes in a direction you don’t like, you want it shut down? I don’t want to read this – so it should be censored? Come on, this embarrassing to Trekmovie stuff seems a bit silly. All sorts of stuff gets discussed here.

Disagree, voice your frustration with the direction — but call for the thread to be shut down? Why not just stop reading?……”

Very well said.

1316. Damian - September 14, 2012

1314–I can sympathize with someone who is upset because they are looking for something related to the topic of the original article. All I can say is at this point, if you are looking for insider information on the sequel, at this point in this thread, your probably not going to see any so I wouldn’t bother checking anymore.

1317. Damian - September 14, 2012

1312–Agree about the post numbers. Esp, last night they were all over the place. Comments were placed and it looked like people were commenting on their own posts when they obviously weren’t, or noting numbers that haven’t even been posted yet. I also had some issues with some posts not posting, and there was nothing in those posts that I could think would be blocked (one was referencing Memory Alpha)

1318. Phil - September 14, 2012

Bob, no one is going to answer the question because no matter how well thought out the response, and cross referenced, you’ve already rejected it as flawed because you have already dismissed the source. There really isn’t a point now to what has become a pointless debate.

1319. Damian - September 14, 2012

1314–Funny. Up until post 863 the talk was all about Star Trek. Then Bob started the 9/11 topic with his links. So blame Bob :)

But honestly, 863 about one topic is a lot. Typically the boards here go off on numerous tangents after a few hundred posts.

1320. Phil - September 14, 2012

@1319. Yep, we are easily distracted. Most of the time it’s fun or even informative, but this one did wander off the reservation a bit. I get being passionate about a subject, but berating those who don’t necessarily agree just ailenates people…

1321. Damian - September 14, 2012

1318–That’s the problem with conspiracy theorists. When you are convinced the information out there is fabricated or a cover up, there’s no way to reach a common ground. I’ve already agreed with Bob that WTC 7 is suspicious, but I have seen nothing to change my opinion that this was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda. But he and others have rejected the information I base those facts on, so there is no way for the two sides to meet in the middle.

1322. The Last Vulcan - September 14, 2012

@1313, thank you thank you. As for the Conspiracy Theory, our PSEUDOboborci certainly seems to have picked up the paranoia baton and run with it! :) Does anyone REALLY think that this is Roberto Orci? The words of PT Barnum are still ringing in my pointy ears: There’s a sucker born every minute. :P

1323. Damian - September 14, 2012

1322–Anthony has claimed before that his boards can identify when someone is trying to portray themselves as someone they are not and those people earn themselves a ban. Someone tried to post as William Shatner once and was promptly banned. It may seem the moderators do not monitor these boards, but be assured, they do.

If you want to test it, be prepared to be banned.

1324. Damian - September 14, 2012

Besides, Bob is big on conspiracy theories. His posts do not surprise me one bit, knowing his history. Ask him about who shot JFK sometime if you don’t believe me.

1325. Phil - September 14, 2012

I think (and I’ll defer to someone a bit more tech savy here) that as long as someone posting has a known IP address, they can figure out if someone is an imposter…as long as someone is moderating. Most sites have software that will automatically delete a post if it has certain words or phrases, which explains why some posts have disapeared. Yeah, Mr. Orci has been passionate in his conspiracy discussions before, but he hasn’t been beligerant about it, which is suspect to me, too.

1326. The Last Vulcan - September 14, 2012

@1323, IF moderators are on these boards they certainly haven’t been around for several days as they would have squashed this makebelieveboborci in the bud. So let’s see if a tree falls in the forest and anyone hears it:


1327. Montreal_Paul - September 14, 2012

I believe that Anthony checks the IP address himself to verify if a person is real. And there seems to be no moderator on the site right now. But I think there is an email that one can use to inform admin if there is an issue.

That being said and the fact that there is no updates on the site right now. I am gearing up for the Montreal ComicCon. Shatner, Stewart, McDowell, Wheaton, Spiner, DeLancie… just to name a few.


1328. Damian - September 14, 2012

1325-Definitely having problems with posts being deleted. One of mine is gone, and I certainly didn’t post anything inflammatory.

I was agreeing with your 1320 post though. It was a little off putting at time. I happen to believe this was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, and for that, some people here feel I’m some sort of moron and news zombie. I’ve based my own opinion based on my own countless hours of seeing footage, documentaries, reading articles and so forth. I didn’t accept the information at face value or because I heard it on the news. But if someone rejects that information, then what can I say.

1329. Damian - September 14, 2012

1328–Board anarchy. That could be fun.

1330. Damian - September 14, 2012

1329–Wait, now my post seems to be back at 1323. I swear it wasn’t there a minute ago.

1331. Other Guy - September 14, 2012

Dudes. It’s past 1300+ posts. It’s ok to get off topic. IMO.

1332. Damian - September 14, 2012

1329–Oh, and now my reference looks like I’m referencing myself when it is now 1326. What’s going on? The same thing was happening to Bob last night. It kept looking like he was talking to himself.

1333. Adolescent Nightmare - September 14, 2012

I know the fans only have two interests in life but I think the diversions are interesting. There is a total blackout of information until December anyway. And it’s nice to see the fans getting a taste of their own medicine.

1334. Damian - September 14, 2012

And it’s gone again????? So my numbers are screwed up yet again. Maybe one of the moderators is messing with us to see if they can completely drive us over the edge :)

1335. Damian - September 14, 2012

And my 1323 is back again. I feel like the Enterprise crew on TNG on “Where Silence Has Least” when openings kept appearing and they kept saying, there it is, it’s gone again, another one opened up, it’s gone again.

1336. Montreal_Paul - September 14, 2012

1331. Other Guy

Shouldn’t have been allowed to get this far off topic in the first place. Isn’t there a section on this site that is an open forum that people can talk about anything?

1337. NuFan - September 14, 2012


Can you even call them fans? 4 of them have been here since I was and have still never said one kind word about modern Star Trek.

1338. boborci - September 14, 2012

1307 To what end?

PNAC (Project for a New American Century) was a think tank. Members included Rumsfeld, Wolfowits, Jeb Bush, Cheney… a who’s who of necon Bush administration. Their report in 99 was about how to make sure no other country ever rises to threaten us again after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ted Koppel (NIGHTLINE) called this report a “Bluprint for US global domination…” IN this report, the themselves write that the necessary changes to our foreign policy and our military will be very difficult to sell the us US citizens without a “NEW PEARL HARBOR.”

On the night of 911, Bush writes in his diary that he just went through his Pearl Harbor (this is in Bob Woodward’s book BUSH AT WAR). And what happened after 911? Buscho got their wars. Patriot act written the summer before 911. Afghan war plan on Bush’s desk to sign sept. 10. First meeting of administration before 911 was about how to get back ointo Iraq and get Hussein. I shouldn’ have to explain this to you.

All of the above is mainstream media news. Acccepted fact. It is also CLEAR MOTIVE. Any questions?

1339. boborci - September 14, 2012

1304 thank you! One resaonable answer! The only asnwer to that question provided thus far!

1340. Damian - September 14, 2012

1336–All very intriguing, but still does not give me reason to believe Bush carried out 9/11. But you question the very reports and evidence I used to base my own opinion on, so there’s not much common ground to be achieved there.

Did Al Qaeda hand them a reason to change foreign policy on a silver platter. Yes. Did Al Qaeda give a crap about it, no. They want us out of the Middle East along with Israel. That is their only goal.

1341. Jeffries Tuber - September 14, 2012

1294 – the NIST report CR linked to says the WTC7 fell at a rate 40% slower than Freefall. RIF.

Is this performance art to prepare us for a Laurentian conspiracy, because it’s certainly not a good look for you.

1342. boborci - September 14, 2012

1299. So november 22 means nothing to you? Amazing!

1343. Montreal_Paul - September 14, 2012

1342. boborci

anniversary of JFK’s death. No? You releasing the new trailer then?

1344. Boborci - September 14, 2012

1341. Jesus. And the pressconference we linked shows NIST FORCED to admit free fall speed of wtc7 at onset of collapse. U can get a stoP watch and watch the video of collapse and time it yourself.

Really annoying whe you say sonmething innacurate, we correct you with factual video evidence, and you still come back and repeat your errors. Time is precious, so please be better informed and prepared when u want to take up our time on matters of importance.


1345. Boborci - September 14, 2012

And yes, its performance art. Saw Man On the Moon the other day and loved it.

1346. boborci - September 14, 2012

1340 reports? Yes, the official report is what we are questioning. But we are not relying on some other report from Conspiracy Headquarters! Everything I cited above about PNAC and Bush’s diary, etc…, are all publicly known mainstream media undisputed and uncontroversial seperate facts. Sounds to me like the only way you would accept where the evidence naturally leads is for a government report to come out called LAST GOVERNMENT REPORT WAS A PACK OF CRIMINAL LIES! I would like to see that report, too, but in the absence of that report, we gotta apply the historical record to the official version of events and see how they compare.

1347. Damian - September 14, 2012

1346–It’s all in the interpretation. I simply interpret the events of 9/11 differently then you do. The reports I’ve seen lead me down one path, and they obviously lead you down another path.

I’m just not as hung up on WTC 7 as you are. When I think of 9/11, I think more of the twin towers and the Pentagon, where lives were lost. I’ve already agreed that the issues of WTC 7 are suspicious, but however it collapsed, it occurred hours later, there were no lost lives in the collapse (or demo, whichever you prefer) and based on what I see, the twin towers collapsed beginning at the point where the planes crashed into them. I have seen that with my own eyes. You talk about coincidence, where that’d be one hell of a coincidence that they planted bombs at the exact point where the planes crashed into the buildings. Not to mention, I don’t know a lot of pilots out there that would voluntary immolate themselves for a secret US government plot to change US foreign policy.

1348. Daoud - September 14, 2012

NIST isn’t even that respected among us in the sciences. It’s government run, funded, and controlled. You have to get out into the science and engineering societies themselves… AAAS, APS, AAPT, IEEE, ASTM, etc. to get anything approaching peer-reviewed goodness. Of course NIST does what it’s told. I don’t think anyone’s really debating that, Bob. I mean, it’s nothing more than the “National Bureau of Standards” with a fancier name. They couldn’t even get the nation to adopt the metric system over 200+ years of efforts.
@The Censors: Stop reading if you don’t like this. If we’re going to understand why the title is Star Trek [I¦i]nto Darkness, I for one would like to understand the authors and where they were coming from. There’s no doubt given three years of development, the total run of TOS itself, that they’ve had the time and desire to create a well-layered script that could turn out to fulfill the “even number movie prophecy” better than ever.

1349. Damian - September 14, 2012

Someone’s still screwing up the posts here. My 1346 reference now should be 1347.

You want to talk about conspiracy. Sheesh.

1350. Montreal_Paul - September 14, 2012

1348. Daoud
“@The Censors: Stop reading if you don’t like this.”

If you don’t like us complaining that you are posting 9/11 stuff on a forum for Star Trek… then why don’t you take your topic to the chat forum and knock yourselves out!

And for your information, I’m NOT reading any of the drivel… I’m trying to filter through it to read what people are saying about the actual forum topic.

1351. Montreal_Paul - September 14, 2012

1348. Daoud

Oh, and so is asking to censor anything…. I think people would just rather that discussion moved elsewhere.

1352. Damian - September 14, 2012

1285– A little late on the response here but there has been some theorizing about jet fuel not being hot enough to melt steal. Has anyone considered the possiblity that the temperature of the fire might have been much higher that one would expect. Much of the fire was within the structure so I would think it would be much hotter, not to mention anything else in the building that was flammable adding to the fire.

And the basic fact that people are generally not in the habit of flying jets into skyscrapers at full speed. That’s a bit unprecendented. Honestly, I’m not sure now matter how hard engineers and architects work, could they really build it to the point that the same thing wouldn’t happen again.

1353. Daoud - September 14, 2012

@1347 Damian: WTC7 was “rebuilt” after the 1993 WTC attack. NYPD moved an emergency command center there. Read the wikipedia page on WTC7, you’ll see how strange it was along with Salomon taking over the 19 floors they rebuilt. The fact the Secret Service had their major investigative arm there, along with all the evidence… are factual enough not to need to call in conspiracy.
As a physicist who understands phase changes beyond the grade school gas-liquid-solid crap we’re spoon fed… steel doesn’t need to melt to fail, it only needs to get to around 1000 degrees and it no longer can support the weight above it. It “bends” but in on itself…. A different example… which might get the point across better. A racquetball, is nice and bouncy, right? At room temperatures, you can play with it, bounce it off walls. It’s a solid. Well, let it sit in liquid nitrogen for 5 minutes. Now bounce it off the floor… it shatters into a hundred pieces as if it were glass. It’s still rubber, it’s still a solid. Phase changes in steel are hideously more complex. When you get even above 400 degrees, it changes bulk properties. The Japanese, in their fear of earthquake-caused fires, mandate that their steel holds 60% at 400 degrees.
WTC1 and WTC2 failed because of intense heat from a convection driven fire accelerated by the fuel (not caused by the fuel)…. the materials of the building burned in a contained area enough to cause steel to go through a transition into a non-supporting phase. Sure, they were designed to withstand collisions by fuel-loaded airplanes. Cessnas and small jets… not a fully loaded 747 bound for the West Coast with all tanks full. The Empire State Building has withstood any number of small plane crashes into it, for example. (King Kong movies aren’t so unrealistic after all!).

WTC7 is fishy. They got everyone out, unlike the sadness that is WTC1 and WTC2. (Why the hell weren’t BOTH evacuated immediately after the first plane, there’s a damn good question.) Anyway…. WTC7 had been modified by the owners so desperate to rent it out, it was probably bearing much more weight already than designed. That building had issues.

1354. Daoud - September 14, 2012

Montreal Paul… I would like to understand fully why Bob and Alex and Damon chose to go with Star Trek Into Darkness, and chose to craft the script they crafted. It completely is connected.
You’re in no position to tell other posters what we can and can’t discuss with Bob Orci. I could argue that you’re on an American-based board, with Americans discussing 9/11 and how it impacts an American scriptwriter/producer and what he chose to include in a script for an American movie. I could.

1355. Damian - September 14, 2012

1354–I think that’s the part people don’t get. When they built the WTC towers people just were not thinking someone would actually intentionally fly a passenger jet into it. I’ve seen documentaries where they’ve talked to some people involved with the design, and they’ll tell you this was just not in the thought process.

And again, honestly, if someone flew another fully fueled jet into the new WTC tower when it’s built, I’d make my way to the exit fast, no matter what the designers say about it. Remember, they said the Titanic was unsinkable?

1356. Montreal_Paul - September 14, 2012

1354. Daoud

Excuse me?? Are you going to spout that only Americans can comment on here now? You feel that 9/11 ONLY impacted the States? Where do you think all the planes had to land when no one was able to enter the States? Do you know how many Canadians were killed on 9/11? I actually had 5 friends who worked at the WTC that died that day. Did you know that the Canadian Forces were the first to join the States in fighting terrorism? Who the F cares if this is an American based board…. last time I checked… ANYONE can post here. And the rest of the world does have an opinion on 9/11 and the rest of the world was affected by it. The world does not revolve around the US, believe it or not.

And who are YOU to say who can or cannot post on here? Talk about egotistical.

1357. Damian - September 14, 2012

Honestly, though, I think Section 31 was behind it :)

1358. Damian - September 14, 2012

1357–Dude. Chill. He wasn’t saying you couldn’t post. He was just taking issue with you saying everyone else here shouldn’t post about 9/11 on this thread. That’s all.

1359. Red Dead Ryan - September 14, 2012

A couple of weeks ago, Stunkill admitted to posing as MJ on another thread after he was badmouthing MJ. I knew it was Stunkill, and he later came out and admitted that it was him. He didn’t get banned, nor did he even get a warning. Why? Anthony and staff were AWOL at the the time, just like they are now.

So unless there’s going to be 24/7 surveillance around here, some will continue to get away with sockpuppeteering and/or posing as others.

As for WTC, those towers weren’t designed to withstand a direct hit from fully loaded passenger jets just like the Titanic wasn’t designed to withstand hitting a massive iceberg in the Atlantic.

1360. Montreal_Paul - September 14, 2012

Just an FYI…

There is a tab on this site called “chat”… and this is what it says:
Del J. Trame Memorial Chat
This page is for off-topic discussions. Usual rules of decorum apply (family friendly, no flaming, trolling, being annoying, etc).
This page is not for site feedback (go here) or tips (email: tips [at] trekmovie [dot] com)”

Just so that you know, it’s not really me that is saying that you shouldn’t post non-topic stuff like 9/11… it’s actually site policy.

1361. Damian - September 14, 2012

1359–That’s a bit disturbing. But I’d have to imagine they have some automatic way of checking when bob posts (or someone else, say Rick Sternbach who also posts here a bit) to make sure it is him. Not to hurt anyone’s ego here, but Bob Orci posting here is a bit of a bigger deal then when you or I post. Not to mention we know Bob does post here quite a bit and obviously checks on things. If someone were impersonating him, he’d probably blow the horn rather quickly.

1362. Red Dead Ryan - September 14, 2012


Again, my bet is Anthony and staff have taken off on another extended break, which will allow trolls to pose as boborci, or other posters.

As well, Bob put up a couple of disclaimers upthread deterring would-be fakers from posing as him.

1363. Boborci - September 14, 2012

Anyhow, shows over. Thanks for participating in this performance art. Next show in November.

1364. boborci - September 14, 2012

Stop impersonating me!

1365. boborci - September 14, 2012

I hope your shrink can make sense of this cherade in which you are pretending both of our posts are not from the same person. Pathetic. Man up.

1366. Jack - September 14, 2012

1362. I think it’s all Bob. And he’s having some fun. Evemn if it’s not — I’m having some fun.

1367. Jack - September 14, 2012

1357. Montreal Paul. I agree with you here.

1368. drumvan - September 14, 2012

1299. So november 22 means nothing to you? Amazing!

that’s my mom’s birthday! happy birthday (in advance) mom. love you ;)

1369. Other Guy - September 14, 2012

Not really anything that shocking in all these posts.

Not anything to be ashamed of for bob or Bob.

All common knowledge for most that read the daily news.

What’s shocking is that you all still vote these guys in EVERY YEAR!

1370. LizardGirl - September 14, 2012

@1365 boborci (???)
What the f…you are…seriously OFF the chain right now. Did you lace your wine with something? I strongly suggest NOT taking pills with alchohol. I am not joking at all. You seem like you are on something, whoever you are.

1371. Damian - September 14, 2012

1370–He was just having fun because people are speculating that maybe an imposter is posting as Bob Orci

1372. Damian - September 14, 2012

Who keeps screwing with these posts. My post was responding to 1371 (Lizard Girl, in case the numbers change again).

I swear Anthony is in the background randomly making changes to posts with evil giggling.

1373. Daoud - September 14, 2012

Paul… I said “I could”… I did not however make the argument. Rhetoric. Discussion. Debate. Geesh. Reading. The first sentence in the paragraph was the important one.
And I descend from a Canadian ancestor. I didn’t even use the word Canadian in my post.
Damian… thanks for getting what I said.

1374. Damian - September 14, 2012

I will say, we all seem pretty well behaved considering the parents don’t seem to be watching us right now.

1375. VZX - September 14, 2012

So, let’s gather all this evidence that the 911 attacks were masterminded by American government officials and create a case. Seriously, if Americans were behind this, then why can’t they be brought to justice?

I obviously do not know much about such things, but this sounds pretty effed up that W wanted to have a “Pearl Harbor” for what? A war? So he could look good? If what Orci says is true, then this information should be made available to the public and W and Cheney and the rest should be put on trial. I know people that were in the attack and a good friend of mine was a firefighter, one of the first responders there, all those people were killed so George could have his war?

1376. Adolescent Nightmare - September 14, 2012

Okay, you all have until November to get ready for your next duel with boborci. I will expect a much better performance from people who keep saying they are smarter than mainstream public.

1377. Other Guy - September 14, 2012

To get ready you all should take a look see at this…


1378. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 14, 2012

Just so you all note: I did not ask that this thread be shut down. I expressed my dislike of the apparently condescending attitude this boborci had for some of the posters here and the fact that he appeared to be threatening and even a little paranoid.

No, boborci, I did not know what happens on November 22, otherwise I would not have asked. Anyway, if what you are referring to is the anniversary of JFK’s death, I thought it occurred on November 23.

“boborci – September 13, 2012
Despite the seeming slant of the conversation above, we (JJ, Damon, ALEX, Bryan, Jeff Chernov, etc…) all recognize the fact that optimism is in the DNA of Trek. We will never lose that, regardless of what any title might seem to imply.”

Thank you, I think. So what happened to your DNA, boborci?

Can you talk of nothing but (evil) conspiracies, whether it be about the events of 9/11 or about JFK’s death? Surely, there has to be something else more positive as well motivating you. (and I don’t mean a big pay cheque either). Now that would be TRULY SAD. I am sorry if I bother you. Sometimes I have that effect on people, whether or not I intend it. We all have our *crosses to bear*…

If I may ask, were you in New York on 9/11/01 and/or did you lose someone close as a result of the attacks?

1379. Daoud - September 14, 2012

VZX, it’s much bigger than W and Cheney. That’s part of what Bob’s trying to get people to realize. There’s a massive “underconspiracy” that’s been ongoing since the 50’s. It’s subtle, it’s headless, it’s vast.
Perhaps it’s not so much that 9/11 was *caused*, I think the idea he’s stating is that it was “allowed to proceed” and then used as cover for other things (as he believes, WTC7). I’m a lot more skeptical on that specific, but there’s no doubt certain meetings happen internationally behind the scenes that are vague and unclear. The ol’ Bildy-bergy, Renaissance, Tri-lateral, CSE, Forum…. all sorts of these things are “out there”.
Kea, it was already the 23rd in Australia and New Zealand. Maybe your history books record it that way. Over here, it’s 11/22/63, just like the title of a recent Stephen King novel.

1380. boborci - September 14, 2012

1378 You don’t bother me at all you Rose Girl, you! Just playing around. Love taboo subjects.

1381. Harry Ballz - September 14, 2012


you and I have discussed the JFK assassination in detail (as you know), but I honestly can’t remember you ever stating who you think was really behind his death. You know who I think did it, what is your opinion? I’d really like to know.

1382. boborci - September 14, 2012

1381 I agree with you. Johnson and Texas pals.

1383. Other Guy - September 14, 2012

Cmon guys. Obviously the SS could not have stood down from just LBJ’s order. Have you seen the link above.

1384. Harry Ballz - September 14, 2012


Bob, I find it greatly reassuring to know that we are on the same page regarding who killed JFK. Thanks!

1385. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 14, 2012

#1379 Daoud – Yes, that might be it. That is why I have 23 November in my head as the JFK assassination date.

Bob Orci – Glad to hear it. Sometimes I’m not sure what to think when people use a lot of caps and demand answers that probably only God can give, at this point. I do understand how you might want to “get back” at some of your meaner detractors, however, most of them are not here debating these taboo subjects with you, as of now, as far as I know.

Anyway, don’t let it all get to you. I try not to let the crap that goes down sometimes get to me, but it is hard sometimes.

Take care. If there is some of that “optimism” DNA in you, let it come to the surface and shine once in a while. I have to remember to do that as well.

1386. dmduncan - September 14, 2012

Problem is when you know about things like the attempted genocide of the American Indian, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, Operation Northwoods, MKULTRA, Gulf of Tonkin, the Kennedy assassination, TWA flight 800, it’s just hard to suppress suspicion.

I don’t KNOW what really happened on 9/11, but it is not so important for me to have an explanation that we can all agree on so that we can also know which “evildoer” to attack, as it is keep a certain distance from the consensus view so that I CAN be receptive to facts and evidence that might emerge later.

And laughing at people or calling them stupid for being curious enough to question official reports? Uncool. Just think about what in you would make you want to make someone else feel like he needs authorization from an “expert” to use his brain, and how — if you really are asking for everyone to have blind faith in all authorities, whether they be politicians or credentialed Men of Science — HOW in the long run are you going to benefit from that practice?

Given all the coverups running through just our own history that have now been revealed as historical fact, it would be absurd to close your minds to the possibilities of others either happening now or yet to come.

If you live in a dangerous neighborhood where people are getting shot and murdered, it’s natural that you are going to pay attention to your surroundings and the people in it when you go outside.

That’s what we’re doing by asking these questions and looking beyond the mainstream (which almost ALL the time is trivial in its coverage of events, too brief to be informative, and untrustworthy).

1387. Harry Ballz - September 14, 2012

dmduncan, you eloquent bastard, you should write a blog for the Huffington Post!

1388. dmduncan - September 14, 2012

Did you know that the evidence is VERY strong that John Wilkes Booth was not apprehended and lived 40 more years after Lincoln’s assassination?

Yet just like “Columbus discovered America,” we don’t ever get to HEAR that story or see its evidence.

1389. dmduncan - September 14, 2012

Thank you Harry Ballz!

1390. Craiger - September 14, 2012

Getting back to the topic. I think I may have figured out who the bad guy is. Cumberbatch could be a Klingon desguised as a Human and he takes the name Gary Mitchell to get info on the Humans.

1391. dmduncan - September 14, 2012

Challenging the official story is also FUN if you like to blow stuff up. Here’s a challenge to the notion that thermite could not have been used because it can’t cut steel — and you can’t tell me Jon Cole isn’t having a blast!


1392. Alan - September 14, 2012

I hope they bring back Harcourt Fenton Mudd.

1393. Hugh Hoyland - September 14, 2012

I know this about 911, the government has used it as an excuse to create a virtual police state in the name of security. But thats been in the works for many, many decades.

1394. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 14, 2012

1390. Craiger

Good thinking!

You know, it would be possible that Gary could be a double agent.

Considering that he was willing to sacrafice everything while trying to grab all the power.

1395. The Last Vulcan - September 14, 2012








1396. Doug Haffner - September 14, 2012

Maybe somebody should monitor this insanity. Oh, what am I saying? Waiting to see if this thread stops shopping in crazy town is like watching Kristen Stewart try to act. You know it isn’t going to improve, but you almost want to see just how bad it’s going to get.
Please- continue with the conspiracy theories, colon-ectomy and unimpeded Orci impersonators. I’ll get the popcorn and whiskey. This is better than LOST.

1397. The Last Vulcan - September 15, 2012

@1396: +1 :)

1398. Captain Gorn - September 15, 2012

@ The Last Vulcan

I’m pretty sure all these comments are by the real Bob Orci. Check him out on Twitter – he’s talking about 9/11 there as well.

1399. CJS - September 15, 2012

Next movie title suggestion:

Star Trek to 1,400 Comments

“Jim, you’ve spent 5 days in your quarters staring at that computer screen. I’m getting worried.”

“I can’t help it, Bones. This Orci guy keeps arguing that Starfleet planned the attack on the the Kelvin to justify increasing their budget for battlecruisers, and then destroyed Vulcan just to see if they could make Spock sad. the crazy thing is that he’s starting to make sense.”

1400. The Last Vulcan - September 15, 2012

@1398: boborci talks about 9/11 all the time. But he does NOT get belligerent and extreme as this impostor. He is one of the top hypenates in the industry and his tone and many of his statements on this thread would be career suicide. The fakeboborci is well acquainted with the real one’s preferences and opinions, but he is clearly getting his lolz by impersonating him. The impostor is not a fool, but that still does not make him Roberto Orci.


1401. Craiger - September 15, 2012

See another mini vacation and Anthony doesn’t explain why and we don’t question him about it we are just glad when he is back.

1402. I am not Herbert - September 15, 2012

“Star Trek” should bring us OUT OF DARKNESS, not into it… =(


1403. DeShonn Steinblatt - September 15, 2012

He was more in his AICN mode, than his Trekmovie mode but it was quite cleary Bob Orci.

And let’s not forget that The Last Vulcan is a known lunatic who believes JJ Abrams wasted millions of dollars trying to fake The Last Vulcan into believing they’re using the uniforms he doesn’t personally like.

Yes, when it came down to building a new engineering set or faking out The Last Vulcan, it was decided the money was much better spent on faking out The Last Vulcan.

Sorry you didn’t want Khan, The Last Vulcan.

1404. Harry Ballz - September 15, 2012


Oooooh, subtle!

1405. Aurore - September 15, 2012

Mr. Orci,

After checking on your link @ 977, I realised that I had, in fact, already heard of Operation Northwoods….at least once, rather briefly, in the following c-span debate between a journalist ( “coincidence theorist” ) and an author/historian ( “conspiracy theorist”).*

Moreover, in the past, I might have heard of it in documentaries dealing with the Kennedy Presidency. But, when alluding to it, their narrators would usually make rather vague statement such as ” There were plans to destabilize the Castro regime”, or, ” There were plans to provoke war with Cuba”.

As far as I can remember, they never really delved into the details of what such ‘plans’ entailed.

*Link if authorized, here ( also available on You Tube ):


1406. The Last Vulcan - September 15, 2012

1403: Kindly note that you owe this Vulcan lunatic an apology which states that you are lower than whale dreck when the movie premieres and I am found to be correct. :)

1407. Jack - September 15, 2012

1385. ‘however, most of them are not here debating these taboo subjects with you, as of now, as far as I know.’

Hi Rose. Why’s it taboo?

1408. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 15, 2012

Perhaps this is the real Bob Orci who feels it safe enough to let rip, revealing his own darker side. We could take it as a sort of backhanded compliment.

This boborci did leave some clues, as in commenting that he, as writer/producer, often get pulled apart by people for writing a set-up which allows for such apparent incompetency to take place as it seems what happened in real life, as in the investigators not checking for explosives. Bob Orci, along with Alex Kurtzman and in particular, Damon Lindelof, constantly get shit flung at them by the *all-knowing* film/TV buffs for bad writing, being hacks and not giving proper endings/closure (Damon Lindelof – ref. Lost and Prometheus).

However, something that author Tom Clancy once said is often quoted to justify the comments made against these writers –

“The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.”

Anyone see what is wrong with this statement?

1409. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 15, 2012

Jack – boborci refers to the subjects talked about here (ie events of 9/11 and the JFK assassination) as being taboo.

“boborci – September 14, 2012
1378 You don’t bother me at all you Rose Girl, you! Just playing around. Love taboo subjects.”

I am quoting everything, not just the post number, because I’m not sure if the numbering is still askew. The above quote is post #1382 on my screen.

1410. Harry Ballz - September 15, 2012

Keachick, what does a conspiracy buff who dies and comes back as a ghost say to scare people?



1411. RenderedToast - September 15, 2012

Damn Bob, you’re still here talking about this? Pretty cool that you’re prepared to put your name to your views like this. Actually more excited for this film now seeing that you legitimately care about important things like this.

1412. I Could Tell You I'm SoonerDave But "They" Would Get Me - September 15, 2012

You know what would be cool? A forum where we talk about things like classic science fiction series, like Star Trek.

There used to be one here, rumor holds, but it devolved into a comedy site featuring mutually self-trumping conspiracy theories about, well, everything.

1413. The Original Spock's Brain - September 15, 2012

The real Bob Orci was never on this thread, he has REAL writing to do. No time for getting into lame discussions with this bunch.

1414. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 15, 2012

Actually, there really are only two conspiracy theories that come under discussion with boborci – those are: 9/11 and JFK assassination.

I don’t know if this was the real Bob Orci or not, but, The Original Spock’s Brain, who is “this bunch”? Many of “this bunch” did not consider the discussions “lame”. Besides, this is not the only thread on this site…

1415. Craiger - September 15, 2012

I think Anthony should verify if that is the real Bob Orci posting about the 9/11 consipercy theories. I wouldn’t think the real one would have all this time to do those posts when he has movies and Fall TV shows to work on.

1416. Jefferies Tuber - September 15, 2012

Is it possible that boborci is, in concert with the comics, introducing the idea of conspiracy to the destruction of Vulcan?

Think this through:
1. The destruction of Vulcan is clearly a 9/11-type event–it changes ‘the world’ and is caused by a lone group of ‘fish out of water’ terrorists who don’t die, they only disappear.
2. Bob Orci, both here and on Twitter and in business meetings, shares his conspiracy theories.
3. Left dangling in ST09 is the “coincidence” that the entire fleet is in the Laurentian System.
4. The comic book Star Trek: Nero suggests the Laurentian system is the location of Rura Penthe, and the Federation responded to a Klingon distress call after Nero destroyed 47 Klingon warbirds.
5. Bob no gusta plot coincidence. Goes so far as to label people who accept coincidences in a historical event as “coincidence theorists.”
6. The retelling of ‘Return of the Archons’ in issue 9 of the comic features:
a. An attempt by a shadowy group of three old white guys [seriously] at Starfleet Academy to recruit Sulu into a secret mission that ‘adjusts to the new realities’ that Starfleet’s commitment “peacekeeping and humanitarian”ism implicitly does not.
b. The retelling of ROTA as an overt Starfleet conspiracy.
7. An unresolved conspiracy matches JJ’s ideas about the mystery box.
8. In spy shots Benedict Cumberpatch is in the black shirt and slacks of an off duty officer, suggesting that the new antagonist comes from within Starfleet.
and the clincher:
9. The black shirts themselves, a costuming reminder that we are not in Roddenberry’s universe.

1417. Ahmed - September 15, 2012

@ 1415. Craiger – September 15, 2012

“I think Anthony should verify if that is the real Bob Orci posting about the 9/11 consipercy theories. I wouldn’t think the real one would have all this time to do those posts when he has movies and Fall TV shows to work on.”

I think that he needs to come up with a way to insure user unique log in to avoid imposters.

1418. Jefferies Tuber - September 15, 2012

“With our primary fleet engaged in the Laurentian system,” – ST09

Why would the primary fleet still be engaged in the LS if the enemy had departed, particularly under the new, faster rules of warp speed?
a. The primary fleet was destroyed in minutes, like the relief fleet that met the Narada at Vulcan.
b. The primary fleet arrived after the destruction of the fleet and occupied the Klingon Empire under the pretense of humanitarian relief.
c. The primary fleet arrived at Rura Penthe [a Guantanamo if ever there was one] and proceed to occupy the planet [the sector?] and claim its valuable prisoners, as well as the remains of Klingon cloaking technology. The return of this fleet creates the cleave between old Starfleet and the “new reality.”
d. The primary fleet was coincidentally too far away.

1419. dmduncan - September 15, 2012

CIA deposes the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran who has a policy toward oil that our government is displeased with, and installs a dictator with a CIA TRAINED SECRET POLICE, and backlash to whom gives fuel to an Islamic revolution, with America as an object of hate, creating dangerously strained relations between our countries lasting unto this day.

I don’t expect many of you to have heard any of that before because it was never in any episode of Star Trek. But I’ll still ask: Without consulting the make-me-smart-for-a-few-moments machine (no, I’m talking about google, not the helmet thingy in Spock’s Brain), what’s your best guess — phony conspiracy theory or real history?

1420. dmduncan - September 15, 2012

You know, it’s amazing. We like to look at Superman and think he represents America: A force of good. One who has great power and who uses it responsibly.

But the fact is, if Superman acted around the world the way that America does, we would view THAT Superman as a villain. As a hypocrite who gives a good speech at home about human dignity and civil rights, and then who crushes the rights of people overseas for his own selfish benefit.

1421. Daoud - September 15, 2012

@1419. What was done to Mossadegh, indeed is key to all our troubles in the Middle East. Heck, Iran was an ally of Israel before we screwed it up because British Petroleum and the UK couldn’t take the bloody nose that the Iranians gave them.
I expect that the coming movie will have a similar level of onion peeling. As for superheroes… What’s the old saying: Superman’s what we think we are. Batman’s what we really are.

1422. Vultan - September 15, 2012


“Bugs Bunny is the character I’d like to be; Daffy Duck is who I really am.”
—Chuck Jones

So true. We’ve a long way to go, though we should also acknowledge how far we’ve come (in some respects). No wonder Roddenberry set his “vision” a few hundred years in the future.

1423. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 15, 2012

All the TOS characters wore black long-sleeved t-shirts under their coloured tunics. There is nothing “un-Roddenberry” or sinister about seeing either kirk (in ST 09) or the Cumberbatch character in this black undergarment.

There is nothing to suggest why the primary fleet were in the Laurentian system or that it had anything to do with the escape from Rura Penthe. Lt Uhura had just heard about the escape and destruction of the Klingon fleet less than 24 hours before Starfleet received the distress call from the Vulcans re serious seismic disturbances.

Frankly, I am not enamoured by pigeon-holing people as either “coincidence” or “conspiracy” theorists. That’s just bs to me, something that needs to be nipped in the bud. Why not just seek the facts, instead jumping to what could very well be shonky theories and conclusions.

1424. Jack - September 15, 2012

1415. Craiger, how do you think this movie got delayed in the first place? ;).

And Rose. Rethinking this, it definitely still is a bit taboo — but now it’s (considered) more crankish and no longer, I hope, grounds for tar and feathering (lin the way that any criticism of U.S. (republican) or Israeli policy was labelled anti-Americsnism and anti-semitism, respectively). It shouldn’t be taboo anymore (well, like most taboo subjects). In related taboo news, that Seminole streaker is being charged with, according to one story, exposure of a sexual organ.

1425. Jack - September 15, 2012

Hey, this whole idea of Anerican exceptionalism, having to be the most powerful country on the earth, javing a stake in everything that happens everywhere else on Earth, well — it’s (arguably) kind of anti-Star Trek (unless you assume that the Federation is just an evolution of US policies and the Fed is the US on a larger scale)…

1426. Gary S. - September 15, 2012

Americans think we are Superpowered Aliens ,
But in reality we are Crime Fighting billionares with Cool Gadgets hidden in an Underground Lair?
Works for me!

1427. Red Dead Ryan - September 15, 2012


I kind of think that, yes indeed, that the Federation was a large scale extension of America. The ideals of TOS reflected the ideals (and ideas) of JFK-era America. TOS featured the Federation involved in a “cold war” with the Klingon Empire. TNG kind of took the Jimmy Carter ideology of socialist/non-interventionist ideals to the limits. DS9 broke that all down to a highly noble, but also highly flawed power that sometimes resorted to unethical tactics, such as ignoring the Dominion’s demand to stay out of their area of space, and the attempt of Section 31 to commit genocide against the Founders. Not to mention the Federation disowning the Federation colonists (Maquis) in order to keep peace with the Cardassians, who were the ones who attacked the colonists in the first place.

1428. Red Dead Ryan - September 15, 2012

I guess we Canadians are more “Vulcan-like”. No big military, relatively low population, quiet, nice and boring. :-)

1429. Vultan - September 15, 2012


Well put, RDR. Point for point, you nailed it.

Interesting though, isn’t it? How Trek and its Federation has changed with the times, each era of the real world somehow reflected there on the big and small screens. And sometimes it’s even ahead of world events. Look at how Nero ended. Then look at how Bin Laden ended. Both destroyed and lowered into the deep.

Obviously, Hollywood is now dictating government policy. ;-)

1430. Keachick (that Rose girl) - September 16, 2012

I’m not sure how streakers on sports playing fields are dealt with here by police. One thing for sure: the crowds adore it!

Hopefully, soon we should see highlights from our nation’s two all-nude rugby teams play given that it is nearing the end of the winter rugby season and when the weather starts to warm up. Both men and women play and the play is not bad at all, for amateur rugby players.

1431. Spiked Canon - September 16, 2012

Intriguing…I believe Orci has given it away with his own self-indulged 9-11 conspiracy crap. Also, in one of the comics Sarek going under cover to get red matter(WMD). A little revenge on his mind maybe…

1432. Red Dead Ryan - September 16, 2012


Wait, your country has all-NUDE rugby teams???

1433. dmduncan - September 16, 2012

America landed men on the moon repeatedly. America sends roving probes to Mars. There is a good deal of exceptionalism IN America and we would do a lot more if the bottlenecks that are bringing us down were removed.

Canada is a British colony with its head of state being the Queen of England. And I think that accounts for the tameness of Canada.

Despite all their notable achievements, neither Britain nor Canada have done the amazing things we have done, and, I dare to say, if every nation were a colony of the UK, NOBODY would do the amazing things we have done.

1434. boborci - September 16, 2012

1431. Here its why theres is emphasiso on building 7.


1435. Boborci - September 16, 2012

1434 Please cease and desist, typo filled imposter!

Interesting article though.

1436. Jefferies Tuber - September 16, 2012

boborci – Policy Mic is your 11th hour source – a fringe website advocating for a well-documented racist fraud like Ron Paul?

The source of your argument here is also advocating the politician who in December 1990, suggested that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. sexually molested girls and boys, remarking: “And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?” http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/10-shocking-quotes-from-ron-pauls-newsletters.php

Not Roddenberry’s STAR TREK. That is for sure.

1437. Harry Ballz - September 16, 2012


Careful, Bob! It’s a sad day indeed when one loses an argument with one’s self!

1438. Rose (that Keachick) - September 16, 2012

What has Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek got to do with this discussion or about the sources of various links posted here?

1439. Rose (that Keachick) - September 16, 2012

dmduncan – One thing that I am aware of what the US is well known for is the never ending capacity to keep blowing its own trumpet.

I did read a little while back that said that in fact at least 60% of the inventions that we take for granted in our everyday life originally came from Britain – one of those eccentric Brits doing his own thing.

Incorrect! Canada is NOT a colony of the UK and nor is Australia or NZ. These countries were once colonies, then became dominions and are fully autonomous nations in their own right.

You know nothing of what is to be part of the British Commonwealth…

Anyway, what is wrong with “tame”? Who knows, if everyone were a little more “tame” the world might not be in such a mess.

Anyway, I did not know this was a competition. The US also owes a lot to the (then) Soviet Union for being the first nation to actually get a man into space and bring him back alive.

1440. Rose (that Keachick) - September 16, 2012

Now, come on, where are the stills, the teaser/trailer? We have run out of things to bitch about…:)

1441. Craiger - September 16, 2012

I thought that wasn’t the real Bob Orci doing those 9/11 conspiracy theory posts.

1442. bardicjim - September 16, 2012

1433. Hate to break it to ya but it was the minds of Nazi scientists that enabled the USA to get to the moon through their rocket technology. The Wright Bros flew the first plane but Etienne Montgolfier was the first to take to the air in 1783 and he was French. Internet… British. Telephone… Scottish. Toilet… British. Printing Press… British. Cars, Trains, the list goes on

The list goes on.

America gives us…. Heartburn. cheers for the Big Mac. Can I have fries with that?

1443. Craiger - September 16, 2012

Rose – this isn’t becoming great for Trek news anymore with the mini vacations it takes.

1444. bardicjim - September 16, 2012

To Sci Fi it up a little… If America was a faction in Star Wars, which would it be? Rebel or the evil Empire?

1445. ginger - September 16, 2012

#69 love that

“Into The Darkness
Star Trek 2″

1446. boborci - September 16, 2012

we are working hard to get stuff ready. Remember it’s not just about havig an image that’s ready to be used. It’s about knowing which imagery and info should come out first as part of a comprehensive strategy to educate the audience about this movie in an effective, well coordianted manner. First impressions are SOOOO FRIGGIN’ IMPORTANT! That’s all. So no matter how much we may like any given stills or sequences that are cut together, we have to simultenously agree on a massive media global roll out. That’s why it’s not doen until it’s done!

1447. boborci - September 16, 2012

1447. I figure this sums it up;)


1448. Craiger - September 16, 2012

Bob I think their is a thing as too much secrecy but not enough makes people forget that you even made the sequel and that waiting this long means you lost all momentum that the first movie had. I mean the just released what the new Robocop looks like. They have already begun promoting Man of Steel.


1449. boborci - September 16, 2012

1448. Your theory is a valid one. It’s also usually why studios are accused of rushing bad things into production to capitalize on the recent popularity of a movie. We are hopefuly the strategy that we are using is sound. We won’t know until May!

1450. boborci - September 16, 2012

correction: hopefuly = hopeful

1451. Craiger - September 16, 2012

Hey Bob did you you ever see my idea about rebooting The Final Countdown? You should get the rights to that movie.

1452. Harry Ballz - September 16, 2012

Some of you wonder whether this is the real Bob Orci.

Well, here’s a simple little question that only the real Bob Orci could answer. An imposter wouldn’t find it anywhere by googling it.

Question: Bob, name the area in Toronto you said you grew up in as a boy?

(Bob revealed this to us once years ago)

1453. Vultan - September 16, 2012


You’re correct the British made a significant contribution with the further development of the internet, but the initial development came from the US Department of Defense, its technological research wing called ARPA (now DARPA), which was created in response to the launch of Sputnik. So it all pretty much goes back to that event. Thank you, Russkies!

Interesting though about the Nazi rocket program which eventually led to the US landing on the Moon. The first liquid fuel rockets were developed and launched by the American scientist Robert Goddard in the ’20s and ’30s. He asked the US military to help in his research. Unfortunately, Goddard wasn’t taken seriously at that time. He was even publicly mocked in the New York Times about his “crazy” ideas of sending rockets into space.

1454. Boborci - September 16, 2012

1452. In a Penthouse at the top of the CN Tower pictured below;)


1455. Montreal_Paul - September 16, 2012

Hey boborci!!

I just got back from seeing Patrick Stewart at the Montreal Comiccon… he mentioned that he thought he had heard that you guys shot 2 & 3 back to back. Any truth to that rumor?

btw – he also said that Trek was in good hands with JJ and you guys. He loved the 2009 movie.

1456. Harry Ballz - September 16, 2012


Uh oh. Either Bob is yanking our chain or this is NOT the real Bob Orci!

Or, maybe, he is trying for a recant from his rant? Disinformation and all that?

1457. dmduncan - September 16, 2012

1439: “You know nothing of what is to be part of the British Commonwealth…”

LOL! Americans (some anyway) haven’t forgotten what it WAS like to be part of the British Commonwealth. We celebrate our parting of the ways every year on the 4th of July.

And yeah, I’m well aware of the great scientific and artistic contributions of Britain which is why I qualified my statement. To the extent that people are free to explore they can do amazing things. And to the extent that we remain a nation with a frontier spirit and do not follow the world’s neo-feudalistic trend, we can do great things.

As for tooting my countries horn — damned straight. I’m first to criticize the destructive policies of my government because I LIVE here and I want this to be a good place to live, and I happen to think that treating people in other countries the same way we would like to be treated by them is good foreign policy, and it makes all our countries better places to live. So I don’t attack our policies because I hate my country.

I know the dirty things this country has done, and I know we can do better. So if anyone expects me to speak of my country as if it is does nothing good — screw that, and I’ll give you a few reminders of why it ain’t all bad, and why we who live here should have hope that no matter what happens, we will rise again — free of the imperialistic behavior we so admired of the UK, and free of its taming royalist influence.

That royal family in Britain was not chosen by God to rule anything, and if any of them has an opinion — they can take a number and get in line to express it, as far as I am concerned.

1458. Walt Kozlowski - September 16, 2012

All I wanted was a teaser of a Teaser Trailer! Even with the original release date ! (Christmas 2008) of Star Trek the teaser was out for over 11 months! I guess I’m just worried that Trek might get lost in the mix!

1459. Craiger - September 16, 2012

Bob, Harry the Nazi’s are already on the Moon. LOL.


1460. Harry Ballz - September 16, 2012


Wow, looks like we’ve got this century’s version of Plan 9 From Outer Space!


You know, one of those movies that’s SO BAD it’s cool!

1461. Rose (that Keachick) - September 16, 2012

dmduncan – Stop your rude ignorance now. Canada, Australia or NZ are no more neo-feudalistic than anywhere else and we have as much freedom to do, be, hear, see, listen as anyone else, including citizens of the USA.

Perhaps you should bear in mind where much of what went into the US Constitution, as well as most of your ordinary laws, come from – the BRITISH Magna Carta and BRITISH Common Law – yes, that’s right!

What’s more, it was you who made the snarky remark about Canada being a British colony (which it isn’t) simply because one of its citizens described the nation as being tame. Tame is not synonymous with lame, btw. Tame can mean quiet, disciplined, not given to violent and unpredictable outbursts…

@boborci – I realize that you guys are working to make this movie the best that you can. I was just quipping – what with such a roudy, untamable group around these parts biting at ankes etc…:))

1462. Harry Ballz - September 16, 2012

Keachick, let’s not nibble….er. I mean quibble! :>)

1463. Craiger - September 16, 2012

Syfy Channel is getting strange now they are showing Fast and Furious. What has that got to do with Syfy, even though I liked the movies.

1464. dmduncan - September 16, 2012

Keachick, thanks, but I don’t need that history lesson, and nothing I said was said in ignorance of any of those facts which I assure you I have been long in possession of.

And my comment about Canada being a colony of GB wasn’t “snarky.” The Queen of England is Canada’s head of state. And being even partly under control of the royalty of another country does indeed make Canada fit the definition of “colony.”

1465. Montreal_Paul - September 16, 2012

1464. dmduncan

Ummm… no. You DO need a history lesson, that’s for sure. Canada is no longer a British colony. Our constitution was signed over. We do have a Governor General that is purely an “ornamental” role. But the only ties we have to GB is our history now.

1466. Montreal_Paul - September 16, 2012

1464. dmduncan

To add to that, the Queen has no say in Canadian politics and policy. She has zero control in Canada.

1467. dmduncan - September 16, 2012

1466, 1465: Oh on the matter of what measure of control the monarchy has (including in MY country), and by what means it has learned to exert it, you and I shall have to agree to disagree. And profoundly.

On the matter of where my country’s legal institutions and ideas about liberty came from — thanks again, but the answer is still no, I do NOT need any silly lectures on history about that.

We built upon the achievements of Britain — and added our own, taking them where Britain could not.

Despite our history, and even the sad state of our present, there is a lot for Americans to be proud of, and that we need to hold in our memory as we go into a future that grows increasingly darker.

But some would have us do nothing but hang our heads in shame. And what good would that do but to keep us in a place from which we could never emerge?

We got a lot wrong in the 20th century, and we are still afflicted with the neo-feudalistic imperial habits that are rotting us from the inside out.

But we got a lot right, too. And that’s what we need to remember and to model the future on after the bounce.

1468. Montreal_Paul - September 16, 2012

1467. dmduncan

Umm. I am Canadian. I do know about my country. The Queen is not our official head of state. The Queen has no say in our policy or politics. The Queen has zero control here. There is no “agree to disagree” on this. This is fact. Seriously, she has no say here. We are our own country – we have a Prime Minister that runs the country – we do not run to the Queen or Britain for our affairs. Sorry if you think that the Queen has some sort of control here, but you are sadly misinformed. Fact is fact buddy. Look it up! Canada, like the US, USED to be a British colony… but just like the States, we are no longer a British colony. And over here in Quebec, you don’t even mention the monarchy – The Province of Quebec is built more on the French system. But there are still British influences.

1469. Montreal_Paul - September 16, 2012

But this is a forum for Star Trek and it has steered very far off course. It should be steered back.

1470. Tom - September 16, 2012

Wow, you are all SO off topic.

1471. dmduncan - September 16, 2012

Yes, Montreal Paul, believe me, I DO know that, and I have been told what a mere figurehead the Queen is supposed to be by some Brits themselves. Just as I know that your independent country followed Britain into WW2 3 days after Britain, and you didn’t need a Japanese strike on your harbor to push you into it.

And if I’m not mistaken, I do believe Canada was at least unofficially ready to support the Brits in the Falklands war if it had asked for help, which it never needed.

One of the hallmarks of the 20th century is not how much things changed, but how much they stayed the same by old powers going underground in their methods and evolving more sophisticated controls that made the old forms obsolete.

If anybody thinks I mean “colony” or “control” in the overt sense, I don’t.

Anyone seriously think feudalism is dead? That there is no modern variant? Seriously???

‘Cause I got some very bad news for you if you do.

1472. Vultan - September 16, 2012


Paul, what are the chances Quebec will some day split away from the rest of Canada? I read something recently about your country’s politics and was wondering if you could shed some light on that.

1473. Montreal_Paul - September 16, 2012

1472. Vultan

It’s a long history dating back to when the English beat the French for control of Canada. So I won’t bore you with all that. But the whole separation thing started in the 60s… Montreal was the center of financial Canada. But the French-Canadians felt that their rights and their language were being tossed by the wayside. The separatist movement started and Quebec voted in the Parti-Quebecois (The Quebec Party) whose mandate was to become separate and soveriegn from the rest of Canada. We have had major tensions between the French & English in Quebec and we have had two referendums here. Both times, the people decided not to separate. But it won’t ever go away. We recently had an election where the Liberals (non-separatist) lost to the PQ (separatists). Luckily it is a minority government and another referendum won’t be happening. My opinion is that I will never see Quebec separate in my lifetime. But the Quebec government wants more powers and more autonomy. That will never change.

1474. Vultan - September 16, 2012


Interesting. Thanks for the insight. Only so much you can get from a history book. It’s good to hear from someone right there in the middle of it.

You might be interested to know there are separatist movements within Texas, Vermont, Hawaii, and Alaska for various reasons, but their numbers are very small compared to what you have in Quebec. The chances of another state seceding from the Union are… well, it would be like Canada banning hockey. Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. ;)

1475. Phil - September 16, 2012

@1474. It’s not hard to find talk about splitting CA into two states as well. Engough people are fed up with Sacramento, but not enough to vote for change, apparently….

1476. Red Dead Ryan - September 16, 2012

My god, what have I done?

Canada has been an independent nation since 1982, when our Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified and co-signed by the Queen. That gave us the right to self-governance. Before that, yes, we were still technically a colony. Canada’s system of government is still based on the British parliamentary system, but doesn’t answer to either Britain nor the Queen.

The monarchy is mainly a figurehead now. It’s about tradition for a lot of people, though the millions of dollars sent to the Queen can be spent on something else. And yes, I suppose dmduncan is right that there is still a hint of feudalism hanging around.

Also, I watched a short segment on television where, during the recent Summer Olympics, a Canadian tv reporter was asking Britons how much they knew about Canada, and they knew diddly-squat about us, despite several thousand Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan during the past decade, and despite the recent Vancouver Winter Olympics.

The only time Canada is mentioned in Europe is when their leaders accuse us of destroying the environment with our oilsands (which, unfortunately, is true, if you look at the evidence). Or when it comes to ice hockey, of course, at least in Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia.

So yeah, dmduncan is correct with his statements. Our contributions to the world have been miniscule in comparison to that of his country’s. That’s probably because, despite being the second-largest country in the world, Canada has a poplution of only 34 million people, whereas the U.S. has almost ten times that many. California alone has more people than the whole of Canada.

I would suspect that New Zealand is the same, despite Keachick’s attempts to accuse dmduncan of ignorance.

Canada, New Zealand and Australia simply don’t have a big presence on the world stage.

The countries that do are the U.S., China, Russia, Briton, Germany, India, and soon, Iran.

1477. Red Dead Ryan - September 16, 2012

As for the Quebec separatists, they use the threat of separation as a method of extortion to get more money and special treatment from Ottawa. It’s disgusting, but fortunately, most Quebecers consider themselves proud Canadians.

Quebec invented poutine. Mmmm……poutine (slobber). :-)

1478. Red Dead Ryan - September 16, 2012


Well, Gary Bettman, the commisioner of the NHL, is doing his very best at banning pro hockey for the upcoming season. :-(

1479. Red Dead Ryan - September 16, 2012

I suppose the good news is, if the NHL is in lockout for the entire season, at least Harry Ballz’ Toronto Maple Leafs will finish the season no worse than .500, and lose no games at all (though they won’t win any, either). :-)

1480. Vultan - September 16, 2012

Cool. I’m learning all sorts about Canada from you guys. Wish I could share with you something American… hmm… how about this? Can anyone guess what language this is? (And no, it’s not Klingon.)


1481. Vultan - September 16, 2012

Correction: “…all sorts of things about Canada…”

1482. Doug Haffner - September 16, 2012

Trekmovie reader: I want to read about and discuss the new name for the upcoming Star Trek movie.

Trekmovie: Oh, I thought you were complaining about the bazouki player!

Trekmovie reader: Not at all. Do you, in fact, have anything regarding Star Trek left to say in this thread about the new movie name?

Trekmovie: No. Not really, sir.

Trekmovie reader: You haven’t.

Trekmovie: Nosir. Not a scrap. I was deliberately wasting your time, sir.

Trekmovie reader: Well I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to shoot you.

Trekmovie: Right-Oh, sir.

1483. dmduncan - September 16, 2012

Well look. I understand the objection to the word “colony” for Canada just as I understand why many Americans object to America being called an “empire.”

None the less, “empire” is what we look like.

Control can be effected by power or influence. Power is the visible means of control, written down as law, and people like presidents and senators and justices wield it. Influence isn’t always but CAN be and frequently IS the more insidious form of control because it isn’t visible.

Power can trump influence under the right circumstances, but influence trumps power in too many instances as well. We call that corruption, i.e., when the laws don’t apply equally to all people, and some people escape it because of their influence.

Influence operates behind the visible means of power.

The British monarchy gave up power but I think they traded it for influence.

I don’t know what coverage of the royal family’s visits is like in Canada, but the cult of SUPER celebrity that surrounds them here in America is disturbing. You can FEEL how Americans buy into the notion of British royalty. It’s pushed by the media and the good will it engenders becomes leverage for the family.

To be sure, Prince William and Kate make great imagery together on TV, and for all I know they may be great people as well. But they are also the face of something that I do not find very attractive. So if I ever bowed to Kate Middleton, it would have to be because she was MY queen, not because she was THE queen.

While the British monarchy may have realized there were too many powerful centers of power rising that it had to cooperate with to survive, they still probably believe that, as in The Highlander, in the end “there can be only one,” and that if they do everything right, it will be them.

1484. dmduncan - September 16, 2012

1476: “So yeah, dmduncan is correct with his statements. Our contributions to the world have been miniscule in comparison to that of his country’s. That’s probably because, despite being the second-largest country in the world, Canada has a poplution of only 34 million people, whereas the U.S. has almost ten times that many. California alone has more people than the whole of Canada.”

And also because I think America’s philosophy has attracted great minds from other countries. Tesla wasn’t born in America, but this is where his genius bloomed. America was an up and coming nation that got publicity for being the place where anything can happen, and that pulled people from all over the world who didn’t have things so good where they were.

1485. Montreal_Paul - September 16, 2012

1483. dmduncan

No objection to the word “colony”… we just aren’t a colony anymore. It’s really that simple. Canada is as much a colony as the States is.

1486. dmduncan - September 16, 2012

And people argue passionately that America isn’t an empire, and they go down a list of features to prove we aren’t. And I think they are wrong. Or at least they do not understand what people mean when they call America an empire, or how that term has evolved to include new or different features that empires are not thought of as having.

1487. Rose (that Keachick) - September 17, 2012

dmduncan – I found the tone of your comments about countries that still honour the Queen of England, by virtue of having a Governor General and being part of the British Commonwealth, somewhat rude and irritating. For some reason, reading your assessment of countries like Canada, NZ and Australia made me feel a little sick actually. Probably nothing…

My families originally came from the UK in the hope of beginning a new, better life in a new land. That doesn’t mean that they wanted to throw what they considered good and worthy away though. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. That’s just mean and stupid.

I don’t go all oooh-la-la over British Royalty the way I see other people go, especially, strangely enough in the US. People in countries which do show honour to the Queen and the history and culture she represents/embodies, good and bad, don’t behave quite as overtly hyper or whatever you want to call it, as I have seen among many Americans. I’m not sure what that’s about, but I shouldn’t go blaming the influence of Britain and its monarchy for this kind of thing. I think the cause/reason may be closer to your own soil.

1488. bardicjim - September 17, 2012

It’s like the old joke. What has more culture? A yogurt or america? I’m British to the extent that I am a Druid who does ritual at Stonehenge. The Queen barely rules her own country these days. She hardly has any influence at all. How you can conclude that as a commonwealth we are tame is, quite frankly, grossly insulting. You still have not said WHAT is so great about the USA and what it has achieved, on it’s own. The fact is that there is no achievement of MAN on this planet that has not resulted from co-operation between nations and nationalities and your xenophobic attitude towards countries that, statistically, have less crime, more sustainable growth and honest currencies (The Dollar is Fait Money) shows you to be at odds with Roddenburys vision.

1489. Jai - September 17, 2012


Did you ever get the chance to read the “Suspected Insider Trading” section of this Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Not necessarily saying 9/11 was an “inside job”, but this really is solid evidence that someone, somewhere (with advanced skills in the financial markets) knew exactly what was going to happen, including the specific airlines, financial companies and defence contractors that would be affected.

The mysterious investors have never been identified.

1490. VZX - September 17, 2012

1446: Bob, do you and JJ and the rest get to have a lot of input to the marketing of the movies you produce, or is that all handled by a seperate markerting department of the studio?

I remember Stanton complaining about how John Carter of Mars was marketed stating that his wishes were over-ruled. I wish that the film-makers had greater control of those things like posters, trailers, still images, licensed products, etc.

1491. Daoud - September 17, 2012

@1490 VZX: You just made your point referring to Stanton’s movie as “John Carter of Mars”. Since the ijits at Disney titled it just “John Carter”…. when the “of Mars” part tied into so well to the just-landed Curiosity probe. Heck, the whole promotion should have been “SEE THE MARS THAT WE IMAGINED BEFORE THE PROBES LANDED.”
And using the visuals that showed how they made Barsoom look very similar to what we know now of Mars…. they missed key opportunities.
I can see Paramount doing the same thing now…. Kirk on the bridge, the Enterprise passing through a dark cloud. Charlie Sheen commanding the ISS Enterprise passing the other way… “Loved you in Princess Diaries II”…. “Loved you in Two and a Half…. who was the Half again?”.
No though… seriously…. I can see Paramount messing up the Star Trek promotion and marketing, because they’ve never ever quite gotten it right in 45 years.

1492. Gary S. - September 17, 2012

#1490 Considering the results ,
I think Paramount did OK with marketing the last film .
And, as for John Carter .
You cannot market a passable film into a great film .

1493. NuFan - September 17, 2012

I have lived in California all my life and have never heard anything about two separate states. You hear all the “Nuke Orange County” comments but nothing about kicking them out or splitting in two.

1494. Daoud - September 17, 2012

@1492/Gary: Star Trek 2009’s marketing from Paramount could have been better. It still didn’t cross over into “Star Wars” type territory, and it had all the elements in place. Bad Robot however did ‘beyond the call of duty': the tie-in comics, the WIRED piece by JJ, etc. were all great add-ins.
Also, the ARG wasn’t fully thought through enough to tie into the movie better even though it was fascinating. Hoping the ARG for this one builds into the plot more.

@1493/NuFan: California Into Darkness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California

@Bard: Aliens would look upon Earth and see the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA as mostly identical peoples separated by a common language.
Aliens would look upon the Federation and see the many planet races as mostly identical humanoids separated by a common starship design and phaser color.
Oh, and the Big Mac? That’s just a sandwich. Earl of Sandwich idea. British!
But British is Anglo Saxon. And that’s Germanic. Which is Indo-European. Which is Proto-Indo-European. Which is Nostratic. And Noachic. And Adamic. We’re all our Y chromosomes are belong to us, eventually.

1495. boborci - September 17, 2012

lotta the behavior on this board, re: Anthony, please save us from this free speech!
after 911, we were all so scared we were totally willing to let the previously written patriot act (written the summer before) go by without even reading it.

1496. boborci - September 17, 2012

1498 or in other words, behavior here reminds me that when people get freaked out, they seek officialdom to save them.

1497. Aurore - September 17, 2012

@ Roberto Orci

Don’t panic, but, apparently, there are…Hollywood conspiracies, as well.

Shocking. I know.

1498. Montreal_Paul - September 17, 2012

1495. boborci

Perhaps if YOU read what people were writing. Let me reiterate. No one was asking to be saved by the free speech. I think people were just fed up with this forum to be used for something so far off topic. There is a separate section on the board where people are allowed to talk about anything no matter the topic. Anthony has said many times that he would like to keep posts on topic. So, no one is trying to shut you up and have you not talk about your opinion. People just wanted things to stay on topic and have the discussion moved to a proper forum. That’s all.

By the way, you never answered the question I asked above.

1499. Aurore - September 17, 2012

Mr. Orci, when you visit Chat, if you do, refrain from speaking Spanish; Bernie ( a.k.a Basement blogger ) hates it when people speak foreign languages over there.

You’ve been warned.


1500. Phil - September 17, 2012

Hola, amigo!!

1501. Phil - September 17, 2012

@1496. Bit of a Libertarian at heart, are you?

@1499. Spent a couple of weeks in Dubai a few years ago. Was very thankful a good chunk of the population knew a little english. From that point, lost a lot of respect for the ‘english only’ crowd. America needs to be more multi-lingual, not less…

1502. boborci - September 17, 2012

1498 You are techincally correct. This is not the forum fot the discussion that I “hijacked” everyone into. However, IMHO, the subject matter is important enough to hijack any discussion:)

1503. boborci - September 17, 2012

ok. Time to summarize this board:

Clearly, wtc 7 was not investigated properly, and was the result of controlled demolition. It is impoossible that the controlled demo was execute that day. It takes weeks to wire a building to blow. So, if wtc 7 ws wired to blow, it was wired before 911. Why?

1504. Phil - September 17, 2012

Okay, maybe “Boldly Go” wan’t such a hot title for the new movie after all….

1505. boborci - September 17, 2012

1493. We have meaningful consultation.

‘THE FUTURE BEGINS” was my little bit of copy.

1506. Hugh Hoyland - September 17, 2012

I’m a bleeding heart Libertarian.

1507. Hugh Hoyland - September 17, 2012

If people actually knew the stuff thats been going on behind the scenes they would literally go running screaming into the night.

1508. Montreal_Paul - September 17, 2012

1505. boborci

I just got back from seeing Patrick Stewart at the Montreal Comiccon yesterday… he mentioned that he thought he had heard that you guys shot 2 & 3 back to back. Any truth to that rumor?

btw – he also said that Trek was in good hands with JJ and you guys. He loved the 2009 movie.

1509. boborci - September 17, 2012

1209 therefore, nothing you hear from officialdon is trustwothy, Agreed.!

1510. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2012


I just typed a huge letter to you, but it seems the blogosphere ate it.

I was just wondering why you did not reply to my earlier posts above about the Navy Seals involvement in 7.

1511. Rose (that Keachick) - September 17, 2012

So I take it that Star Trek Into Darkness is a story about a shocking conspiracy being uncovered and the result of this is that Captain Kirk and the Enterprise’s star trek takes them into a totally unholy darkness, where physical, mental, emotional realities struggle for light. “Oh dear…” as the “drunk” Tuck says (TMW)

No doubt a cathartic experience for the writers, mostly for Bob Orci I suspect, but I’m not sure that it might be the hoped for exhilarating experience for many a trek fan.

So which would be the more appropriate poster for this movie – a smudgy black with the Enterprise barely illuminated or a poster of the kind posted earlier in this thread?

I would prefer the latter because it doesn’t presuppose that outer space is necessarily as shitty and stupid as much of what humans get up to on this planet. What’s more, if it doesn’t happen in a manner that people are used to, then writers/producers and studios spend millions of dollars (as well as get paid millions) making crud up.

Question: Do you really think that most people give much thought to whatever serious issue might get raised in the context of a movie? I also wonder if going all “dark” has the effect that perhaps a writer may want. Taking people into (possibly yet another) dark place can make many feel even more despondent, hopeless and weak than they may already feel, so what has actually been achieved?

Perhaps Bob Orci is just buying into another kind of crap. It might not be “official reports” or “statements” but it still may be just as crap-worthy.

Some of your posts on this thread have managed to almost fill my entire computer screen so I am wondering how much of my screen you might be able to fill in response to post here. What say you, Bob? Are you up to my challenge or does that “rabbit-hole” look too enticing?…:)

Right now, WTC7 building being subject to a pre-planned controlled demolition or not, I have to go grocery for a family of kids and animals on a bank balance that looks nothing like yours, Bob, but that’s OK and I do mean it. Life does go on…

1512. CJS - September 17, 2012

So, boborci, what your saying is that a mutli-week project to wire a building for demolition was conducted in the heart of the busiest section of the busiest city on the planet and hardly anybody noticed this activity in the weeks before 911. Yeah, right.

1513. MJ - September 17, 2012

Just got back from vacation, and I must say I picked a great 10 days to take off from these boards with all of the “crazy Bob conspiracy stuff” going on again as Anthony takes ANOTHER week off.

I agree with Montreal Paul’s posts about moving on to other topics that don’t embarrass this site…if I may risk paraphrasing what he said.

1514. MJ - September 17, 2012

@1512. LOL! Agreed!

1515. MJ - September 17, 2012

@1511 “No doubt a cathartic experience for the writers, mostly for Bob Orci I suspect, but I’m not sure that it might be the hoped for exhilarating experience for many a trek fan.”

Yea, if this is some conspiracy laden cautionary tale movie about the military industrial complex and 911, sheesh, how boring and is that going to be. I want a Star Trek movie, not a Bob Orci political thriller movie.

1516. Craiger - September 17, 2012

I wondeir if this is Anthony’s SOP now take a week off post some new articles take a week off, post some new articles, take a week off?

1517. Craiger - September 17, 2012

Guys I think we have got two Bob Orci’s posting in here.

1518. Harry Ballz - September 17, 2012

“there’s only one logical answer….we have an imposter on board”

(oh gawd, let’s hope the evil orci doesn’t overact like the Shat did in that episode)

1519. Aurore - September 17, 2012

“…..From that point, lost a lot of respect for the ‘english only’ crowd.”

…..Watch your mouth, Phil !

I happen to be part of that “crowd”!
And, now, I’ll have to watch Star Trek Into Darkness in French!!!

What kind of business is this?!?


1520. Daoud - September 17, 2012

Enchanté! :)

@1518. Who would be Bob’s Eddie Paskey, I wonder. Maybe we could convince Brandon Stacey to don a Bob-looking ‘wig’. Maybe James Cawley could shoot a vignette of Bob v. Bob. The angelic Bob in white versus the devilish Bob in black. Or heck, both of them in black. ;) Kroykah!
@Bob: tlhIngan Hol, Dajatlh’a’?

1521. Aurore - September 17, 2012

…..Mr. Wong…I was kidding of course.

You know I love YA !


1522. Phil - September 17, 2012

@1513. Yeah, it would be a shame if a Ron Paul rally broke out here…

1523. Jack - September 17, 2012

1492. Disagree with you about John Carter — they were selling, badly, a completely different film (and this isn’t the case of say, simply, not revealing too much of the plot in the trailers — they really were selling a very different film than they had) than what we actually saw. And they were selling it to, well, I don’t know who — people who wouldn’t go see Walt Disney’s John Carter of Mars, I guess. It wasn’t a great film, but it wasn’t bad at all. Was it worth 300+ million dollars? Well, that’s a different question. I’ve definitely seen much worse, much more forgettable, nearly as expensive movies.

Oh, and dmduncan, thanks for adding heft to my argument that Trek should be about moving beyond petty, narrow-minded, ‘we are superior’ nationalism.

Nobody says Americans haven’t done great things. Great good things. And great bad things. Or aren’t still doing great things, good and bad. But so have plenty of other human beings. And groups of human beings. Nations, churches, companies. What’s the answer, being in the best group? Our (country/gender/nation/religion/race) is the best? Why do we have to be the best? What does that even mean? Unlimited expansion? Unlimited growth? Unlimited prosperity? Bossing everybody else around?

What about looking at costs, reasons and repurcussions? And what does any of it really mean — we’re superior because of where we’re born, or where we’ve moved to and what the people around us have done? We’re superior because of our history?

People everywhere also make lots of false assumptions about themselves and about others (Canada isn’t a colony — it was until nearly halfway through the last century… and still has a ceremonial, powerless head of state as a souvenir… nor is the healthcare system the disaster that some Americans think it is.). I’d argue that China has accomplished even more, and for longer than the states… but, really, so what? What difference does it make? Nationalism, jingoism, so what? North Koreans think their country is the best on Earth. They have national myths just like the states and most other places. So what?

Again, that idea of working together that was huge in Trek, well, is that really been long abandoned?

I’m talking about exceptionalism as Sarah Palin states it — that the US shouldn’t be one of many nations, working together — it should always be the best, the most powerful, and all Americans are somehow inherently better and free-er than everybody else, because America was forged by the people…. etc. So were plenty of other nations, in different ways.

Exceptionalism doesn’t mean excellence — it means being innately better than everybody else. All 6.8 billion of ’em. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for admitting mistakes.

1524. Jack - September 17, 2012

And to Bob. Stick to your guns with the marketing plans. I don’t buy this argument that if spoilers, teasers, and endless info isn’t released far ahead, the thing will tank. So what that other films released names of characters or had teasers a year in advance and did well? That doesn’t necessarily mean that they wouldn’t have done well had those things not happened. It’s like saying TDKR had Christian Bale in it and it did well and therefore Star Trek should have Christan Bale. Where’s the logic?

1525. MJ - September 17, 2012

Jack, for somebody that said they were checking out of this site for good, you certainly are prolific these days! ;-)

Good to have you back, man! You were missed!

1526. Walt Kozlowski - September 17, 2012

Star Trek: Fans Left in the Dark

1527. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012


Jack, well said!


Yeah, you picked a hell of a time to get back from vacation. But welcome back, nonetheless.

1528. Boborci - September 17, 2012

1512. Posts above describe possible scenarios, like the 15 million dollar renovation of emergency command bunker on 23rd floor whch was mysteriously not used on 911. Work was classified.

And that’ss in the public domain. Do you think that a building with offices for the CIA and the Secret Service are an open place? Wake up. I’ll be there with a cup of coffee.

1529. MJ - September 17, 2012

@1528. I, for one, am going to INGORE everything this “Boborci” says here since this impostor is trying to confuse everyone here by suggesting that he is Bob Orci, when most of us know that the real Orci posts as “boborci.”

Boborci = impostor

boborci = Roberto Orci

1530. MJ - September 17, 2012

And BTW dumbass – whoever you are – that 23rd floor supposed “bunker” as you call it was not some national security center — it was ostensibly for the use by the mayor of NY as a command center, which had received much public ridicule when it was built in the early 90’s as something that was not needed.

1531. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012

I’m going to take a guess that the imposter is Stunkill, the same guy who posed as MJ a couple of weeks ago.

You’d think that he’d learn his lesson after I figured it was him, but I guess not.

And Anthony has clearly decided he no longer cares about being vigilant against sock puppeteers otherwise this imposter would be banned and his posts deleted.

1532. Vultan - September 17, 2012

Just finished watching “Contagion” on HBO. Scary movie. Scary because it could happen—did happen (Spanish flu pandemic of 1918). Anyway, it does make a very good point about conspiracy theorists, which I was somewhat surprised to see a Hollywood movie do.

Jude Law’s character is an activist/blogger who…. Well, I won’t give away too much in case you haven’t seen it, but I think we should be aware that, just like the mainstream media and government have their self-serving agendas, some advocates for “the truth” can have theirs too, sometimes to only serve their own gratification and ego.

1533. MJ - September 17, 2012

Yea, I would bet that “Boborci” is Stunkill — good call, RDR.

1534. MJ - September 17, 2012

@1532 “but I think we should be aware that, just like the mainstream media and government have their self-serving agendas, some advocates for “the truth” can have theirs too, sometimes to only serve their own gratification and ego.”


1535. Craiger - September 17, 2012

Vultan, MJ. You mean something like this?


1536. Craiger - September 17, 2012

I thought all along that we have had a fake Bob Orci in here

1537. Gary S. - September 17, 2012

Yeah, but I think he has also posted as boborci at least once.
When he posted “stop impersonating me!”
he was joking around making it seem they were both the same Bob.
So even if somebody posts as boborci,
We should leave open the the possibilty it is still Stunkill.

1538. dmduncan - September 17, 2012

1523: “Oh, and dmduncan, thanks for adding heft to my argument that Trek should be about moving beyond petty, narrow-minded, ‘we are superior’ nationalism.”

And exactly who is sporting “we are superior” nationalism, Jack, because if you mean to attribute that to me, then I’d have to say that’s whatever American stereotype bias you have in you that’s speaking.

And I don’t know WHY you are talking to me about Sarah Palin. I don’t pay attention to the sort of news that is likely to have her in its headlines, and I don’t keep informed of what she’s up to. So maybe it’s best you take up your Sarah Palin issues with someone here who can suitably represent her point of view, which isn’t me.

If you heard Sarah Palin in anything I said, you weren’t listening.

1539. dmduncan - September 17, 2012

1487: “dmduncan – I found the tone of your comments about countries that still honour the Queen of England, by virtue of having a Governor General and being part of the British Commonwealth, somewhat rude and irritating. For some reason, reading your assessment of countries like Canada, NZ and Australia made me feel a little sick actually. Probably nothing…”

No harm done, Rose. Didn’t mean to irritate you.

“I don’t go all oooh-la-la over British Royalty the way I see other people go, especially, strangely enough in the US.”

This phenomenon is actually what fuels my ire. The American media seems to be creating a cult of super-celebrity around the royal family, and I don’t like the trend.

1540. dmduncan - September 17, 2012

1489. Jai – September 17, 2012


Did you ever get the chance to read the “Suspected Insider Trading” section of this Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories


Yes I did read that Jai, when you first posted it. Always deserves another link. It’s VERY interesting.

1541. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012

Sarah Palin hasn’t been covered by the media for a while now, so I don’t know why her name is being brought up here.

BTW, I finally got to watching “Firefly”. Found a Blu Ray copy at Wal-Mart for twenty-five bucks. Money well spent. Terrific show. Great music.

It might be as anti-Star Trek as a space-based show can get, but I actually enjoyed that aspect. It was a nice change of pace.

1542. MJ - September 17, 2012

@1539 “This phenomenon is actually what fuels my ire. The American media seems to be creating a cult of super-celebrity around the royal family, and I don’t like the trend.”

The bodacious tata’s of the princess excepted, of course. :-)

PS: Agree with RDR and DMD on Sara Palin — why are we talking about that has been? She is no longer relevant, Jack. And the whole tone of your post above looks about five years out of date to me.

1543. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012

Actually, I have to change my opinion about Jack’s post at 1523.

I can’t really agree with his thoughts on the U.S., and its position in the world. Looking at it again, his post does seem to have an angry tone to it.

And “John Carter” has already become a cult classic. It is a great movie.

1544. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012

Jesse Ventura was on “Piers Morgan Tonight” earlier. Always enjoy hearing his candid thoughts.

1545. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012

Richard Belzer (“Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) was in the audience during PMT.

1546. Vultan - September 17, 2012


Dug in like an Alabama tick.


1547. MJ - September 17, 2012

@1543 “And “John Carter” has already become a cult classic. It is a great movie.”

Agree 100%. Love John Carter.

1548. Jack - September 17, 2012

1323. I wasn’t angry at all. And, I was referring to my original post — and the bit about ‘AmerIcan exceptionslism’ is the Republican idea, not dm’s, that I mentioned in my first on this — it’s a stated idea, and it’s used when Obama gets criticized for talking about America’s problems and missteps… the idea and this is what I said is counter Star Trek is that America (or any nation…) is above reproach and has to be the best on Earth. I made the Palin statement to specify that I wasn’t ralking about excelkence ir denying that the US had done grear thing. The phrase ‘Anerican Exceptiobalusn’ gets mentioned in her recent Fox news and Facebook musings, and by various neocon talking heads.

Again, I was talking about ideas. And it turned into ‘how dare you criticize us when you’re just a colony and haven’t done any of the great things we have’.
That was dm’s response.

. Hell, Canadians can think we’re morally superior, have a better health care system, and better hockey players. We have weird ideas that racism only exisys in the US (not true). It’s natural. Everybody thinks their countries are better. My only point in that very first post that started it all, was, well, more of a question. Of whether some of these IDEAS move us further away from the society trek envisioned. I wasn’t talking about Americans as people or as a society.

You can criticize the Israeli government without being an anti-Semite.

Sarah Palin’s constantly spouting this stuff off — she’s in the news I see (say, Huffpo) all the time. The idea is a Republican talking point.

1549. MJ - September 17, 2012

Speaking for someone who lives in the U.S and who reads real major newspapers here daily, I can categorically say that Sara Palin is not topical anymore for MOST people here. I don’t read political entertainment internet crap like the Huntington Post, so I guess if she is a star on that site, and you are sitting up there in Canada thinking that that is a representative site for U.S. news, then I guess I could see how you might draw that conclusion. It would be like me not knowing much about what is relevant in the Canadian political media posting here based on seeing news stories like this from Canadian media, and then assuming that this is representative of Canada:


I don’t think this is representative of Canada — which kind of makes my point here.

1550. MJ - September 17, 2012

@1548 “And it turned into ‘how dare you criticize us when you’re just a colony and haven’t done any of the great things we have’.”

I did not see DM saying or inferring anything remotely like that? I saw perhaps a difference of semantics confusing the discussion there — DM was certainly not being condescending?

1551. Aurore - September 17, 2012

1405. Correction.
vague statement = vague statements
their narrators = the narrators

1552. Rose (that Keachick) - September 17, 2012

#1433 dmduncan –
“America landed men on the moon repeatedly. America sends roving probes to Mars. There is a good deal of exceptionalism IN America and we would do a lot more if the bottlenecks that are bringing us down were removed.
Canada is a British colony with its head of state being the Queen of England. And I think that accounts for the tameness of Canada.
Despite all their notable achievements, neither Britain nor Canada have done the amazing things we have done, and, I dare to say, if every nation were a colony of the UK, NOBODY would do the amazing things we have done.”

These were the comments that sparked this present discussion.

When I commented that dmduncan has really no idea about how it is to live as a part of the British commonwealth this was his reply:

“LOL! Americans (some anyway) haven’t forgotten what it WAS like to be part of the British Commonwealth. We celebrate our parting of the ways every year on the 4th of July.

“and I’ll give you a few reminders of why it ain’t all bad, and why we who live here should have hope that no matter what happens, we will rise again — free of the imperialistic behavior we so admired of the UK, and free of its taming royalist influence.”

Then he talks about neofeudalism as a sort of add-on which I took to mean that this was an imperialist British royal thing. Actually feudalism has been found in many different societies around the world, some of which were feudal, like China, long before explorers from Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy ever ventured there.

I found these comments ignorant and condescending, even a little weird.

1553. dmduncan - September 17, 2012

1548: “Again, I was talking about ideas. And it turned into ‘how dare you criticize us when you’re just a colony and haven’t done any of the great things we have’.
That was dm’s response.”

That’s not my version of the story, for sure.

I never tell people they have nothing to be proud of, and that includes Americans.

1554. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012

As a Canadian, I want America and its citizens to succeed. Because if America is successful, the world is a better place. No question about it.

As a proud patriotic Canadian, I know my country is a great place. I feel privileged to live here. But, being a small country, we just don’t have the population to support expensive endeavors such as going to the moon. Or Mars.

But we have shown to be good helpers, or assistants, if you will. CandaArm was our contribution to the space shuttle, and I hope that Canadian astronomers and scientists play a big role in helping the U.S. achieve a Mars landing sometime during our lifetimes.

You won’t be seeing any anti-Americanism from me, despite my opposition to the Iraq war.

1555. MJ - September 17, 2012

Well I have spent time in the UK, Canada and NZ, and frankly, the similarities with the U.S. significantly outweigh the differences, so to me this is really kind of a false argument. I could go over pluses and minuses of each country compared to each, but that would largely be pointless given the major similarities of the culture. There is not really a hell of a lot of differences.

1556. Vultan - September 17, 2012

Oh man, again with Sarah Palin. Not sure which I detest more, those who praise her or those who damn her. Either way, there are too many obsessed with the woman. Same goes for the Celebrity-in-Chief.

No more novelty candidates, please.

1557. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012

I do think dmduncan was wrong to suggest that Canada is a colony of Britain. We are not. Not anymore. We have our own government. The monarchy is of figurehead status, a tradition, if you will.

We consider ourselves fully Canadian, not British colonists. But we obviously maintain strong political and cultural ties to Britain.

My city, Victoria, was named after the Queen of the same name. There is a statue of Captain Cook in our harbour.

I think we all can be proud of our nationalities and heritage while still being gracious and respectful towards others who are of different backgrounds.

And besides, on this site at least, we’re Trekkies first and foremost, :-)

1558. Montreal_Paul - September 17, 2012

1553. dmduncan

Your comments WERE ignorant, egotistical and condescending. You need to pick up a book and look at what other countries have accomplished and invented. Let me give you a little taste of what you have because of Canadians.

Basketball, baseball, zippers, the light bulb, television, television camera, the telephone, IMAX, Insulin… shall I go on? The US isn’t the only country that has great ideas or accomplishments.

1559. MJ - September 17, 2012

@1556. It does seem like people outside of the U.S. are much more fascinated and worried about Sara Palin than those of us who actually live here…i.e. those of us who… whisper…had figured several years ago out that she is an irrelevant dingbat. :-)

1560. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012


Agreed. No country is perfect. We all have our flaws, and in most cases, our flaws are virtually the same. Because at the end of the day, we are human.

1561. MJ - September 17, 2012

@1558. It does seem pretty pointless to me for any of us within the sphere of the former British colonies, thus sharing a common culture, to be arguing about who is the best. Collaboratively, we have saved the word three times from annihilation, not to mention leading the industrial and technology revolutions. Why fight between ourselves? I am not seeing the point of the bickering here?

1562. Vultan - September 17, 2012


No American should criticize other nations for their royalty. Since the 1950s, this country has had an unofficial monarch, who is still worshiped and idolized to this day. At one point, he was so brazen he broadcasted his plans for world domination:


1563. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012


Basketball is an American invention. Even though it was created by James Naismith, a Canadian, it was invented on American soil. For it to be a Canadian invention, it would have had to have been invented in Canada. Baseball was invented in the U.S by an American, not sure how you thought it was not. Thomas Edison invented the television and lightbulb. An American as well. Insulin was invented in Europe by Marie Curie.

Not sure who invented IMAX though.

1564. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012

BTW, Nanaimo bars were actually invented in Ladysmith. But they were being sold in Nanaimo not long after. They were first cooked up in the 1950’s. Nanaimo and Ladysmith are located on Vancouver Island, a couple of hours north of Victoria.

1565. Montreal_Paul - September 17, 2012

1563. Red Dead Ryan

Basketball was invented and played for the first time in the Maritimes in 1892. Insuline was invented by Banting in 1923 in Toronto. Reginald Fessenden invented the TV in 1927. Henry Woodward invented the light bulb in 1874. Contrary to popular belief, Thomas Edison did NOT invent the lightbulb. He only improved on its design after buying the patent rights. The first recorded game of baseball took place in Canada, a year before Abner Doubleday supposedly “invented” the game in Cooperstown, New York.

Here are a few more:

1566. Montreal_Paul - September 17, 2012

Sorry, it was in 1891 that Neismith invented Basketball… he brought it to Boston in 1892.

1567. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012


Basketball was first played in Vermont. Thomas Edison did invent the tv and lightbulb, and Lewis Doubleday invented baseball.

Not sure what you’ve been reading on the web.

1568. Montreal_Paul - September 17, 2012

1567. Red Dead Ryan

Edison bought the patents to both the lightbulb and television after they were invented in Canada. Basketball was first invented and played in the Martimes a year before Neismith brought it to the States. Baseball WAS played in Canada a year before Doubleday “invented” it. You can check all this anywhere. I was taught all this in school – but you can check anywhere online too.

Reginald Aubrey Fessenden (October 6, 1866 – July 22, 1932), born in Quebec, Canada, was an inventor who performed pioneering experiments in radio, including early—and possibly the first—radio transmissions of voice and music. In his later career he received hundreds of patents for devices in fields such as high-powered transmitting, sonar, and television.

I know TV, having studied it and worked in it for 25 years, I know it was invented here in Canada. But like I said, don’t take my word for it… do a little research yourself.

1569. Montreal_Paul - September 17, 2012

Regarding Baseball in Canada:


1570. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012

Okay, it was Paul Gottlieb Nipkow of Germany who invented the first rudimentary television. Russian Boris Rosing became the first to build one with a CRT tube. John Logie Baird of Scotland created the first moving black-and-white pictures. I kept thinking Edison had something to do with it for some reason. Not sure where I got Lewis Doubleday from, either.

The first baseball game took place in Hoboken, New Jersey in 1846. By Alexander Cartwright.

Basketball was invented in Springfield, Massachussettes.

I was wrong, and Montreal Paul was even more wrong.

But Thomas Edison did invent the lightbulb, because he used materials that previous lamps did not include.

The IMAX brand is Canadian, but FOX first developed the 70mm format in the twenties.

1571. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2012


Well, Wikipedia says something totally different. And Wikipedia uses many more sources.

Wikipedia is usually bashed by folks who don’t like having the facts get in the way of their beliefs.

The telephone at one point was considered a Canadian invention, despite the fact Alexander Graham Bell was in Massachussetts when he invented it.

1572. Aurore - September 18, 2012

“Insulin was invented in Europe by Marie Curie.”


1573. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

1571. Red Dead Ryan

Wikipedia is not a reliable source as it can be edited by anyone. I provided sources for you Ryan… but you just dismissed it or didn’t even bother looking at it. But then again, coming from you, I am not surprised. And yes, the telephone is a Canadian invention. Boy are you totally misinformed… about everything. Once again, not surprised by this. I’m not going to bother arguing this with you anymore because, as history has time and again proved, Ryan always feels he is right no matter what. Or, in this case, less wrong. I’m going to go back to ignoring you again.

1574. Aurore - September 18, 2012

“Insulin was invented in Europe by Marie Curie.”

Apparently, some say Nicolae Paulescu invented it before Banting…

( Sorry; I had not seen Banting had already been mentioned, on the thread. )

1575. bardicjim - September 18, 2012

Baseball is just a variation of the old English game Rounders for people that need a bigger bat, a bigger ball and a glove to catch the ball. The Rounders ball was harder, the bat was smaller and the ball would sting the hand. Much like American Football, you know… The game that Americans play with their hands on the most part…. One word for ya. Rugby. Very similar, but the men who play it don’t wear protective armor. BTW when it says Wold Cup/Series/championship in American sports it does not mean “The World”. We Brits invented Football, the game you play with your feet that has a World Cup that involves…. Hold your breath guys…. Nations from around the world! Shock horror! LOL

1576. Red Dead Ryan - September 18, 2012


The telephone isn’t a Canadian invention. I looked it up in a book. It was invented in Boston, Massachussetts. That was where the first call was made, between him and Thomas Watson. There were several others before AGB who built similar devices, none of whom had anything to do with Canada.


Nicolae Paulescu. Thank you.

I was right even when I was wrong!

1577. Aurore - September 18, 2012

Correction. 1574.

invented it = discovered it


1578. VZX - September 18, 2012

I don’t get why its so important where a sport or device was invented, except for historical interest (and accuracy).

I love American Football. It’s all about the culture and location you grow up in.

1579. Phil - September 18, 2012

A little fun reading off of the Curiosity page…


1580. TrekkerChick - September 18, 2012


www dot jeffersonstate dot com

There was a vote scheduled — about splitting CA and portions of Southern Oregon into a State of Jefferson — in early December of 1941. Events of 7 December put that on hold.

Even when I was a youngster in the 1960s, living in the LA metro area, there was discussion about splitting the state in two: North and South — back when, surprisingly enough, the LA area was considerably more conservative (and the LA Times, a ‘right-ish’ news outlet) than today.

1581. Daoud - September 18, 2012

Nothing worse than when Anglophonia breaks into which anglophone nation is better ‘n the other at this or that.
Careful, lest we become Bele and Lokai. You know… .speaking English on the right side of an ocean, as opposed to speaking it on the wrong side of an ocean.
This sure is some star trek into darkness! Help me, boborci, you’re my only hope.

1582. bardicjim - September 18, 2012

I’m just having fun cos I’m bored out of my skull waiting for something new on the Trek front. I’ve met lots of lovely Americans. However they are the one’s with passports who are far from representational of the majority who don’t. Trololol

1583. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1530 Renovatioon in 99, dude. NY different than other police forces. Command center was made hurricane proof, own air supply, etc… You think the work for the ccommand center was contracted out to Home Depot? NYPD different than most police forces. NYPD even assists and participates in investigations oversees. And the point was, how do you cover an op to wire building? And the answer is, you do it under the cover of some other work, like the above mentioned renovation. Didn’t have to happen that way. As stated above, CIA, SECRET SERVICE, etc.. all had officers there. They can do what they want without scrutiny and call it security.

1584. Vultan - September 18, 2012

Basketball, the telephone, television, the light bulb—they’re all old Russian in’wentions. And Shakespeare was really Klingon.

1585. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1530 And riddle me this, genius:

Since you brought up the mayor, can you tell me why the mayor did not use his newly renovated Emrgency Command Center for even one minute on the day of the city’s worst emergency?

1586. Spiked Canon - September 18, 2012

1585 You’re simply an idiot. Go away

1587. The Last Vulcan - September 18, 2012

@1586: +1 with a BULLET! Preferably a very large caliber one. :)

1588. MJ - September 18, 2012


EVERYONE, PLEASE JOIN ME IN COMPLETELY IGNORING THE IMPOSTER “Boborci”. (not to be confused with the real deal, “boborci”)


1589. MJ - September 18, 2012

Montreal Paul and RDR,

You guys are both Canadians, but can’t agree on what was invented up there? :-)

PS: Alexander Graham Bell, was bord in Scotlan, and moved to Ontario, but then ended up in Boston, USA. He did not start his inventing career until he was established in Boston.

1590. MJ - September 18, 2012

@1582 “I’m just having fun cos I’m bored out of my skull waiting for something new on the Trek front. I’ve met lots of lovely Americans. However they are the one’s with passports who are far from representational of the majority who don’t. Trololol”

Well I can at least put an intellegiable sentence together.. What doe you secdon to last sentence mean:

“However they are the one’s with passports who are far from representational of the majority who don’t.”

Huh? WTF?

And why did you sign you post, “Trololol” ??? What does that mean.

I’ve met lots of lovely people from the UK as well, but I will note that alcholoism is rapant over there, as your post might seem to reinforce this. ;-0

1591. MJ - September 18, 2012

And BTW, elements of baseball and football were based on games played by the ancient Mayans, Chinese, and others.

1592. Spiked Canon - September 18, 2012

Trololol means good bye

1593. Spiked Canon - September 18, 2012

However they are the one’s with passports who are far from representational of the majority who don’t (HAVE PASSPORTS)”

1594. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

1591. MJ

I understand what you are trying to say. But then you can say that elements of the car were used before in steam engines, horse carriages and bicycles, etc…. so who invented the car then? Karl Benz or because of the different elements, would it be the person who invented the horse carriage? It you take any invention, you have elements of it elsewhere. But that doesn’t negate the actual final product. Know what I mean?

1595. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1588. You will only get rid of me by answering!!

1596. Boborci - September 18, 2012

Why was the NYC’s brand new Emergency Command center not used on 911 during city’s greatest emergency? What does it matter who I am? Can you answer? In your coincidence theory, what is your answer?

1597. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

1596. Boborci

Because aliens from Area 51 and JFK’s killer had it booked for a birthday party that day. Now go away.

1598. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1597. So you have no good answer based on your coincidence/incompetence theory. What a shock.

1599. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

1598. Boborci

No, based on I don’t F’ing care. I never had any theories or opinion on the matter. Go away now.

1600. MJ - September 18, 2012

@1592 @1593

Thanks. Are you the same poster as “bardicjim?” Is this a sock-puppet misfire perhaps? :-)

1601. MJ - September 18, 2012


1602. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 18, 2012

1598. Boborci

Why should they reply? Aparently you don’t, either.


Don’t you suppose that a team of demolitions experts could “rig that building to collappse” in a few hours?

I do.

1603. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1602. So you agree the building seems like it was demolished? And in your mind, who rigged it that day? And if it was us, why lie about it?

1604. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1601. No, I am here to WAKE YOU UP! Here’s another question: Where did NYC’s mayor run his emergency response from? Anyone?

1605. Craiger - September 18, 2012

Anthony doesn’t even care about banning imposters anymore.

1606. Boborci - September 18, 2012

If Anthony only bans impostors, and he hasn’t banned me, what does that tell you?

1607. Craiger - September 18, 2012

#1604 – Hey fake Bob Orci check this out.


1608. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1607. Well, you win! Guy who lied about blowjobs in the white house has to be totally correct though this rhetoric.

1609. Phil - September 18, 2012

@1605. Apparently not….

1610. Gary S. - September 18, 2012

Fake Bob,
the real boborci argues his points better .
Questions are not evidence.
They are not proof of anything.

1611. Boborci - September 18, 2012

boborciandBoborci are one. Be 1 with the Orci.

1612. K-7 - September 18, 2012

I’ll answer the fake Orci’s question.

As someone who lived in NYC for over twenty years, I can tell you that Rudy was a fraud mayor who main interest was posing for photo ops to support his future political advancement goals. I remember what a joke many thought it was when that ivory tower “command center” first built, and then later expanded. It was built primarily due to Rudy’s ego and vanity, and not to mention using the construction contracts for the center as a payoff to his contractor buddies, and it was hardly ever used. One huge problem was that the police and fire department were afraid to use it, given it had diesel lines running from the basement up to the floor, which was a known violation of city code. In short, it was a fire trap, and everybody knew it. That “command center” had one real purpose — to support photo ops for Rudy. It was viewed locally as a joke, and simply another Rudy vanity thing.

There is your answer. Now pleas shut the F up and stop impersonating Bob.

1613. Phil - September 18, 2012

Mr. Orci has struck me as being very well read in the past, this one seems to be having some very basic gaps in his knowledge. I’ve watched him challenge others, but not berate them, which this one seems to like to do. Ignore him.

1614. K-7 - September 18, 2012

What is going on with this site. At first my response above is deleted, so I retype it, and now I am seeing it again? So you have my response to fake Bob twice now it seems??? Who is running this damn website these days???

And fake Orci, the reason you have not been booted off is because no one is running this website anymore. To you and your type of extra nasty trolls, this is the internet equivalent of Mogadishu, where you can run wild and do anything you want with no consequences. It Anthony still monitored this site, you’d be long gone by now.

1615. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1610. plenty of evidence provided above, but no one dealing with it.

the questions posed are numerous. Once all the appropriate questions are asked, then we can see which explanation answers those questions better. Many of you like to throw around Occam’s Razor incorrectly, forgetting that we are looking for the simplest explanation that explains ALL OBSERVED EVIDENCE.

So by way of example, here are some observations we can all agree on:

John Kerry says demo
Nist admits building in symmetrical free fall.
Wintesses heard bombs.
NIST didn’t check for bombs
Bin Laden denies responsibility for attacks
Mayor never went to WTC 7 emergency center during emergency.

and inside job would explain all of the above with a single explanation. otherwise you are forced to adopt a half dozen explanation, one for each coincidence.

1616. Boborci - September 18, 2012


Here is another doozy of a question:

Since it is impossible for an office fire to MELT steel, where did all the molten steel come from?

1617. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1613. Which gaps are you referring to? Care to be more specific?

1618. Boborci - September 18, 2012

meant 1616. Phil.

1619. Craiger - September 18, 2012

K-7 I don’t think Anthony cares about this site anymore. His new SOP seems to be post a few new articles and then go on vacation again. Anthony should just get rid of this site if he doesn’t have the time for it anymore.

1620. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

Has anyone thought of emailing Anthony to inform him of what’s happening?

1621. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1620. Or in other words:

help me, officials! I can’t handle a discussion questioning the government! Save me from critical thinkin!

1622. Craiger - September 18, 2012

#1620 – I tried once and got no response. We also complain when he is gone but never ask him when he comes back with news about why all the constant breaks.

1623. Craiger - September 18, 2012

#1621 – No we just can’t stand nuisance posters like you. How did this news post ever get turned into a 9/11 conspiarcy thread anyway?

1624. Boborci - September 18, 2012

but I shouldn’t make fun. This is a difficult subject and pondering the potential horribleness of what the evidence indicates is no easy task.

1625. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

1621. Boborci

No, in other words… get this troll off this board. I really don’t care about this topic. I really don’t care if it is a conspiracy or not. I really do not care. We have had enough of the subject, we have had enough of your rude remarks, we have had enough of you. You were given leeway on september 11th. You repeat yourself over and over. I am bored of this and I am bored with you. Good-bye you phoney coward… you have to use Bob Orci’s name because you are too much of a coward to use your own.

1626. TrekmadeMeWonder - September 18, 2012

The site is just fine the way it is.

If you can’t stand the freedom of expression then get out Anthony country.


Boborci, You still are missing the target with my posts.
Just answer the question…

Don’t you suppose that a team of demolitions experts could “rig that building to collapse” within a few hours?

1627. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1626. I “hijacked” the thread, that’s how. Becuase this thread happen to be up on 911.

1628. dmduncan - September 18, 2012

1611. Boborci – September 18, 2012

boborciandBoborci are one. Be 1 with the Orci.



1629. Hugh Hoyland - September 18, 2012

You know Star Trek 6 TUC had a very strong political message. And its often sited as a favorite with fans and critics.

1630. Craiger - September 18, 2012

I#1629 – I wonder if that is how the sequel will be set up? The Klingons will be represent Al Qaeda instead of the Russians this time and the bad guy is not Khan and their will be bad guys – the Klingons.

1631. T'Cal - September 18, 2012

Wow. What the hell is going on here? Are there no moderators to here to take control of this? I have been going to TrekToday.com for my Star Trek info for the past couple of weeks and when I return, the last info posted on the next film is 11 days old and that thread has over 1600, the vast majority of which are unrelated posts. It’s been hijacked by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, haters of Canada, lovers Canada, a Bob Orci impersonator, John Carter cultists, and dozens of people who have decided to hate the unseen film because the title is not to their liking.

Those in these categories have become the stereotype that the rest of us have worked so hard to dispel. This is simply pathetic. I may swing by again in a couple of weeks when your meds kick in or when JJA decides to throw out another morsel about the super-duper-hyper secret story for the next film that was finally named 8 months out.

1632. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1626 I like going by evidence, and all the demo experts I’ve read about do not believe a building can be wired in a day. Open to evidence to the contrary, but I can’t find any.

1633. Rose (that Keachick) - September 18, 2012

This Boborci is a rude, obsessed, one-trick pony…Ugh!

1634. Craiger - September 18, 2012

Fake Boborci – why are you even here when this is a place to discuss Trek and not your crazy theory? We all know how you feel already so just go.

1635. dmduncan - September 18, 2012

1558: “The US isn’t the only country that has great ideas or accomplishments.”

I challenge you — I dare you to the 14th power, even — to dig out anywhere on this site any comment where I say that the US is the only country that has great ideas or accomplishments.

And oh my! Point out my country’s MISTAKES — as it is my responsibility to do as a good citizen — and few object, perfectly comfortable to let me go on.

But point out what my country does RIGHT, and look at you haters crawl up out of the mud like worms after a good rain, as if pride in America’s achievements prevents you from having pride in your country’s achievements.

It’s almost like you don’t want Americans to actually be proud of anything.

1636. K-7 - September 18, 2012

Hey Fake Orci,

I took your challenge and fully and directly answered your question in post #1612 above. Very interesting how you have completely ignored it…I guess the answer was inconvenient to your arguments, eh loser?

LOL — you can’t deal with it when someone directly refutes your crap.

1637. dmduncan - September 18, 2012

1488: “It’s like the old joke. What has more culture? A yogurt or america?”

America has several hundred nations of indigenous Americans, no two exactly alike. How does THAT yogurt taste, matey?

“You still have not said WHAT is so great about the USA and what it has achieved, on it’s own.”

Red herring. The fact that we all in some way or another build on achievements that came before in no way prohibits us from having the pride we feel either as individuals in what we have done individually, or in the nations we individually belong to for the contributions to world history which they make.

1638. MJ - September 18, 2012

@1630 “You know Star Trek 6 TUC had a very strong political message. And its often sited as a favorite with fans and critics.”

I disagree. Star Trek 6 came out after the Cold War had just ended, so I found “the message” outdated and no longer politically relevant; although certainly it was a decent Trek movie. It would have been much better had it come out in the mid-80’s. The message felt dated to me.

So if Orci and company are going to revisit 911 and Bush-era politics, I think they will be in for a rude surprise in that people are fatigued with that discussion and don’t really want to see it in a Trek movie now. Would have been cool and relevant in 2005, but not so much now.

1639. dmduncan - September 18, 2012

1552: “Then he talks about neofeudalism as a sort of add-on which I took to mean that this was an imperialist British royal thing.”

Actually that is not what I am talking about. Feel free to google or bing terms you are not familiar with, folks.

1640. MJ - September 18, 2012

Everyone, please stop crucifying DM Duncan for being proud of his country.

For my part, I am proud of the accomplishments of the U.S, UK, Canada, NZ and Australia — we’ve got a lot to be proud of collectively folks. We lead the world on most fronts, and saved the world multiple times in the 20th Century.

1641. Boborci - September 18, 2012

1636 Lol.

wasn’t ignoring you. I though you were making my case for me!

Your answer essentially says that Mayor is an opportunistic fraud who just wants political gain. Well, 911 sure made him a hero didn’t it?

Your answer also says that the Emergency Command center and renvations were frauds! A bit of theater not actually related to secuity! That actualy supports the idea of the real purpose of the renovation was as cover for black op!

And finally, even if your answer was all there was to it, it doesn’t prove official story or support it in any way.

1642. Azrael - September 18, 2012

Here is a story with something more interesting than an impostor’s bs.

Real Life Warp Drive?


LLAP, except fake bob, he can burn in f-cking h-ll. Note that I am only censoring so the message posts.

Any further messages with my name will be an impostor as I will not be back on tonight.

(and yeah MJ it really is me, comic book website and all)

1643. Phil - September 18, 2012

Okay, people, MJ has it right. Ignore this guy and he will go away.

1644. Craiger - September 18, 2012

Why don’t we all take a pledge to ignore fake Bob Orci and he will go away.

1645. Phil - September 18, 2012

Oh, oh….a little anecdotal clip that might suggest Star Trek isn’t quite as engrained in pop culture as it used to be….

Yep, ignoring the fake Bob, too.

1646. The Last Vulcan - September 18, 2012

It really is a shame that a site that has such a treasure in the ongoing participation of Roberto Orci has to be left in chaos and anarchy. I don’t really blame the impersonating cretin(s), as IMHO it is the fault of the should-be-moderators who vanish for weeks and refuse for years to make a very simple fix (that seems to be easily implemented on most other forums) that would eliminate this sullying of the name of one of the top hyphenates in the industry. Sorry if I’m coming down too hard on Anthony as I’m sure he means well, but this has really gone too far now.

1647. Boborci - September 18, 2012

and by the way, what a dumb title.

Okay, now I’m done Bye!!

1648. Craiger - September 18, 2012

Your not alone The Last Vulcan. I think Anthony just has too many things in the fire to have tome to concentrate on this site. He comes back with no explanation as to why the long breaks and no one questions why the long breaks they are just happy to have to news. So I don’t see why we complain all the time. I really wish Anthony would just say what’s going on. I wonder if he thinks he can count on us to be here no matter what so he doesn’t owe anyone here an explanation as to why he is gone. Could one day he shows up and sees no one is repsonding to his news posts?

1649. Red Dead Ryan - September 18, 2012



I was calling out Montreal_ Paul on his “facts”*. I ended up proving him wrong on every claim he made, apart from IMAX. He apparently used to be a teacher, though probably not a very good one.

*Yes, I had to correct myself a couple of times, but at least I was able to admit to my errors, unlike MP.

Damn it, man! Here we are bickering about everything but Star Trek! Geez, I think we’re all going through Trek withdrawal syndrome.

1650. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

1649. Red Dead Ryan

Gee, you got that wrong too. I never said I was a teacher. And you never proved anything. Except that you just like to be right about everything. I provided proof for you and backed everything up. You chose to ignore it.

1651. dmduncan - September 18, 2012


1652. K-7 - September 18, 2012

#1641: “That actualy supports the idea of the real purpose of the renovation was as cover for black op!”

Ha! Ha !Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha !Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Ha! Ha !Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha !Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Ha! Ha !Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha !Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

“Okay, now I’m done Bye!!”

Finally, you say something that makes sense!

Good riddance, Stunkill / Boborci

1653. Red Dead Ryan - September 18, 2012


Okay, I looked, and you’re right, you didn’t claim to be a teacher. I happened to misread your post last night because I was getting tired around midnight pacific time.

But still, even after you’ve been proven wrong over where the telephone was invented, you still haven’t admitted to your mistakes.

1654. Craiger - September 18, 2012

RDR check out what happens at 5:19 in this video. LOL.


1655. dmduncan - September 18, 2012

Oh we’ve gone too far upriver to turn back now, Trekkies. We have to keep going…straight into the heart of darkness.

Up next: hollow earth theory.

1656. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

1653. Red Dead Ryan

Yeah and I posted links for you to back up what I have said. You chose to ignore it. You have been proven wrong countless times my friend. When Bell was in Ontario he became a Canadian Citizen. While he was in Ontario he worked on creating the telephone. When he was in the States, he completed his work and filed a patent, but he was still a Canadian citizen at that point even though he was not born in Canada.

Anyway, like I said, I am done with you.

1657. dmduncan - September 18, 2012

Sounds like we’re going to have to divvy up Alexander Graham Bell.

My proposal:

America takes him from the head to the navel.

Canada takes him from the navel to just below the buttocks.

Scotland gets the rest.

All who agree say Aye!

1658. Red Dead Ryan - September 18, 2012


Dude, it doesn’t matter if he had a Canadian citizenship. He invented the telephone in the U.S., making it an AMERICAN invention. You know, because it was made of American-made parts as well.

It wasn’t invented in Canada, so it can’t be a Canadian invention, now can it?

You were wrong about baseball, basketball, and insulin. Still don’t see you admitting your errors.

1659. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

Dude, I presented you with the links. I proved it. You haven’t. End of story. Period.

1660. dmduncan - September 18, 2012

And actually the telephone was contemporaneously separately invented by Bell and another American whom Bell beat to the patent office. Bell even used Gray’s transmitter design.

1661. Red Dead Ryan - September 18, 2012


Good point. And both those guys built their inventions on the workings of earlier devices made by others. Bell happened to refine it enough to make it practical for everyday mass use.

1662. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012





1663. Red Dead Ryan - September 18, 2012


Alright, you made your case with the insulin. I won’t argue any more. :-)

1664. Montreal_Paul - September 18, 2012

1663. Red Dead Ryan

The other links on television, telephone and baseball are still above. I back up what I say.

“I won’t argue any more. :-)” – I doubt it! lol ;)

1665. Red Dead Ryan - September 18, 2012

BTW, a couple of weeks ago, I picked up the MEGO Borg action figure. I’m keeping it in the package, because the package is a cool design, similar to the TOS versions. I got the Spock and Salt Vampire ones.

They’re pretty cool.

This site used to do merchandise reviews, but not anymore.

No more sci-fi articles, either. I really miss those.

1666. Vultan - September 18, 2012

Given the intrusive nature of modern phones, I’d rather BLAME CANADA for the invention of the telephone.

Bell: “Watson, come here. I want to see you.”

Watson: “OMG. Did you get dat cray thang workin, yo? Itz off the invent ticket. LOL. Now come see me, Belly. Got proof right here tha Canucks already done it.”


1667. Phil - September 18, 2012

@1655. The earth’s not hallow?

1668. MJ - September 18, 2012

Montreal Paul, at the risk of getting involved in the Canadian dispute between you and RDR over which things you guys in Canada did invent, I read awhile back a full bio of Bell, and can categorically state that not only did he not invent the telephone in Canada, he was there barely over a year. If any country besides the U.S. could claim some ownership of Bell, it would be Scotland, where he was born and educated in the “Athens of the North,” Edinburgh. To make the audacious claim that Bell was a defacto Canadian and invented the telephone there is just not true. He was merely passing through as a means to emigrate to the U.S., as his family had made several trips to the U.S., and the U.S. was his ultimate goal.

You guys keep up you arguments, but please drop the ludicrous insistence that the telephone was invented by Bell in Canada.

1669. MJ - September 18, 2012

And I forgot to add that Bell started conceptualizing the idea of transmitting the human voice over wires in 1873 and 1874 — one year AFTER he had moved to Boston, and hooked up with Watson.

1670. dmduncan - September 18, 2012

Encyclopedia Britannica lists Bell as “Scottish-born American audiologist best known as the inventor of the telephone (1876).”

But along with Vultan, I’m willing to give Bell back.

How about we make a trade? Bell for the Canadian who invented the zipper.

1671. MJ - September 18, 2012

@1642. Azreal, that is a really cool story. Imagine that — if warp drive could be at least proven in a lab in the next decade. WOW !!!!!

1672. MJ - September 18, 2012

@1670. And seriously guys, it is a very common practice of really talented people internationally, who can’t get a work visa to come to the U.S., to start out for a couple of years in Canada, have some success/make some U.S. connections, and then make their way into getting a job and work visa in the U.S. This is not a slight on Canada, but is simply a fact.

1673. Vultan - September 18, 2012

Let’s not overlook the greatest Canadian-American partnership that brought us the greatest character of all time: Superman!

American Jerry Siegel and Canadian-born Joe Shuster came up with the character in Cleveland, Ohio. Not bad for a couple of teenagers in the midst of the Depression.

1674. Harry Ballz - September 18, 2012

Not just Superman, but Canada also gave you, for what it’s worth, William Shatner!

1675. Vultan - September 18, 2012

Good point, Harry. And Leslie Nielsen, who played a sort of pre-Kirk Kirk in Forbidden Planet, was also Canadian.

You know, I’d list more Canadian talent, but I don’t think there’s room in this box for it!

1676. Phil - September 18, 2012

James Doohan, Canadian.

1677. MJ - September 18, 2012

Everyone living in North Dakota and Minnesota, Canadian! ;-)

1678. The Last Vulcan - September 18, 2012

@1648, what makes this site so special is Roberto Orci’s participation and the very special “in” that Anthony SEEMS to have with the film. It’s frustrating but IMHO you gotta take the good with the bad. It’s just so unfortunate that the bad could be rectified by a more consistent application of care and actual presence. I’m sure that there are many people on this page that would gladly volunteer their time to moderate the site, keep the tempers on an even keel, and ensure that bozo idiot morons don’t impersonate boborci.

1679. Harry Ballz - September 18, 2012


Yes, Vultan, and when you consider that Bruce Greenwood is Canadian, we certainly seem to have more than our fair share of captain-like talent!

Maybe it’s something in the water!


1680. The Last Vulcan - September 18, 2012

We Canucks rule. We should have kicked butt in 1812 and relegated you Yanks to a heavily guarded fenced-in stretch of mosquito-laden marshlands in the Chesapeake Bay area while the Union Jack flew over the rest of OUR continent.

There, everybody happy now? :)

1681. Boborci - September 19, 2012

this has been a fascinating experiment.

1682. Boborci - September 19, 2012

hillary clinton admits we created Al Qaeda.


1683. Boborci - September 19, 2012

the conversation about Canada and who invented what has been so much more important and relevant than the discussion about the most important event of our lifetimes. half of u f#*ckers make me sick. unreal. you will get everything you deserve as u sleep your life away.

1684. Boborci - September 19, 2012

younlaughs cany hide your bankruptcy.

yes or no: you agree NYC mayor is corrupt opportunist?

yes or no: wtc 7 command center was built fraudulently for no real security reason?

this is what you SAiD! and then you pretend to laugh it off cuz YOU GOT NOTHING ELSE TO SAY!

1685. Boborci - September 19, 2012

correctin = your laughs cant hide your bankruptcy

1686. Boborci - September 19, 2012

North York.

1687. Aurore - September 19, 2012

Regarding insulin.

Paulescu’s work was mentioned in the 1923 Nobel Prize presentation speech before the award was given to Banting and Macleod :


“…Amongst these I should like especially to mention Zuelzer, who in 1908 produced an extract which was undoubtedly effective, but which also showed injurious by-effects – consequently it could not be used to any great extent therapeutically – and also Forschbach, Scott, Murlin, Kleiner, Paulesco, and many others.”

…But, his political, racial, views very probably did not play in his favour for a recognition of his merits in the medical field.

1688. Aurore - September 19, 2012

“1683. Boborci – September 19, 2012
the conversation about Canada and who invented what has been so much more important and relevant than the discussion about the most important event of our lifetimes. half of u f#*ckers make me sick. unreal. you will get everything you deserve as u sleep your life away.”

If the “real” Roberto Orci ever was on this board, I know for sure he did not write THIS (the above post).


1689. Aurore - September 19, 2012

….. After all, a few weeks ago, there were posts by Roberto Orci and “Roberto Orci”….on the same thread….

1690. Aurore - September 19, 2012

….I wonder though….

If Mr. Orci never was on this thread, neither was “mikejohnson” ( @ 986 & 1068 ), then…



1691. Spiked Canon - September 19, 2012

Avoid Avoid Avoid the troller

1692. Spiked Canon - September 19, 2012

unfortunately, the integrity of this site has been diminished quite a bit over this :-(

1693. Borgminister - September 19, 2012

Take control of your own board, for crying out loud!

1694. Borgminister - September 19, 2012

er, website I mean…

1695. Aurore - September 19, 2012

….The history of the discovery of Insulin and its numerous controversies :

“…….Others are of the opinion that Nicolas C. Paulescu, Joseph von Mering and Oskar Minkowski would have been as worthy, perhaps worthier, Laureates for this prize (e.g. Luft, 1971).

Some additional information that might shed some light on the situation can be obtained from the Nobel Archives. Thus, Paulescu was never nominated; Collip and Best were nominated but not until 1928 and 1950, respectively; von Mering was nominated but only in 1902 and 1906; while Minkowski was nominated in 1902, 1906, 1912 and 1914 as well as in 1924 and 1925. Thus, according to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, none of these candidates could have received the prize in 1923.

So perhaps ‘the choice made was the best possible.’ Or would it have been wiser if the Nobel Committee at that time had explored the situation in greater depth rather than proposing to the Medical Faculty of Karolinska Institutet (the decision-making body) that Banting and Macleod be awarded the prize at such an early stage after their discovery?”


1696. drumvan - September 19, 2012

i miss the real boborci :( he was way more fun.

has anybody thought that maybe anthony is having some kind of health problems and isn’t just “on vacation”? maybe something is seriously wrong. i’m a relative noob to the site but this seems especially odd.

1697. SoonerDave - September 19, 2012

Would anyone here be interested in any kind of a project undertaking to construct a Star Trek Fan Forum? One that would be broadly moderated, categorized topics, real forum software like vBulletin, editable posts, things of that nature?

Or are other Trek sites already doing that as much as necessary?

This place has devolved to a bastion of silliness. I was just wondering if there were any interest in a moderated forum.

1698. Aurore - September 19, 2012

“…..Or are other Trek sites already doing that as much as necessary?”

Do you mean to say that you haven’t done your research on the subject yet?

“This place has devolved to a bastion of silliness…..”

And yet, you still keep coming back…..I was just wondering….why?


1699. Harry Ballz - September 19, 2012

1686 “North York”

Uh, guys, whoever is posting under Bob’s name just gave the correct answer to a question I asked him about a hundred posts ago, a question that only the real Bob Orci would know the answer to….unless the troll was around and reading posts here back then.

If it’s a troll he would have had to scroll back through every post made on hundreds of threads on this site from about 3 years ago to get the answer. Not likely.

(cue Twilight Zone music)

1700. Montreal_Paul - September 19, 2012

1699. Harry Ballz

Or he did some digging and research.

1701. VZX - September 19, 2012

Just for kicks and giggles, read this paper:


So, I guess there was thermite found at WTC 7. Hmmm, and NIST won’t bother with their own investigation. Yo, it’s a conspiracy!

1702. VZX - September 19, 2012

Yo!!!! My last post number was 1701!!!

What do I win? Some cool Star Trek swag?

1703. Phil - September 19, 2012

@1702. You get to moderate this site for a day! Congratulations!!

1704. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012


Of course they found residue, The NAVY Seals were ordered to demolish 7 that day after the attacks.

The powers that be decided to take action for a number of reasons.
Sorry no criminal conspiracy with 7 guys.

Why do’nt you look elsewhere for the easy points and stop regurgitating Alex Jones fibs?

1705. Aurore - September 19, 2012

“If it’s a troll he would have had to scroll back through every post made on hundreds of threads on this site from about 3 years ago to get the answer. Not likely.”

Mr. Ballz,

On the contrary, you may be right; the “troll” might have been around reading posts and/or….be a participant in the threads you mentioned.

…. Unfortunately, that is also a possibility, in my opinion….IF…. the post in question (@ 1686) was not, indeed, written by Mr. Orci……

1706. VZX - September 19, 2012

1703: OK, I’ll moderate: Hey you kids, get off my lawn!

1704: Not the same Jones I was thinking of: More like Steven Jones, the physicist that was fired from BYU for the paper I posted above and asking too many questions.

1707. VZX - September 19, 2012

1705: Aurore: Until all are one.

1708. Boborci - September 19, 2012

Okay, it’s true. I’m not the real Orci. I’ll stop it now. It was obnoxious of me. I’ll try to find a unique identity. It’s annoying and rude when someone puts words in your mouth.

Forgive me, Mr. Orci.

1709. Underhill - September 19, 2012

Aside from some arogance (perhaps uncalled for), we shouldn’t care if the above posts come from the real bob or not. The facts and legitimate questions this person posted about remain for us to ponder – not ridicule.

It has been interesting to read people’s posts – some cool-headed and trying to rationally discuss, while others would rather not think about 9/11. IF Bob Orci (fake or real) is right, then we should all take a moment to ponder the implications of this. In fact, REGARDLESS of whether he’s right, we still should be pondering the implications of what our government has done post 9/11 (Patriot Act, unconstitutional wars, etc, etc).


1710. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1709. Agreed!

1711. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1707. But why lie about it? Why would officialdom not admit they demolished building?

1712. Aurore - September 19, 2012


If you’re still around, and, seriously, what would be, in your opinion, the qualities required to be a decent “moderator” ?


1713. MJ - September 19, 2012

in post 1647, the imposter Orci, ohterwise known as Stunkill said:

“Okay, now I’m done Bye!!”



Obviously, Anthony doesn’t give a crap about policing this site and eliminating these cancerous trolls — these moron-losers — anymore, so the best we can all do is to not “feed them” our responses.

Best, MJ

1714. SoonerDave - September 19, 2012


Have I not done research? Not extensively, but I’ve seen a handful of other secondary message boards on Trek sites. I was speculating whether a Trek-themed message board with no pretense of being some empirical source of current Trek rumors or whatever would gain any traction.

Why do I keep coming back?

Hopeless delusions that this place will ever go back to what it used to be. :)

1715. MJ - September 19, 2012

@1709. Nice try, sock-puppet. How obvious can fake Boborci/Stunkill be, having this supposedly new poster “Underhill” right in line with his post immediately before and then his post immediately after AGREEING with “Underhill”….err, agreeing with himself. Maybe if you hadn’t immediately agreed with yourself in the next post right after Underhill you might have fooled SOME of us. Sheesh, what a moron.

Come on Stunkill/Boborci, you will have to do better than that if you want to create more believable impostors to support your bullshit arguments.

1716. Aurore - September 19, 2012

“Why do I keep coming back?

Hopeless delusions that this place will ever go back to what it used to be. :)”


Keep the faith!

1717. TrekMadeMEWonder - September 19, 2012

Why lie? Are you serious?

Obviously there was a large loss to the Nation that day. Infrastructure, property and life. And on that day we were one as a country, but that did not turn us into idiots. At the end of that day, there had to be an accounting of all losses. In the immediate aftermath any questions that remained would have been best served by sqashing the remaining complications – ie. Building 7 and by moving on to healing, clean up and rebulding.

Look guys, on Sept 12th America needed to begin the cleanup. I mean we really needed to move on. By the next day, things were (obviously) best being served by appropriating the correct story for all of 911’s terrorism. And that included a modification on how #7 would be explained. Obviously Silverstein overspoke. But when you consider the large loss of life, the best thing to do would be to pull it. AND THEY MADE THAT DECISION!

They sent in the SEALS to fiish off the largest problem that remained that day. How to deal with such a large building still standing after being hit by thousands of tons of debris from the Towers.

They blew that thing so we could get started on the 12th with a fresh start. Yes they needed to file claims and certainly if that building was toppled then it was the terrorists fault. And I do belive they collected fully on that claim.

More attention should be paid to the other problems that day. Especially the FAAs role and the many secret wargames that were happening.

I would appreciate someone going to jail for overlooking their important duties (g-dub) on that day.

1718. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1713. MJ

Hey, genius. By telling people not to respond to me u r responding to me.

1719. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1720. I’m not gonna jump on you because you at least have your eyes open enough to accept the evidence that wtc 7 was demolished. Thats all anyone could ask for right now.

1720. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Yeah, and I have had the chance of POSSIBLY knowing something of the inside story of #7.

I am not saying what I heard is real (the salesmans’ excuse) but since I had the opportunity to consider that story, I think I am seeing and understanding that alot of 911 conspiracy stuff IS misguided.

Not all. But most.

1721. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1718. Lol!

1722. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012


Why don’t you “come out” and tell us who you really are!!!

1723. Craiger - September 19, 2012

What does this news article have to do with 9/11? Its about the new title for the sequel?

1724. Boborci - September 19, 2012

Really though, I don’t believe in this conspiracy nonsense. I’m bored. Can’t think of anything better to talk about. I’m still trying to come up with a unique name. I hate using Bob Orci’s. Kind of hurts original thinking when I can’t come up with an original name, you know.

1725. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

How about your own name?

1726. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

It’s about Freedom of Speech and Liberty on a website adrift on the Internets

1727. Damian - September 19, 2012

1715–I’m starting to wonder about Boborci myself. Though, I have to say, Bob Orci frequents this site enough that if someone was posting under his name, he would quickly raise Hell over it. I don’t think he’d sit idly by.

His current posts just don’t seem to be consistent in tone with other posts over the years. He’s generally more respectful of others opinions. Perhaps he’s so passionate about his views on 9/11 that he can’t see straight, but I still find it hard to believe he would belittle those who disagree with his views (at least those who have not belittled him in kind).

1728. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1724. Second time an actual
Imposter has posted! I LOVE IT!!!! U just gave me plausible deniability!

1729. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Amazing how you shut down Bobx, when you are confronted with the truth. There is no criminal conspiracy about 7.

Learn it, live it, love it.

1730. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1730. There is an element of performance art to all this. Dont mean to hurt anyones feelings.

1731. Boborci - September 19, 2012

Now I’m talking to myself. How’s that for crazy?! Oh well, at least now I don’t feel so alone.

1732. Damian - September 19, 2012

1728–If you are an imposter, when someone on this site does catch up with you, you are looking at a lifetime ban. So I hope you don’t like posting here if you are.

1733. Underhill - September 19, 2012

1715 – MJ

FYI – I’m not a sockpuppet of the real/fake boborci. But I am pretty new to the site. It doesn’t matter though – the things I said STILL APPLY.

The Patriot Act (sold via 9/11) is not a BS argument. It simply exists, and it is enforceable on your hindquarters should you ever get labeled an ‘enemy combatant’. Consider the ramifications of the elimination of due process or trial by your peers. Pretty scary stuff. Don’t ignore the existance of things like this just because they don’t directly affect you right now.

1734. VZX - September 19, 2012

1712: A moderator is someone who actually moderates the board! Performs duties such as warn others for flaming, trolling, calling names, etc., up to an including insta-banning the offenders. Moderators should also confirm the identity of those that use the names of Trek cast and crew.

Also, moderators should dress nice and smell pretty.

1735. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1729. Shut down? I was trying to be nice. Your aegunent makes no sense. No reason for gov to lie if they demolished 7 for our safety. We could all accept that. Also, no one in demo believes u can wire a building in a day.

1736. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1736. Hear, hear!

1737. Boborci - September 19, 2012

Wow, my grammar and spelin could use some work. Can’t think of an original name, can’t write, talking to myself. I’m only hurting my own opinions.

1738. Boborci - September 19, 2012

We r coming up to a great punchline here on building 7 but first u have to watch this short clip. Can anyome in the class tell us what it means that CNN incorrectly reports the collapse of an aproximately 50 story building at 11 Am?

Ps – love u, 1737. Crackin me up!

1739. Boborci - September 19, 2012


1740. Harry Ballz - September 19, 2012

Want a name to use? How about……DICK WAD or HOLDEN MCGROIN?

1741. Boborci - September 19, 2012

But I just blowing smoke. I don’t really believe 9/11 was inside job. Nothin better to do. Can’t think.

1742. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1740. False flags are fun! I want to be Orci!

1743. boborci - September 19, 2012

1741 Love it! It’s like multiple Oswalds being seen everywhere at the same time!

1744. Harry Ballz - September 19, 2012

C’mon, tell us the truth…..how did you know the “North York” answer?

1745. boborci - September 19, 2012

Oops.. Meant 1744. But what does it matter at this point?

1746. Damian - September 19, 2012


Definitly not Bob (unless he’s having a grand ole time at our expense–which I doubt he’d have the time for, really).

Somebody should shoot him a note on another forum to check this thread so he can confirm once and for all.

I will tell you, if this is an imposter, I agree with MJ and others, it really calls into question the integrity of this site at this point. This really has been my go to site for Star Trek news. It’d be a shame to have to look elsewhere for Trek news.

On that note, what other sites are good for Trek news anyway.

1747. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1747 harry.

What does Occam’s Razor tell u?

1748. Damian - September 19, 2012

The numbers are screwed up again. My LOL refers to Harry Ballz comment on 1741. WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS SITE?

1749. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1749. Damian, dont be so dramatic. This is still thr best place for trek news and fans. Dont get too upset about a single thread being hijacked after a thousand posts.

1750. Boborci - September 19, 2012

So, comments on cnn video anyone?

1751. Damian - September 19, 2012

It’s not just this thread. It’s also the fact that there are periods where days or even weeks go by without any news, and that is becoming more frequent. You’d think as the movie gets closer to being released, there’d be more, not less news going on.

Anthony and co. certainly don’t owe us anything. It’s just there will come a point where people will just stop checking and move on to other sites.

1752. NuFan - September 19, 2012

I’m curious why people think it’s not Bob Orci?

1753. Boborci - September 19, 2012


What’s anthony supposed to do, break into our offices and steal the script? By the way, what does our successful secrecy say about ability of a group to keep a secret?

1754. Captain Ransom's back - September 19, 2012

@1752. NuFan

Because he is being incredibly rude & degrading to people and the way he is talking down to people. That is not the real Bob’s way – at least that is not how he has been on here in the past.

1755. Damian - September 19, 2012

1753 (at this moment anyway)–Anthony was always pretty good at getting Star Trek news. And it’s not just about the new movie. This site does cover other Star Trek news as well.

1756. Damian - September 19, 2012

Arrggh–1754 now (don’t forget, today’s speak like a pirate day).

Right now, I can get more updated news from memory alpha, and that’s a wiki site not designed for giving up to the minute updates.

1757. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1754. Only rude to those that are rude.

1758. Boborci - September 19, 2012

C’mon! No takers on CNN video?

1759. Damian - September 19, 2012

1758–I think everyone’s bored with the topic already.

1760. Damian - September 19, 2012

1754–Actually, it always seems when it comes to Star Trek movies, secrecy is the word of the day. It seems like the only movie franchise with such secrecy. I’m also a James Bond fan, and I can already tell you what Skyfall is about,

BTW–Skyfall does have 2 people from Nemesis involved. John Logan with the script and Stuart Baird as editor (don’t fear, he’s a much better editor than director), who also edited Casino Royale.

1761. VZX - September 19, 2012

1758: The building fell long after the others. What is your comment?

1762. Craiger - September 19, 2012

#1758 – We are all ignoring you.

1763. Damian - September 19, 2012

Unrelated, but what the hell, this thread is shot anyway.

Also a huge Hitchcock fan and The Birds will be playing in select theaters tonight. Certainly one of Hitchcock’s best.

I would have loved to see a Hitchock directed Star Trek film. Never would have happened, but I could only imagine what he would do with it.

1764. Daoud - September 19, 2012

I’d like to highly recommend to Aurore and others bringing it up, a fan forum with a very long history, and a great news site is the Trek Today grouping.
Bonnie’s been running TrekToday superbly for years, taking over for Christian Sparborth, the founder, and his right hand Lisa. And the website is easily found.

Associated with TrekToday is the TrekBBS which has the most well-travelled Trek fora in the known universe. Gosh, I remember anticipating the new series, Enterprise a year ahead… it’s a reliable board. Well moderated, too… and many of the real Trek Lit authors are there. Terri O, even moderates a forum! You can’t beat that for interaction.

I wish the real Bob Orci would go there. The real Dennis Bailey, Rick Sternbach, and many others from Trek are there. TrekBBS has none of the issues we’re now seeing here with moderation and sockpuppeting and faking.

1765. Damian - September 19, 2012

1765 (Daoud)–Thanks for the info. Now that you mention it, I have heard of Trek BBS before. This site is great when it is maintained, it just seems to go through periods of dead zones, more often as of late. With all the people involved here, you’d think someone would be a caretaker. But, in all honesty, I know very little about moderating a site such as this.

1766. Red Shirt Diaries - September 19, 2012

@1753 “What’s anthony supposed to do, break into our offices and steal the script? By the way, what does our successful secrecy say about ability of a group to keep a secret?”

Not much, given Anthony already reported that inside sources said it was Khan. LOL

1767. Aurore - September 19, 2012

“712: A moderator is someone who actually moderates the board! Performs duties such as warn others for flaming, trolling, calling names, etc., up to an including insta-banning the offenders. Moderators should also confirm the identity of those that use the names of Trek cast and crew.

Also, moderators should dress nice and smell pretty.”



I had my chance until that very last sentence of yours…


1768. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1674. Harry Ballz – September 18, 2012

Not just Superman, but Canada also gave you, for what it’s worth, William Shatner!


To me it’s worth a LOT! I’m surprised it took this crowd so long to mention it.

1769. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1704. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 19, 2012


Of course they found residue, The NAVY Seals were ordered to demolish 7 that day after the attacks.


Where’s the evidence of that? I don’t think Navy SEALS train to implode skyscrapers. The SEALS came out of the UDTs, true, but they don’t build skyscrapers underwater, and you’d have to be specifically trained to bring down a building like that.

Murphy’s Law works nowhere so well as it does in the US military.

The idea that you have a military demolition team standing by ready to implode a skyscraper under uncertain and dangerous conditions takes more than some anecdote in a restaurant to be persuasive.

Besides that, what’s the reason to keep that secret? If they did it to destroy CIA and DOD paperwork (a comical reason) AND/OR to protect surrounding structures, then those would be understandable reasons and it seems that should have become part of the official narrative that day if that’s what happened.

1770. Aurore - September 19, 2012

….Personally, I was joking with SoonerDave, earlier.

More than once I’ve read that few people read (and/or participated in) the comments section.

Thus, as far as I’m concerned nothing significant, dramatic, really happened, in the last few days, on the site. That is just my opinion of course.

P.S.: There is another site in my favourites where days can go by without a single new article. This is due to the fact that the “boss” is busy doing some “reportin’ stuff”. When he gets back, there is always plenty to read….
So, what goes on here sometimes is not surprising… to me, at least.

1771. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1720. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 19, 2012

Yeah, and I have had the chance of POSSIBLY knowing something of the inside story of #7.

I am not saying what I heard is real (the salesmans’ excuse) but since I had the opportunity to consider that story, I think I am seeing and understanding that alot of 911 conspiracy stuff IS misguided.

1729. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 19, 2012

Amazing how you shut down Bobx, when you are confronted with the truth. There is no criminal conspiracy about 7.

Learn it, live it, love it.


I’m not sure how you make those two statements of yours fit each other.

In the first post you say the anecdote you overheard may not be true, and in the second post you say it is true.

It can’t be both, so which position are you holding long-term?

The SEAL demolition of WTC7 is highly improbable unless they were trained long before 9/11 to take down a building of that size and with that floorplan, which again points us back in the conspiracy direction.

1772. Vultan - September 19, 2012


Love The Birds. I saw where HBO has a movie coming out about the making of the movie, about Hitchcock’s weird obsession with Tippi Hedren. Might be worth a watch. Toby Jones plays the director. And Anthony Hopkins will be playing him in a movie about the making of… Psycho, I believe. Good to see Hitch getting so much attention. Much deserved.

My favorites (in no particular order):

-North by Northwest
-Strangers on a Train
-The Birds

1773. Vultan - September 19, 2012


-Shadow of a Doubt

1774. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Reports of the collapse of WTC7 before it happened on History Commons:


Has anyone attempted to trace the story to the original source of the report that the tower collapsed? Where did the reporters get that info from? Where did those who gave it to them get it from?

1775. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1752. NuFan – September 19, 2012

I’m curious why people think it’s not Bob Orci?


Upper Case Bob freaks everyone out. Lower Case Bob would never say such things. ;-)

1776. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

The top of the WTC was one of my favorite places to go when I was supposed to be in school and wasn’t where I was supposed to be.

Those who have been there know, not just how tall those buildings were, but how MASSIVE they were. To see them FALL on TV was…you would laugh that movie out of the theater.

But it was real. All real.

Their collapse marked the birth of a new era. A terrible one.

1777. MJ - September 19, 2012

Red Shirt in post @1766 had pointed out a very easily verifiable real-world test on one of Orci’s key statements regarding conspiracies. Orci said in post @1753:

“What does our successful secrecy say about ability of a group to keep a secret?”

OK, let’s take Orci at his word on this. What does it say about this? Well, logically, we can judge this empirically based on the article from last March on Trekmovie.com where Anthony said that multiple inside sources confirmed that Khan was the villain of the story. Therefore, we can assess Orci’s point here fully when we learn the result of whether Anthony’s article was correct or not; i.e.

Case #1: We learn that Khan is not the villain. In this case, Orci’s “what does our successful secrecy say about ability of a group to keep a secret?” leads to the conclusion that this shows that large diverse groups can keep and institutional secret — thus this would support many of Orci’s conspiracy theories which depend on institutional secrets being kept.

Case #2. We learn that Khan is the villain. In this case, Orci’s “what does our successful secrecy say about ability of a group to keep a secret?” leads to the conclusion that this shows that large diverse groups cannot keep and institutional secret — thus this would reject most of Orci’s conspiracy theories which depend on institutional secrets being kept.

I like Orci bringing this up with this statement that he made, as, for once, we have a bold statement of his on conspiracies that will be tested in the real world. I can’t wait for the outcome of this. One of us is going to be eating crow here.

1778. MJ - September 19, 2012

@1775. Agreed DM. I have deduced that both are the real Orci — I won’t divulge how I figured it out, but I am 100% certain that they are one and the same now.

It’s kind of depressing to find out that the real Orci is as big an a-hole as many of us who post here daily. I guess I was hoping for something better than that given he is one of the leaders of our beloved franchise.

1779. Captain Ransom's back - September 19, 2012

@ 1757. Boborci – September 19, 2012

“Only rude to those that are rude.”

Well, from reading your comments, you were pretty much rude to everyone here. And no matter the opinion someone gave you, you shot it down as if it were nothing. You were very demeaning and rude, in my opinion. And I was just observing all this. Sorry, have to call a spade, a spade.

1780. afr - September 19, 2012

Great title IMO, very clever. Can’t wait for the trailer.

1781. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

I’d like to reply but Anthony’s site is too weak!


1782. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1758. Point is that CNN reports collapse of third building at 11 AM though no third building collapses until 5:20 that afternoon. The 47 story Wtc 7.

1783. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

So funny. It deletes it every time.

1784. Boborci - September 19, 2012

Mj did you deduce it when you read that the comments were posted by boborci?

By the way, there is, amazingly, a boborci imposter on this board.

1785. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Dude. The reporters were on the ground with shakey communications due to the attacks. Woord was getting out that the demolition crew were being ordered. For certain that building would be coming down AFTER the Towers hit it.

Funny this site will not post my other 6 paragraph note.

1786. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

everytime. Sorry fellas. Dont know whats wrong.

1787. K-7 - September 19, 2012

#1779: “Well, from reading your comments, you were pretty much rude to everyone here. And no matter the opinion someone gave you, you shot it down as if it were nothing. You were very demeaning and rude, in my opinion. And I was just observing all this. Sorry, have to call a spade, a spade.”

Yep! Case in point, I actually answered his questions with facts, and then had to remind him that I did when he conveniently ignored someone who actually provided real information. Then, when he finally did respond, he twisted my information and insisted their must be some Black Ops involved instead of my direct attempt at providing him the real-world information.

A guy like him believes in “the conspiracy” as the starting point, and cherry-picks disparate information, and twists other information around, to self-reinforce their faulty arguments. There is no reasoning with such people — they are borderline sociopaths.

1788. Vultan - September 19, 2012


This is assuming the numbering here is correct… well, I don’t know if you intended it or not, DM, but your post number 1776 is the same number of feet the new World Trade Center will be!

Must’ve been something awesome to see those buildings in person in all their glory. And something especially terrible for someone who had actually touched them to see them destroyed.

It’s strange the attachment a person can have to a building. On occasion I pass a little vacant gas station with broken windows and tall weeds. I remember when it was booming, when my high school friends and I would stop there for pizza. That was twelve years ago. Now looking at it, it seems like a thousand.

1789. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Deleted again!!!

Hold on guys. I’ll get it.

1790. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

So mad at this board. If anyone wants to complain oabout Anthony’s website, then complain about the lame blog code. How many times I have typed out a good one and it dissapears. Ughh!

Anyhow. This is a “best of” to answer #1771. dmduncan

Concerning motive…

Obviously there was a large loss to the Nation that day. Infrastructure, property and life. And on that day we were one as a country, but that did not turn us into idiots. At the end of that day,


1791. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

continued from above 1790

there had to be an ACCOUNTING of all losses. In the immediate aftermath any questions that remained would have been best served by sqashing the remaining complications – ie. Building 7 and by moving on to healing, clean up and rebulding.

Look guys, on Sept 12th America needed to begin the cleanup. I mean we really needed to move on. By the next day, things were (obviously) best being served by appropriating the correct story for all of 911’s terrorism. And that included a modification on how #7 would be explained. Obviously Silverstein overspoke. But when you consider the large loss of life, the best thing to do would be to pull it. AND THEY MADE THAT DECISION!


1792. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Hmmm. deleted.

1793. boborci - September 19, 2012

1787. I responded. Your theory is that wtc 7 was a farudulently built charade by a fraudulent politically opportunistic mayor. Right? I agree. Your answer is not mutually exclusive with inside job, Your answer, in fact, supports it.

1794. MJ - September 19, 2012

@1785. LOL. You are Bob — I know it with 100% certainty. Continue the misdirection if you must, but you are not fooling me.

1795. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

deleted again!

Hold on. I’ll edit out the offending keywords

1796. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

continued from 1791

They sent in the SEALS to fiish off the largest problem that remained that day. How to deal with such a large building still standing after being hit by thousands of tons of debris from the Towers.

They blew that thing so we could get started on the 12th with a fresh start. Yes they needed to file INKSURANCE* CLAIMS and certainly if that building was toppled then it was the terrorists fault. And I do believe they collected fully on the INKSURANCE* CLAIMS.

*changed keyword to escape censor?


1797. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012


You cant tyoe THAT!!!!???

1798. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

There is your consipracy, everyone!

1799. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

DM, the “truth of it” is what I personally witnessed in my daily life. A simple conversation between two strangers at lunch with nothing to lose. Why would that guy lie about his brother and the Seals? I looked him in the eye and it was a sound conversation. He did’nt buy my lunch, and he was a bit standoffish, but it was just a personal vibe I got from the convarsation. Truthful. (Borborci would not understand this) What could I say. He was lying? By the way the salesman dressed well too.

1800. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Wow. Apparently, you cannot type “INKsurance Claims.”

1801. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Try it. Spell it correctly, and see if it posts.

1802. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012


1803. boborci - September 19, 2012

1794 I’ve ONLY called myself by my name, genius, even explaining caps vs not caps differences! lol!

1804. boborci - September 19, 2012

however, there is an imposter on this board who posted as me a few times. just happens to be the case. Very few times, though, late in the thread.

1805. Captain Ransom's back - September 19, 2012

@1778. MJ

If you are correct, and that is in fact the real Roberto Orci – it’s very disappointing that he is such a dick. Everything I have read from him, he was always so nice. What a disappointing jackass he has turned out to be – if it is indeed the real Bob Orci, that is.

1806. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

You guys are in deep denial.

1807. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1805. Only a dick on this subject. Trying different tatctics to wake you lemmings up. Testing different strategies here. Someone mentioned it as a back handed compliment. I think that’s right.

1808. MJ - September 19, 2012

OK, I will admit how I figured it out, and if its get me booted off here for good, so be it — I can live with that given I was able to expose this nonsense for all of us.

So what I did — I tried myself to post as Boborci and boborci as a test, and both were instantly rejected by the system. Thus, Anthony has set up the system to not allow this.

Therefore, yes, this has all been the real Orci, which is disappointing to all of us.

This brings to mind my own new conspiracy theory here — I think Orci has been pulling the strings on this site all along, with Anthony pretending to be the lead.

1809. Captain Ransom's back - September 19, 2012

@1807. Boborci

Why? Seriously. What purpose does this serve except to piss people off. You talk down to people even now with calling us “lemmings” – why be a jackass about it? Surely you can get your point across or even have a healthy discussion without being rude to people for no reason.

1810. Boborci - September 19, 2012

I’m the real boborci.

No, I’m the real Boboci.

1811. Captain Ransom's back - September 19, 2012


I had to try and it posted me. That is my comment at 1810 as Boborci.

1812. K-7 - September 19, 2012

OK Orci,

Instead of answering questions with questions and twisting contrary opinions to fit your arguments, how about providing your conclusions of what happened here? What was the motive? Who was involved? How did it all go down? Who has been covering it up?

Come on Smart Boy — you seem to have it figured out so well that you continue to categorically dismiss others’ information here. Put your conclusions on what happened out there fore all of us to see…or perhaps you are afraid that then you won’t be in the position you are in right now of being able to shoot everybody else down anymore…yea, there is that!

Here’s betting that you wuss out of answering my challenge.

1813. Craiger - September 19, 2012

Man Trekmovie has gone to the crapper allowing this to happen. Its not like it was during its hayday when it first launched. How can it be trusted for news anymore when we are not sure if this is the real Bob Orci or not and that we are not even sure if Anthony’s sources about the bad guy being Khan or not are true.

1814. Boborci - September 19, 2012

1811 — you’ll admit how you figured it out? You mean you followed one of my posts where I told you Anthony bans imposters, ergo, I can’t be an imposter. Good job!!!

1815. Craiger - September 19, 2012

I still however don’t see how Orci can have the time to post alot now that the Fall TV season is about to begin with Orci working on Hawaii 5-0 and working on any movies that he might be doing.

1816. Red Shirt Diaries - September 19, 2012

@1814. Bob, Anthony is AWOL, so what does that prove? He can’t ban anyone if he no longer cares to monitor the site. I imagine if he was truly monitoring this site still, that, in addition to shutting the impostors down, he would have contacted you off-line and requested that you cool off a bit on your recent unexplained rude and incendiary posts, which are not like you to make.

Seriously man, is something going on in your life that is making you such a jerk these days? You were never like this before? What gives?

1817. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1786. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 19, 2012

everytime. Sorry fellas. Dont know whats wrong.


If you can’t post something it’s probably because you are using a banned keyword somewhere in the text that’s trashing your whole post.

1818. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1788. Vultan – September 19, 2012

LOL! Didn’t notice that. Yep, it’s my post number.

1819. K-7 - September 19, 2012

OK Orci,

Instead of answering questions with questions and twisting contrary opinions to fit your arguments, how about providing your conclusions of what happened here? What was the motive? Who was involved? How did it all go down? Who has been covering it up?

Come on Smart Boy — you seem to have it figured out so well that you continue to categorically dismiss others’ information here. Put your conclusions on what happened out there fore all of us to see…or perhaps you are afraid that then you won’t be in the position you are in right now of being able to shoot everybody else down anymore…yea, there is that!

Here’s betting that you wuss out of answering my challenge..

1820. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012


Did you not figure out that I could not post the words “Insur ance claims?”

1821. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

speeled correctly, of course.

Very weid that I could not type that into a 911 related subject.

1822. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1799. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 19, 2012

DM, the “truth of it” is what I personally witnessed in my daily life. A simple conversation between two strangers at lunch with nothing to lose. Why would that guy lie about his brother and the Seals?


I don’t doubt that you heard what you heard but that doesn’t settle the story as true. People boast, pretend to have inside knowledge of things they know nothing about, they embellish, alter crucial details to make the story better. Any number of reasons.

But IF SEALS did it, then that points even more to conspiracy because there’s no way a team untrained to bring down a skyscraper got called up on a moment’s notice and was put into a dangerously uncertain situation where everything worked out perfectly just like in the movies.

Even if a team trained for it, the chaos of what was actually happening in that tower which no training could precisely duplicate could create problems in the execution making a successful demolition even more unlikely.

Theoretically it’s possible if they trained for it. But if they trained for it, they had foreknowledge of its occurrence.


1823. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1820. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 19, 2012


Did you not figure out that I could not post the words “Insur ance claims?”


Yes, ins_urance and p_orn are two known keywords that will trash your post.

1824. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Also, believe it or not, either/and-or both Kat_e and M_ulgrew.

1825. K-7 - September 19, 2012

Plus the Seals couldn’t keep something like that a secret for long. Look at the ex Seals that have written books, etc, now, to the chagrin of DOD. The Seals eventually leak out their secrets.

1826. Captain Ransom's back - September 19, 2012

If that’s the real Bob Orci, then he is full of himself.

If it’s an imposter (and I think it is), then he is full of it.

I tried posting as Bob Orci above and it didn’t block me.

I agree with what someone said earlier – this site has gone downhill. It can be used as a reliable source for anything anymore. It has lost all it’s credibility in my opinion.

1827. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012


But that is the first I ever heard of that.

1828. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Capt., Relax. Good ol’ Trek news will return soon.

1829. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

1825. K-7

Good point.

But still this angle has NEVER been researched. Why no alternate theories? In fact, this theory works well with the official explaination of the day. Of which there has been a serious omission of #7. But I think not for some of the reasons espoused in the Internet.

1830. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

They could have had a specially selected team of SEALs put together and trained for it whom they could trust. Or DELTAs which, you may have noticed, hardly EVER get ANY publicity for ANYTHING. I think those boys are carefully chosen for their ability to shut up.

So they could have weeded out any potential whistleblowers.

DELTAs and SEALs both work with the CIA, and the CIA did have an office in WTC7.

But if that’s who did it, then that still says conspiracy.

1831. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

The selection process for DELTAs is a guarded secret. If you don’t make the team, they don’t tell you why.

I don’t like the opacity of their process. It needs oversight.

1832. NuFan - September 19, 2012

Bob Orci is imitating some fans. That does not count as being rude.

1833. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Boborci probably wouldn’t be trying to get people to examine the significant glitches that exist in the official 9/11 narrative if he didn’t care so much…about IT, and YOU all.

I think many of us can say that yes, it WAS the most significant world event of our lives. And whether you examine alternative theories or not, there’s no denying how 9/11 has been used to increase the police powers of the state, and that we’ve been steered toward a concern for safety over liberty ever since.

That’s something worth smacking a beehive over. It’s even worth getting frustrated over.

And nobody (except maybe Aurore) never misbehaves. So, if you were offended, “Forgive, that you may be forgiven.” Lord knows Bob has taken a lot of heat in here for ST.09 over the years, and he never got “out of the kitchen.”

1834. K-7 - September 19, 2012

@1833. Or he is simply a blow-hard know-it-all with delusions of grandeur that have been extrapolated to even larger heights by his fame on this Trek-geek web site. :-)

1835. Red Dead Ryan - September 19, 2012

Well, Stunkill did somehow pose as MJ a couple of weeks ago. And there clearly was a “boborci” imposter upthread. For the imposter to be banned, Anthony has to be montoring this site. Which he isn’t doing.

Anyway, we need something else to discuss.

1836. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

I think it was an insur ance scam.

Especially the main two towers. Some many explo sions that day, some recorded on video.

Also the Towers were sup to come down – due to brittle steel? I heard there was a study to determine if scafolding could be placed around the structure while work commenced to renovate.

Also, I heard a phone in caller to the “Jack Blood” show say (in like, 2005) that he was working in one of the towers in the weeks leading up to the day, and he was coming into work and seeing his office filling with dust and particle debris from the ventilation shafts, and that there was massive drilling and construction above his floor. He sounded sincere too.

Plus Marvin, power downs, etc., etc. Come on.

1837. K-7 - September 19, 2012

Its very telling that Bob is not answering my challenge.


1838. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

I’m not a Hollywood insider, but from a career perspective, advancing alternative theories about 9/11 seems risky to me. But maybe not so much. I thought I saw a poll a few years back that indicated 60% of Americans polled didn’t believe the official narrative about 9/11.

In any case, like Richard Belzer, I think Bob has an itch to scratch. I’m itching too. I hope it’s contagious.

If nothing else, I wish the people reading this would adopt the attitude of the James Woods character at the end of Contact.

Remember that?

He was the skeptic. He accused Dr. Arroway of fabricating her story. He said she never went anywhere, that she was gone for only a second, not 13 HOURS. Then the president’s adviser is questioning him alone. He says he is aware of the video footage in the pod. He knows it’s all just video noise and that it shows nothing.

And she replies that it’s not the FOOTAGE that’s interesting, but that there are 13 HOURS of it.

“Yes,” he says. “That IS interesting.”

It would make me happy if people would take that attitude at least, and remain alert afterward. Even if you don’t admit it to anyone.

I hope more people will have that attitude because of this thread.

1839. Other Guy - September 19, 2012

We will repost that at the 2K mark and leave it at that.

1840. Boborci - September 19, 2012

This Boborci seems not to want, or be able to, answer anyone’s questions/challenges. I have, as yet, received no response or anything to my post at #1511 and to my questions:

“Questions: Do you really think that most people give much thought to whatever serious issue might get raised in the context of a movie? I also wonder if going all “dark” has the effect that perhaps a writer may want. Taking people into (possibly yet another) dark place can make many feel even more despondent, hopeless and weak than they may already feel, so what has actually been achieved?”

Rose (as in Keachick) now posting as Boborci…

1841. boborci - September 19, 2012

Shall I speak for you as well, boborci?

1842. TrekMaeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Do me, Keachick!

Betcha can’t.

1843. Boborci - September 19, 2012

@1840 – Roseorci ;)

I think we should all start posting as Boborci.

Captain Ransom now posting as Boborci… ;)

1844. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Shit. Even I can’t do me. : (

1845. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

1841 you messed that up, right?

Should have said.

Shall I speak for you as well, Boborci?

1846. Boborci - September 19, 2012

Will the real Boborci please stand up.

1847. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

Well, lets all hope Anthony is OK out there.

Wishing you well, Anthony! Whwere ever you are.

1848. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

And just what did I wonder?

1849. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 19, 2012

Shit, this is scary!

1850. Boborci - September 19, 2012

you should also ask yourselves this, why not parade the body of bin laden around like they did with Saddam? was there ever really a bin laden? if so, why not show the dead body? what is the cover up there?

1851. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Okay, this thread is now officially the “Festival!” scene from Return of the Archons.

1852. Captain Ransom's back - September 19, 2012

Where the heck is Anthony?

1853. dmduncan - September 19, 2012


Yeah, when I heard they had killed Bin Laden and dumped his body at sea, I was dumbfounded. I haven’t had a moment of greater incredulity since the towers fell.

1854. K-7 - September 19, 2012

“This Boborci seems not to want, or be able to, answer anyone’s questions/challenges. I have, as yet, received no response or anything to my post at #1511 and to my questions”

That is because he is a pussy. He is ignoring my challenge on WTC-7, and now trying to shift directions to Bin Laden. MY, HOW CONVENIENT!!! LOL

1855. K-7 - September 19, 2012

OK Orci,

Instead of answering questions with questions and twisting contrary opinions to fit your arguments, how about providing your conclusions of what happened here? What was the motive? Who was involved? How did it all go down? Who has been covering it up?

Come on Smart Boy — you seem to have it figured out so well that you continue to categorically dismiss others’ information here. Put your conclusions on what happened out there fore all of us to see…or perhaps you are afraid that then you won’t be in the position you are in right now of being able to shoot everybody else down anymore…yea, there is that!

Here’s betting that you wuss out of answering my challenge

1856. Red Shirt Diaries - September 19, 2012


If Orci responded, that would mean that he would have to provide a cogent concept for what really happened — and he has no clue on that. He has basically run out of gas on WTC-7 and is now shifting to a something else lest we lose track of his intellectually bankrupt lack of a concpet on WTC-7.

Moreover, by moviing onto Bin Laden, he’s hoping to get a free pass to not have to respond to you.

1857. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012


That’s not me.

Oh great.

Guess that’s why we practice “The Honor System” here.

1858. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2012

1853. dmduncan

To top that one. They destroyed all evidence. Photos, videos too.

So I hear.

1859. boborci - September 19, 2012

1850 is not me. But its a good question.

1860. K-7 - September 19, 2012

OK Orci,

Instead of answering questions with questions and twisting contrary opinions to fit your arguments, how about providing your conclusions of what happened here? What was the motive? Who was involved? How did it all go down? Who has been covering it up?

Come on Smart Boy — you seem to have it figured out so well that you continue to categorically dismiss others’ information here. Put your conclusions on what happened out there fore all of us to see…or perhaps you are afraid that then you won’t be in the position you are in right now of being able to shoot everybody else down anymore…yea, there is that!

Here’s betting that you wuss out of answering my challenge,

1861. Craiger - September 19, 2012

Guys quit responding to fake Bob Orci. He is just craving attention. This is why this site has gone to the crapper people like fake Bob Orci would have been banned in a min.

1862. boborci - September 19, 2012

1858 & 1859.

Trouble with theorizing without agreeing on facts or evidence is that it proves nothing by itself. The evidence provided above, that wtc 7 was demolished (witnesses, symmetrical free fall, etc) has so far not been refuted. Does Occams’s Razor not tell us that if it looks like demo, sounds like demo, witnesses tell us demo, physics precludes explanations other than demo, that is demo? And again, lets be clear tnat agreeing that it is demo does not initially rule out alqaeda, but if we cant even agree on the laws of physics, what good are discussions about motive (which have been clearly covered above anyway by some boborci or another)? Once we agree, we can start to openmindedly discuss who had the means, motive, and opportunity.

1863. boborci - September 19, 2012

1843. Ignored your question cuz not about the debate we r having re 911 wtc 7.

1864. K-7 - September 19, 2012

@1863. That is your response??? What a convoluted pile of horseshit that provides no answers. That’s all you got???

1865. boborci - September 19, 2012

1864. Do u agree wtc 7 most likely explanation is demo?

1866. Red Shirt Diaries - September 19, 2012

Ah folks,

There was a shitload of diesel fuel in WTC-7 that caused the collapse when it caught fire — much more diesel fuel than in most large buildings.

The laws of physics and Occam’s razor are alive and well here.

1867. boborci - September 19, 2012

Do u agree no body of bin laden likely explanation is he never existed?

1868. K-7 - September 19, 2012

Answer my questions first, then I will answer yours. Your trickery of answering people’s questions with your own questions to get out of having to respond to them will not work on me. Put your conclusions on what happened out there for all of us to see. What was the motive? Who was involved? How did it all go down? Who has been covering it up?

1869. boborci - September 19, 2012

1867 and if i am going to spend valuable time here, at least give me the courtesy of actually reading the thread. U asked about motive when we have already discssed and PROVEN that neocons had motive. They said in their own report (PNAC) that they needed a “catastrophic attack,” a “NEW PEARL HARBOR” to accomiplish their goals, which the ABC news program Nightline called, “a blue print for US global domination.”

We have already discussed that the Afghanistan war plan was on Bush’s desk to sign on 9/10. We have already discussed that his first cabinet meeting was about getting Saddam Hussein. If i am gonna keep diacussing this u, can u start paying attention and debate the evidence?

1870. boborci - September 19, 2012

1867 not me.

1871. MJ - September 19, 2012

@1868. Ah, so Peter Arnett doesn’t exist either. I always thought he had a CGI look to him — the Jar Jar Binks of tv news.

1872. boborci - September 19, 2012

1869.NIST report does not cite diesel fuel as contributing factor, so like so many others who think they agree with official story, u dont even know official story.

1873. K-7 - September 19, 2012

“1867 not me.”

I didn’t think so.

1874. Red Shirt Diaries - September 19, 2012

@1873. So now you are agreeing with the NIST report when it is convenient to do so?

I am not making this up:


1875. Boborco - September 19, 2012

1874. No. I dont agree with the governments official report. And the official report, put out a decade after your article, disagrees with your contention that diesel was a factor. I know why i disagree with both the report and the article u posted. The correct question is why do YOU disagree with the official report?

1876. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Published 1 year before 9/11. Go to section 5 of Rebuilding America’s Defenses, here:


Shows the neocons aware they need a Pearl Harbor to speed up their agenda.

1877. K-7 - September 19, 2012

“Boborco” — you’ve got to be fu*king kidding me!

And by the way, you’ve demonstrated two key tactics of consipracy theorists in one sentence there:

1. You cite evidence from a report that fits your theory in one instance, while is other instances where it doesn’t fit your theory you discredit the same report.

2. You handle legitimate tough questions related to your theory by misdirecting the asker of the question by asking new questions to them instead — thereby avoiding having to answer the tough question.

1878. Red Shirt Diaries - September 19, 2012

The neocon thing related to a Pearl Harbor is very interesting, but it does not relate to WTC 7. I am not seeing any evidence that WTC was the nexus of a neocon plot to take down the twin towers, and so they imploded that to cover it all up. Sorry, but nothing anyone has posted here would convince me of that. And no, I don’t think it was a controlled demolition that was covered up.

1879. Other Guy - September 19, 2012


Amazing video.

1880. MJ - September 19, 2012

IMHO, no one has made a compelling case here either for a controlled demolition, or a 911 conspiracy.

1881. K-7 - September 19, 2012

@1880. That web site has one mission — to promote 911 as an inside job. You can leave your objectivity at the door when you go there. It’s a crackpot haven.

1882. K-7 - September 19, 2012

BTW, here is the NHIST Q&A record of their own report that described in engineering detail (and diagram why WTC-7 collapsed) — the reasons are structural engineering and physics based. Please read this before responding.


Case closed!

1883. Boborci - September 19, 2012

At a dinner. Will have to continue this in a couple hours when i am home.

1884. MJ - September 19, 2012

Wow, I had not seen that NIST Q&A document before. This seems to provide the smoking gun that confirms the building did collapse due to fire. Very compelling — real scientific explanations in contrast to the musings of arm-chair conspiracy buffs who post here regularly. And the ruling out of the free-fall scenario really shuts down the controlled demolition theory.

1885. K-7 - September 19, 2012

@1884. Enjoy the main course — I’m told it is going to be crow!

1886. boborci - September 19, 2012

1884.thanks for goOd chuckle, sincerely, and for taking time to debate. See u after dessert.

1887. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Actually that is incorrect, MJ. That NIST report ADMITS freefall. The high school physics teacher got them to admit that. Their initial draft dismissed freefall, then they admitted it. The admission is even there in the fact sheet. NIST can be effectively challenged on where they start measuring the moment of collapse of bldg 7.

Now I’m no demolitions expert, but I do listen to them. Which is why the fall of 7 is so interesting:


And of course it didn’t help that the expert in the above video died when he somehow crashed his car into a tree.


1888. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

What…? Bob has time to eat?

1889. MJ - September 19, 2012

Maybe there is a conspiracy here. I have tried 3 times to past selections form the NIST report here, and it gets rejected??? Sheesh, well, I will mention that this NIST Q&A report is dated September 2011, and seems to be the final work from NIST on this, so if this guy you mentioned proved to NIST that it was freefall, well, it certainly is not captured in their “final word” here on this???

Maybe that guys problem with the car accident was that he could never see the forest through the trees? ;-)

1890. MJ - September 19, 2012

Weird, now my earlier posts with sections of the NIST report are showing here? Are you seeing them, DM? I feel like Kirk in The Tholian Web, phasing in and out.

1891. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Here’s the quote from that link:

“Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)”

1892. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

MJ: The numbering sequences and site behavior here have been totally screwed up. Don’t know what’s going on.

1893. MJ - September 19, 2012

@1891. Agreed, but the fall went across three stages — stages 1 and 3 were not free fall, and add a total of 40% extra time to the fall than would be expected under a continuous free-fall scenario.

1894. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

The problem is where NIST starts counting the 5.4 seconds in their model. There is a point where the entire building just suddenly starts to collapse, but NIST does not measure from that moment. To understand when the building was in freefall we have to start the clock when the entire building starts moving, not when the penthouse starts collapsing.

The collapse of the north tower did some damage to 7, starting fires. NIST’s model of collapse comes from computer simulation, so we don’t actually KNOW what was happening inside such that the penthouse collapsed first, and NIST won’t release their modeling data for anyone to check, but no matter the scenario we have to attribute the fall of the penthouse to the damage done by the fall of the north tower.

Then suddenly the entire building drops like a rock. That is not the point when NIST starts the clock, however. But they use the start of the penthouse collapse to get their 5.4 second three stage model, and to somehow conclude that the building fell 40% slower than freefall!

They admit freefall and at the same time they are adding up their measurements in such a way as to say it fell 40% slower than freefall at the same time!

1895. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Then, as the mass starts to find resistance in the pile up below the mass above will start to slow down, but you have that undeniable couple of seconds of freefall of the building which is really what made that demolition expert certain it was a demolition.

And remember, freefall is what NIST had denied having happened at the 2008 meeting. That’s where Mr. Smartypants High School Physics Teacher came in.

1896. MJ - September 19, 2012

I hear you, but their Q&A reads like they are specifcally addressing the controled demolition question and putting it to rest — note that this information starts with this question:

“In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?”

I do agree with you that they should release modeling results. That is one of the reasons I doubt the climate change scientists — the modeling they do is more of an art than a science, and loaded with assumptions that fit their world-view, whether consciously or unconsciously intended.

1897. MJ - September 19, 2012

This physics teacher, Chandler, is also on record for calculting that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Here, I found where someone debunked his calculations on his twin towers calculations…his numbers we off by more than a factor of 100.


This doesn’t give one a sense of confidence in this Chandler teacher. Also, I could not find a major news service story covering Chandler and WTC-7 — the only stories I could find on his supposed providing NIST wrong on free-fall were from Web Sites promoting the 911 conspiracy theories.

1898. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Yes, it sounds like they are addressing it, but when you actually look at the video and follow where they start their measurement of the fall, then things get a little weird.

The fact that there is any freefall is significant because it suggests the simultaneous failure of all support columns at some point below the 18th floor. It won’t remain in freefall because as the structure of the building finds resistance on impact, it will increase the total collapse time beyond freefall range.

So they are trying to have it both ways, saying it was in freefall and that it was not.

That’s what’s so bizarre about their reply. ANY freefall is perplexing. And that is really what they do not account for in their fact sheet.

1899. MJ - September 19, 2012

And here specifically is how CSI address the WTC free fall issue:

“WTC 7’s brief 2.25 seconds of free fall is now the Truthers’ best “smoking gun.” The claim usually goes like this: “The fifty-eight perimeter columns would have resisted and slowed the collapse to much less than freefall. The ‘freefall’ of WTC 7, admitted to by NIST, proves it was controlled demolition.” The problem is that this is a straw man argument. NIST found the collapse occurred in three stages. The first stage, which lasted 1.75 seconds, is when the fifty-eight perimeter columns were buckled; during this interval, the rooftop actually fell only about seven feet. This is because the breaking of columns saps speed, indeed making the collapse slower than free fall. In the second stage, which lasted 2.25 seconds, the already-buckled columns provided negligible support, and the north face of the structure free-fell about eight stories. (Try taking a plastic drinking straw and buckling it by folding it over and then pushing down on the bent straw with your hand. The crimped straw provides almost no resistance to vertical forces, and neither did the buckled columns of WTC 7.) The third stage described by NIST, which lasted 1.4 seconds, was again less-than-free fall, as the structure fell another 130 feet as it impacted more non-buckled structures toward the bottom of the building (NIST 2010).”

“The other half of the equation is that WTC 7 resembles a “classic controlled demolition” because it supposedly “imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint” (Gage 2011). In actuality, it twisted and tilted over to one side as it fell, and parts of the building severely damaged two neighboring buildings (the Verizon and Fiterman Hall structures). When challenged with the obvious fact that Tower 7 spilled far outside its footprint, however, Truthers will often change their tune and start saying that any resemblance to a natural collapse is part of the cover-up.”

1900. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

Well no, MJ. You can find the videos of NIST admitting it, and it’s right there in their report. I can’t vouch for everything Chandler has said or done — like everybody else sometimes he probably hits some home runs and sometimes he probably lets the ball roll between the legs — but he got them to change their story on this.

1901. boborci - September 19, 2012

1878 said “nothing anyone says could convince me of that…”

Then you are useless in this discussion. I am open to any evidence that proves something one way or the other. You are saying you have made up your mind regardless of any evidence that might be presented. Like NIST, you have decided there were no explosives without even looking for them. Like Galileo’s destractos, you refuse to look in the telescope because you know telescopes are impossible. Until you say, “Okay, I am willing to consider evidence that conflicts with my theory” you are going to be ignored, on this subject, by this particular bob orci.

1902. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1899: “(Try taking a plastic drinking straw and buckling it by folding it over and then pushing down on the bent straw with your hand. The crimped straw provides almost no resistance to vertical forces, and neither did the buckled columns of WTC 7.)”

Post the link, MJ. I’m trying to understand what this guy is saying and it doesn’t make sense. He isn’t making it clear how the buckled columns are similar to the straw example. If I do that to a straw, sure, but the building wasn’t bent sideways, it was vertical, and that example doesn’t explain how the two are similar at all. It would be more like if you had 58 straws standing vertically and pinched in the middle and you tried pushing down on all of them at the same time.

That would be a better example, and it would create resistance.

1903. K-7 - September 19, 2012

Orci, you just completely and unilaterally changed the context and meaning of what Red Shirt said. You just claimed Red Shirt said:

“1878 said “nothing anyone says could convince me of that…” ”

But Orci, Red Shirt actually said:

“Sorry, but nothing anyone has posted here would convince me of that.”

There is big difference here. You are trying to claim that this poster would never be open to any evidence, when all they said was that they had not seen any evidence posted here to date (i.e. past tense) which had convinced them.

That is an unfair shot to take, and makes one even more suspicious of your conspiracy theory debating tactics here than many of us were already.

1904. MJ - September 19, 2012


1905. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1899: ““The other half of the equation is that WTC 7 resembles a “classic controlled demolition” because it supposedly “imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint” (Gage 2011). In actuality, it twisted and tilted over to one side as it fell, and parts of the building severely damaged two neighboring buildings (the Verizon and Fiterman Hall structures). When challenged with the obvious fact that Tower 7 spilled far outside its footprint, however, Truthers will often change their tune and start saying that any resemblance to a natural collapse is part of the cover-up.”

This is where I yield to the experience of demolition experts. I am not one. But if an expert demolition guy looks at that and says it looks like one to him, I can’t refute him because I don’t have his experience watching buildings implode for 10 or 20 years.

I do know they don’t generally allow people to stand across the street from an imploding building, so it can’t be that safe to be next to one, in which case there must be a danger that professionally imploded buildings will not always land neatly directly into their own footprints.

1906. dmduncan - September 19, 2012

1904. MJ – September 19, 2012

Thanks. I’ll have a look tomorrow.

1907. MJ - September 19, 2012

Well, I think that a reasonable case can and has been made that it was not controlled demolition. Everyone is of course free to draw their own conclusions and rely on contrary opinions and evidence. I am not claiming certainty here by any means.

But for Bob to insist that the starting point for us discussing this is that it was a controlled demolition? No, I see too much evidence to not be able to buy into that as a ground-rule for continued discussion.

1908. boborci - September 19, 2012


Let’s take your 2 criticisms one at a time:

1.) Your generalization that us conspiracy theorists cherry pick even from official reports in some sort of tricky way.

first, you’ve ignored what I have alreadt said above, which is that even the official theory is a CONSPIRACY. So despite over a 1000 posts, you continue to be confused by the word.

You are also misinterpreating by debate tactic. I said clearly I don’t buy official report. So help me out here. You are attacking me based on my response to the post where someone says they believe the official story because they know that diesel fuel brought down wtc 7. But then you look at the official report (NIST) and it doesn’t say that. Rather, this person is citing an article written a decade before called “Experst suspect Diesel Fuel played a part in wtc 7 collapse.” It’s not a study, it’s not official, yet it is being presented as a fact some sort of universally agreed upon fact. So what am I supposed to argue against? An unsubstantiated theory in an article that claims nothing more than a theory, or the official report which does not agree with the decade old article which is merely citing suspicions? Do I not have a right to ask poster to clarify if they beleive the official theory or their own “official” theory.” What point of view am I supposed to be arguing against here? Is every dummy’s misconception of the official theory something I have to disporve even when they have no evidence. Even when the official report contradicts them? And in what way is it intellectually dishonest to tell someone, “you think you are defending the official theory, but you aren’t even doing that?” There is ONE official theory that I am arguing against, and only one official theory because there is only ONE OFFICIAL THEORY. If some idiot says they don’t believe my paranoid theories because they KNOW Saddam Hussein was behind 911, in what way is it intellectually dishonest for me to say, “there is no evidence for that, and that is not the official theory anyway.”

If you are going to defend the official story, then LEARN THE OFFICIAL STORY.

1909. boborci - September 19, 2012

2, I just ask questions in return. I guess you should cite some. I said above poster asking about Bin laden was not me. I guess I can’t blame you for being confused. On the other hand, some Bob Orci or another has answered directly all your posts. And even if that weren’t the case, answering a question with a question is calle the Socratic method — a famous method of achieving wisdom. If that is ALL someone was doing, you might have a case. And finally on this point, questions point out that the 911 report has very few answers. And finally, you accuse me of not dodges though you ask for neocon motive. i PROVE they have motive through main stream media sources and you still have nothing to say. You dodge by accusing me with generalizations,

Crow doesn’t taste so bad,

1910. boborci - September 19, 2012

1885 So lame to have to repeat myself, but this is how much I care about you:

NIST logically proven to be unscientific for many reasons:

1. They won’t open their models to peer review. This is one of the BASISC of the scientific method, and they didn’t follow it.

2. they did not look for evidence of explosives. therefore, they were never ruled out despite MO of suspsects (ALQ had only ever used bombs, once on the WTC itlself) and dozens of witnesses, fbi officials on the news, callers from the planes all reporting bombs and explosions.

3. the above two points alone disount NIST as a serious organization. But there’s more: they claim the collapse of wtc 7 is result of fire only, though no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed as the result of fire alone, because they have discovered a never before seen thing called “thermal expansion,” That is why 1700 arhitects and engineers have risked their careers to argue against NIST report (linked above).

could go on and on

4. John Kerry says demo.

5. Owner says pull it.

1911. boborci - September 19, 2012

forgot most important point, MJ:

1700 experts KNOW and can explain to you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a building to collapse symmetriocally at free fall speed as the result of fire and gravity alone because the fire and gravity would have to SIMULTANEOUSLY remove all 47 perimeter columns of building 7. That is called PHYSICS. You can’t argue with the laws of nature, and Bin Laden, bad as was, is not capapble of violating the laws of physics.

1912. boborci - September 19, 2012

and everything dmduncan said.

1913. Harry Ballz - September 19, 2012


He can if he never existed!

1914. MJ - September 19, 2012

OK, thanks Bob, and goodnight from me. Tomorrow, I’d like to talk about what I think is in fact a huge conspiracy — global warming science and modeling.

1915. boborci - September 19, 2012

no one has even come close to disputing neocon motiveproved by Dm duncan with his link to PNAC report.

1916. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 19, 2012

“boborci – September 19, 2012
1843. Ignored your question cuz not about the debate we r having re 911 wtc 7.”

So this is your excuse for not answering my questions. Anyone coming here right now would be hard pushed to believe that this site is about Star Trek movie(s) or that this actual thread was to do with the title of the next Star Trek movie currently in post-production. However, look up, people – the title of this thread is Exclusive Star Trek Sequel Title Confirmed!

Therefore, boborci or whoever you are, your debate is no more RELEVANT than a debate on which kind of bbq grill is better – “charcoal or gas, anyone?” and what’s more, it has gone on far too long.

My questions, though, do have something to do with asking how a writer sees and/or hopes for from an audience and what effect some material written into a movie might have on said audience. If you are indeed the writer of this movie, some answers should be forthcoming, even if not well thought out. 9/11 has been and gone, however there is still a movie to finish.

I see that a post of mine was deleted – I guess it was because I swore…oh dear.

1917. Harry Ballz - September 19, 2012

Hey, Yeah, you betcha! I got big balls!…

1918. boborci - September 19, 2012

1906 If you wanna get techinical, he said nothing anyone has posted WOULD convince me of that, implying the future (as in stuff he hasn’t seen). I suppose we will have to call that a tie. we can also call it another one of your dodges since I wasn’t talking to you. When I am arguing with you, I don’t use other people’s arguments against you to change the subject of the evidence we are debating. I don’t say, ‘You said x to dummy and so you are wrong about the other thing we were debating.”

1919. Jack - September 19, 2012

Really, I am just a lonely man, longing for some man-love.

1920. boborci - September 19, 2012

I promise not to drink too much, lest i gain my *sanity*…

1921. boborci (roseorci) - September 19, 2012

don’t shoot (ban) the messenger!

1922. Harry Ballz - September 19, 2012


Okay, enough is enough. Someone else just posted under my name at 1917.

1923. boborci - September 19, 2012

1919. Rose

you are right. I am not posting about the thread topic. So I will answer your question.

There is actually a school of thought that putting a conspiracy into a movie actually innoculate the public from believing that conspiracy, because anyone who points it out gets the response, “you are just stealing that idea from that dumb movie.”

I have read theories that the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE was actually pitched by a gov insider to publishers and studios to innoculate the public against the very truth of the subject matter. I don’t have any evidence for this, and I don’t know where I fall on this, but it is not a foregone conclusion that putting the “truth” in a movie helps the truth. It may be the opposite.

Interestingly enough, JFK, one of my heroes, would disagree with this. He and his inner circle convinced hollywood to make SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, about a coup on a sitting US president because he thought it might serve as a warning to the American people. Sadly, he was killed a year before it actially came out.

1924. boborci - September 20, 2012

1923and 24 imposters, but i still dont mind.

1925. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 20, 2012

Yes, Harry Ballz. That was me, Rose (Keachick) just to show how easy it is to post under someone else’s username. I don’t know if it was always like this but right now it is and I doubt anyone is very happy about this, except those who want to troll etc. Before we had confidence that the boborci who came here was in fact, Roberto Orci – producer/writer of this set of Star Trek iterations. Now, none of us can be sure…:((

I won’t ask if you if what *you* wrote about a part of your anatomy is true…;)

1926. boborci - September 20, 2012

its mostly been the real me. i have pointed out most fake posts.

1927. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 20, 2012

What has happened on this thread/site is sheer idiocy. This Bob Orci has been rude and belligerent at times. He has cast doubt on himself or the real writer/producer. Added to that, the owner/moderator of this site has not been heard from all through this, although people have noted that some of their posts have been deleted.

I guess it really is a case of “trust no one”. Why? Are we too trusting? Is trust a bad thing that needs to be cynically, sneeringly slammed? What replaces trust? because, as we know “nature abhors a vacuum”.

This site has relied on the goodwill and trust of most of those contributing, whether they be posters like myself or people who put up the various articles or visiting writers, actors like Roberto Orci or Chris Doohan.

Well, thanks to people like Stunkill and whoever this Boborci/boborci is, it’s not quite the same. Well, I hope you are happy. Was it worth it? Really?

What do you reckon, Boborci/boborci?

PS Thank you for your reply to my question. Interesting.

1928. Aurore - September 20, 2012

1926. boborci – September 20, 2012
“its mostly been the real me…..”

Prove it once and for all…..to me, by answering this very simple question.

Who does the man from a famous beer commercial resemble?

( A clue: someone you know said it.).

1929. boborci - September 20, 2012

my last post a response to Rose’s last post.

1930. boborci - September 20, 2012

Aurore. sorry, not following your question or clue.

1931. Aurore - September 20, 2012

1929. boborci – September 20, 2012


1932. Aurore - September 20, 2012

1930. boborci – September 20, 2012
“Aurore. sorry, not following your question or clue.”

The real Roberto Orci should know about what was said ( and by whom ) on a radio show dealing with advertising.

1933. boborci jr - September 20, 2012


you may be mistaking me for my father of the same name who is an advertising pioneer. here is a transcript of an interview with my awesome dad on NPR:


I am technically a “junior” is this what you were referring to?

1934. boborci jr - September 20, 2012

rose at 1927. wrote detailed answer but it seems to have vanished. lets give it a minute and see if it comes back.

1935. Aurore - September 20, 2012

you may be mistaking me for my father of the same name who is an advertising pioneer. here is a transcript of an interview with my awesome dad on NPR”


I made no mistakes .

I said that “someone” , the real Roberto Orci ( you ?) knew had said something regarding a man from a commercial .

I am obviously aware of the fact that that “someone” is his father , but, I was not going to give you too many details either, I mean…. come ON!

In short, I expected a first name. Not a link.


1936. boborci - September 20, 2012


u lost me. if u are asking me to account for something my father said, cant help you. though we share a name, he is technically a different person entirely. and just answer my question, please. i am one guy here playng chess with 20 people at a time (with a lot of help from dmduncan). were u or werent u referring to this article? its okay if u thought it was me. i get it. when I say u may be mistaken, it is not an insult.

1937. boborci - September 20, 2012

or are uecpecting me to memorize everything my father says in orint ir on radio?

1938. boborci - September 20, 2012

last thing for the night.

I don’t mean to jump on you Aurore because I have enjoyed so many of your posts, but you just demonsrtated a bad habit that many of you have demonstrated on this board. Let’s cal it “missing the forest for the trees”

You ask me to prove who I am by asking me weird advertisitng question. I direct you to evidene that you may be thinking of my dad. Instead of saying, “wow, you must be real” you quibble with me and you make it unclear if you believe me merely to deny the non insult that you may be “mistaken.”

Yet you don’t to marvel at the real story: if the boborci you are talkng to is an impostor, he sure went out of his way to learn about boborci’s father, to the degree that he coluld recall a relevant article about beer and advertising in 5 minutes. What are you arguing? What are half of you arguing?

1939. Aurore - September 20, 2012

Mr. “Orci”,

I do not expect Mr. Orci to memorize everything his father say.
Of course not.

It is just that, to me, what Mr. Orci Sr. said was, very personal, and so, I thought that they might have laughed about the “resemblance”, in private.

Thus, I believed that the mention of the words “beer commercial” alone could have been enough for him to answer my question….Only if he had wanted to, evidently.

But, all is well; at this point of the thread, many of my questions have been answered.

1940. boborci - September 20, 2012

1899. CSI?! hilarious! so just have to write Danno on Hawaii 5–0 say what i want, and yiu will change your mind? Thanks for the tip!

1941. boborci - September 20, 2012

1943. still love you, but still dont know what you are actually saying or what you mean, am i the real bob or not?

1942. boborci - September 20, 2012


amazing, right?

1943. The Last Vulcan - September 20, 2012

California Senate Bill 1411

Gawd, fakeboborci I hope you live in California. I’d like to see you wriggle out of 500+ charges of misdemeanor online impersonation. It’s the least that could happen to you for ruining this thread, devaluing this site, and demeaning a great man.

1944. bob - September 20, 2012

last vulcan

great man? you actually made me tear up with that line. and i really really hate to dissapoint you about me. hope you can learn to dig me when u find out the truth. maybe u will cut me a break knowing that i wouldnt say all this risking myself if i didnt care. have always liked your opnions. so sorry to dissapoint you, truly tearing up…

1945. Aurore - September 20, 2012

Correction 1939.

father say = father says

1946. Spiked Canon - September 20, 2012

I think it’s down to one thing. IF you are Bob Orci, why would you come to your fan base and act like an ass. If you aren’t Bob Orci, you’re an ass. So either way, whoever you are, you’re an ass.

1947. Damian - September 20, 2012

1772–Sorry for the late response. Those are all great Hitchcock movies, certainly some of his best. My favorite was always “The Trouble With Harry.” Not one of his most popular films (not surprising for someone who’s favorite Star Trek film is The Motion Picture though). It had all the elements of Hitchcock’s personality. Dark humor, suspense, even some sexual innuendo (a big deal in the 50’s). It also had some of the most beautiful photography and it was Bernard Hermann’s first collaboration with Hitchcock, and he did some of his best musical work in this film.

I’ve seen almost all of Hitchock’s films (outside of a few of his lost silent films from the 20’s). One of the reasons I hold so little respect for the Academy Awards is this director, probably one of the greatest ever, never won an Academy Award for best director. Never. And only one of his films won best picture (Rebecca, 1940). He got some lifetime achievement award later on, but that’s really a bunch of BS.

1948. Borgminister - September 20, 2012

So how’s that ignoring thing going?

1949. Other Guy - September 20, 2012

Bull sheit. Comment deleted.

Yes they blew the building.

Obvious from DM’s posted video.

Ho else can you explain it.

A crack team demolished the building. Explosvs in the corner and base collumns. lok at all the pics of 7 in Google images. There is a good one there from the front that shows the buildings 4 courners. They all looked relatively fine. Certainly not something that was in danger of immediate collapse. IMO.


1950. Other Guy - September 20, 2012


1951. Other Guy - September 20, 2012

Wrong building. But gee, that one took a wollop, too. And no fires?

1952. Other Guy - September 20, 2012


Amazing. This is how a lopsided / damaged building would fall. Toward one side.

1953. Other Guy - September 20, 2012


Yeah. Those two corners look real bad.

1954. Vultan - September 20, 2012


Yes! The Trouble With Harry. Can’t believe I forgot about that one, especially since I just watched it not long ago. One of my favorites, too. John Forsythe is the coolest cat in that. And it’s fun to see Santa Claus without his beard. ;)

I also like the second version of The Man Who Knew Too Much. Doris Day gives the best “panicked mother” performance I’ve ever seen in a movie when she finds out about her son’s kidnapping.

1955. NuFan - September 20, 2012

Who knew Spiked Canon and Last Vulcan were the same guy? Fan base has not earned respect. Too many whiny she-males to respect fan base.

1956. Daoud - September 20, 2012

I can believe that the real boborci is back with us in many of these posts…. as referencing “Seven Days in May”, is unmistakeably the sign of something he is very familiar with.
How many of you have seen it? If you haven’t, you’re missing out.
Welcome back Bob. Oh, and you should really contemplate getting an account set up at TrekBBS. I know Bonnie would be glad to have you over there, plus she provides great Romulan ale.

1957. Damian - September 20, 2012

1954–Hitchcock was definitely at the top of his gain through the 50’s and early 60’s. Between Hitchcock, Burk’s cinematography and Herrman’s music scores through most of that period, it didn’t get any better than that. I also always liked Family Plot, another movie with a lot of dark humor and a very unusual musical score for John Williams.

They certainly don’t make them like they used to. The closest you find today may be Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, Boogie Nights, There Will be Blood, and now the Master). He puts a lot of thought into his movies. However, his movies do not seem to resonate much with today’s American audience, which seems to want explosive, ADHD like action from beginning to end.

M. Night Shyamalan is another with potential, but he lately has gone off the deep end (The Last Airbender certainly being a low point, IMHO). He apparently is working on a sci-fi flick for next year with Will Smith.

1958. Damian - September 20, 2012

1957–You know Romulan ale is illegal.

1959. Vultan - September 20, 2012


Hear, hear. Couldn’t agree more. I’m considering going to see The Master. Looks interesting. I didn’t think I would like There Will Be Blood but I did. Anderson definitely has a, ahem, “unique” approach. Easy to see though how that would be off-putting to the action crowd.

But like Daoud said, if they haven’t seen films like Seven Days in May (or Hitchcock), that’s their misfortune. They’re missing out.

Seven Days is great btw. My only regret is that Lancaster and Douglas didn’t have more screen-time together. The Judas scene was dynamite.

1960. Boborci - September 20, 2012

1952. Other guy

Yup. Thank you.

1961. Aurore - September 20, 2012

“…. were u or werent u referring to this article? its okay if u thought it was me.”

What I was referring to was more like this:


With the photos of the people participating in the segment, there was no way for me to be mistaken.

As I said, many of my questions have been answered.

1962. Vultan - September 20, 2012


“There is actually a school of thought that putting a conspiracy into a movie actually innoculate the public from believing that conspiracy, because anyone who points it out gets the response, “you are just stealing that idea from that dumb movie.”

Bob, does that mean with the death of Nero you guys were prepping the public for the death of Bin Laden? CONSPIRACY! Hollywood’s in on it! Seal Team 6 trained at Paramount!

I keed, I keed, Bob. After all, I am a coincidence theorist. ;)

1963. Vultan - September 20, 2012

Correction: SEAL Team 6

1964. MJ - September 20, 2012

“1899. CSI?! hilarious! so just have to write Danno on Hawaii 5–0 say what i want, and yiu will change your mind? Thanks for the tip!”

Hey, your buddy JJ’s Revolution premeire kicked the living crap out of your Hawaii 5-0 show on Monday night. I know yours was a re-run, but still….what an ass-kicking “the master” delivered to “the student.” ;-)

1965. NuFan - September 20, 2012

I like the term Coincidence Theorist, and I think it is obvious from my time on this site that trekkies are the type who just won’t believe anything they don’t want to believe.

1966. Boborci - September 20, 2012

1964. Yeah. A premiere against a repeat. How will i go on?

1967. Boborci - September 20, 2012

Vultan. Ha! No, we didnt need to
Orep public for death of Bin Laden. Public was already prepped since hed been reported dead a half dozen times before.

1968. Vultan - September 20, 2012


Yep, poor guy couldn’t catch a break. He needed those rumors like he needed a hole in the head—[RIMSHOT]

Okay, okay, I stole that from Letterman.
Still a good joke.


1969. Damian - September 20, 2012

1959–I actually was not going to bother with “There Will Be Blood” until I found out Anderson was directing. It ended up being a pretty good movie. Daniel Day Lewis (I think I spelled that right) is a great actor. “The Master” should be interesting. He denies it, but it’s supposed to parallel Scientology’s creation.

I’m hoping Shyamalan gets back on track. He has a knack for suspense, foreshadowing and symbolism, he just needs to get a good story out. “The Happening” had promise, but the premise was a bit ridiculous. The potential is there for a great director, though.

1964–Revolution wasn’t bad. The only thing is, I kept thinking the premise would make a good movie, I just don’t know how they will stretch it into an entire series (however long it lasts). I am looking forward to the return of “Person of Interest” that Abrams is involved with.

1970. Damian - September 20, 2012

ARGGGHHH, the numbers are still jumbled.

My response was to 1960 (Vultan).

1971. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

Hey, Aurore seems to remember everything everyone ever said on this site, so she might mistakenly believe we all have that talent.


1972. Aurore - September 20, 2012

“….Aurore seems to remember everything everyone ever said on this site, so she might mistakenly believe we all have that talent.”

She does.

Nobody’s perfect.


1973. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

We must also remember that WTC7 DID sustain damage from the fall of the north tower which damaged some of the structure and caused fires. So if there was demolition, there was ALSO non demolition secondary damage to the structure caused by the north tower.

So to mark the start of the buildings collapse you can’t use any of the local failures we see — i.e., the penthouse collapse OR the falling left shoulder, to mark the start point of the ENTIRE building’s collapse, which is apparent in multiple videos from multiple angles.

To take NIST’s methodology to an extreme example to point out the absurdity of what they did, let’s imagine that at some point long before the entire building started to move downward, a window fell out somewhere near the roofline, and I decided to use that as the “official” mark when the building started to collapse. Well under those parameters, depending on when the window fell out, I could make a case that the building fell at 300% slower than free fall! 500% slower than freefall! 1000% slower!

With their 40% slower remark while admitting freefall they ARE trying to have it both ways and to avoid the tough questions about how it got to be in freefall. And if you look at the “factsheet” they provided, that question doesn’t get answered.

I think they are just hoping most people will glance over everything and assume that NIST knows what it is talking about.

The NIST investigation was begun because the collapse of #7 was bizarre, and we needed an explanation. The one NIST gave us, however, closes the book on the subject without answering some very important questions which their own report raises!

If that were their response to an opponent in a persuasion dialogue, I would call their premature closing of the book on the subject a fallacious tactic that concedes victory to their opponent.

1974. Damian - September 20, 2012

1972–My wife is perfect (at least she thinks she is :))

1975. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

1942. boborci – September 20, 2012


amazing, right?


Indeed, sir! Will give a lengthier response later.

1976. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 20, 2012

Wow. Star Trek writer’s father, Roberto Orci, looks good for his age. Presumably he is at least 20 years older than the 39 year Bob Orci…


Read the blurb underneath the youtube video…

1977. Vultan - September 20, 2012


I liked Shymalan’s movies up until The Village (haven’t seen any after that). It had an interesting premise, but the big reveal was about the most anticlimactic thing I’ve ever seen.

He should’ve known; when you promise people monsters, give them monsters. Before that, we got dead people, we got a superhero, we got aliens. Then suddenly he decided all we’d get are… a bunch of people in the woods. Disappointing….

1978. MJ - September 20, 2012

The big problem with Revoulution was just how damn good everybody looked. 15 years after armegeddon and people have great looking hair, nice leather jackets, clothes, make up, etc. ??? Just not believable. They look like soap opera stars. And not to mention that fat guy and the fat kid — you kidding me, 15 years after armageddon everybody should look lead due to short food supplies.

Look the Falling Skies by comparison — those folks look like they were devastated. It comes across so more believable.

1979. K-7 - September 20, 2012

@1976 – Rose

Wow, Dad looks better than son — who looks like he just got off an all-night bender and didn’t care enough to shave. LOL

1980. Damian - September 20, 2012

1977–There were parts of the Village I liked, though, like you, I thought the ending was off kilter (though interestingly, he did foreshadow the end at the beginning, the answer was always there). “Lady in the Water”, well, what can I say. The only thing I liked there was just the unusual way he makes films was still present there. Again, “The Happening” I thought built good suspense, but the premise behind it was simply ridiculous. “The Last Airbender” had nothing going for me. I’m not into fantasy films of that sort and I only saw it because of Shyamalan, and my misguided thinking that the next film will finally see him back.

But his next film coming out next year with Will Smith may hold promise. Supposedly it takes place on a future Earth that is devestated and he has to look for his son on this desolate wasteland. We’ll see.

BTW. apparently Anderson is starting work in his next film, based on the novel “Inherent Vice”. Hopefully we won’t have to wait years for the next film.

1981. Damian - September 20, 2012

1979 (MJ) Revolution did require our good friend suspension of belief. But so did Star Trek (2009) with the rapid fire promotions, so I’m familiar with it.

I couldn’t help thinking of the movie “The Postman” when watching it though. The militias and the leader of the militia reminded me of the similar militia in “The Postman”.

1982. Damian - September 20, 2012

Not Slamming Star Trek (2009) BTW. Just a fact of life with movies. And, of course, there were plenty of Star Trek films and shows that required suspension of belief.

1983. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 20, 2012

Perhaps that’s where Ang Lee was going with his version of the Hulk.

I would imagine that professional movie makers would like to see an upgrade in the longevity of a movie. So that its not stale.

Perhaps that’s why he was using those floating frames. It makes it interesting to see again. But I would still prefer an emphasis on story.
Even with the new Trek. 09 had a good run, but it missed at being a truly epic motion picture. It was the story. Not enough there.

1984. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 20, 2012

Where is that sequel to “Bread and Circus’?”

1985. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 20, 2012

@ boborci – I do hope that you are the Roberto Orci, one of the producers/writers of Star Trek. Anyway, please repost your reply to my queries about trust et al. I do think these are important issues, at least to me.

1986. Vultan - September 20, 2012

Hulk: “You don’t want to see me when I’m Ang Lee!”

On the subject of new TV shows, I didn’t catch Revolution, but I am looking forward to Last Resort, the “submarine show” on ABC. Looks like it may be good, maybe not. Seems to be going for a conspiracy angle of some kind. Surprised it hasn’t been mentioned here yet.

It has Andre Braugher as the captain. That’s a plus in my book. He’s a solid, likable actor.

We’ll see….

1987. Phil - September 20, 2012

@1986. Just looking up the bio on Last Resort. That has the potential to turn into a really cheesy rip-off of Lost really fast….that, and my kid serves on a sub in the Navy. That’s a hellva lot of disbelief to suspend, even on this thread… :-)

1988. Phil - September 20, 2012

@1984. Donuts and Carnivals, coming to a TV near you….

1989. Phil - September 20, 2012

@1978. The fat guys were cannibals.

1990. Red Shirt Diaries - September 20, 2012

Keachick and K-7,

Yea Orci Senior looks great, while Jr. is looking a bit like Belushi from Animal House. Kind of like the reverse of the concept in Adam Sandler’s “That’s My Boy”

Bob, perhaps think about mixing in a shave, shower and haircut next time you go in front of Dad the public?


1991. boborci - September 20, 2012

1990. Will do!

1992. Red Shirt Diaries - September 20, 2012

Seriously Bob, your dad looks great!

1993. MJ - September 20, 2012

Bob, I’m confused. I thought I remember reading somewhere that your dad was a diplomat based in Mexico, who had left Cuba under U.S. protection at the time of the revolution?

1994. MJ - September 20, 2012

Also, I’d be curious to hear where your dad stands on all of your conspiracy theories? Did you get that from him, or is more conservative?

1995. MJ - September 20, 2012

“Where is that sequel to “Bread and Circus’?” ”

Had it for lunch today at Panera for $12.95.

1996. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 20, 2012

Hhmma-ha ha! : ) funny.

Must be in a big city. Expensive lunch.


Star Trek Into Darkness

Why not…

“STAR TREK in to darkness” ?

The promos could be dramatic with those simple words.


“Star Trek Into Darkness” sounds a bit like saying you’re “into it.” Like, neato.
I guess they wanted STID as the flashy abreviation.

1997. boborci - September 20, 2012

Anyone can post under this name though can’t they?

1998. Roberto Orci Senior - September 20, 2012

I’m a proud papa! Little Bobbie has become a very successful Hollywood producer and writer and has done our family proud.

1999. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

1979. K-7 – September 20, 2012

@1976 – Rose

Wow, Dad looks better than son — who looks like he just got off an all-night bender and didn’t care enough to shave. LOL



Cool intro in that video, Bob. You’re awesome, dude.

2000. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 20, 2012

C’mon, chaps. The HONOR system.

2001. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

Correction. I was imprecise.

National Geo used modus tollens, Cole proved by modus ponens; crucial first premise is the same in both:

If thermites can cut steel, then demolition theory has merit.
Thermites can cut steel.
Therefore, demolition theory has merit.

2002. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

On my screen I no longer see my post on CSICOP, so now I’m the victim of quirky site behavior. Does anyone else see it? It’s fairly long.

2003. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

Weird. There it is again. Nevermind.

2004. boborci - September 20, 2012

Yes fake Bob Orci…..anyone can use this name!

2005. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2012

There can be no honor without a system. There can, however, be a system with no honor.

2006. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

And it’s gone again.

2007. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

And it’s back again.

2008. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2012

This site is located near an interphasic rift, where another universe converges with our own. Not only do some of our posts frequently appear and disappear, but so does Anthony and staff.

Too bad Anthony doesn’t have a secret message recording for us advising us on what to do should he disappear.

2009. A. Pascale. - September 20, 2012

Bob Orci, MJ,

Since you are reading this post, we will assume that I am dead, that the tactical situation is critical, and all of you are locked in internet combat. It means, Orci, that you have control of the web site and are probably making the most difficult decisions of your career. I can offer only one small piece of advice, for whatever it’s worth. Use every scrap of knowledge and logic you have to save the website. But temper your judgment with intuitive insight. I believe you have those qualities, but if you can’t find them in yourself, seek out MJ. Ask his advice. And if you find it sound, take it. MJ, you’ve heard what I’ve just told Orci. Help him if you can. But remember he is the Webmaster. His decisions must be followed without question. You might find that he is capable of human insight and human error. They are most difficult to defend, but you will find that he is deserving of the same loyalty and confidence each of you have given me. Take care.

2010. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

I think it’s gone permanently this time. I will repost if it stays permanently gone. I backup what I write!

2011. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2012


Ah, you found it! LOL!

2012. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

LOL. It’s back on my screen again.

2013. MJ - September 20, 2012

DM, no, I can’t see your post you are referring to. Same thing was happening to me last night.

2014. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

“The site canae handle this many posts cap’n! She’s falling apart!”

2015. MJ - September 20, 2012

@2018. “Fly her apart then”

2016. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2012


2017. Phil - September 20, 2012

Water can cut steel, too, when properly used. Did anyone test the WTC site for water, damn it?

2018. Hugh Hoyland - September 20, 2012

Is this going to be the longest thread EVER on Trekmovie.com?

2019. Phil - September 20, 2012

@2018. It’s getting close, need about 450 more posts. Assuming all the troll posts are not deleted, of course.

2020. Hugh Hoyland - September 20, 2012


Well I say we keep at it and set the record lol.

2021. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2012

#s 2019 + 2020.

Judging by Anthony’s continued absence, and lack of Trek news, we should not only break the record, but smash it. I think we could easily get 3000+ comments.

2022. t'cal - September 20, 2012

I refuse to be a party to this!


2023. Phil - September 20, 2012

Suggesting the WTC site be tested for water ought to be good for a couple hundred posts from fakeBob all by itself.

2024. Phil - September 20, 2012

2022. Too late!!! hahahahahaahhahhahhahahaahahahaaaa

2025. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

Ok. About the CSICOP link. I’ll cover it in 2 parts:


CSICOP very frequently writes articles that attempt to disperse crowds from around any given anomaly propagated by the media, i.e., ghosts, UFOs, Roswell, etc., using bad arguments and faulty information.

As an example, consider the thermite debate which the CSICOP article touches on. Among other things they say this:

“Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to show how nanothermite can slice through a large steel beam. The experiment was a total failure—even in the optimum (horizontal) configuration, the layer of nanothermite produced lots of flame and smoke but no actual damage to the massive I-beam tested.”

And if you go to any number of 911 “debunking” sites you will find the same claims that thermite, nanothermite — whatever — cannot cut through steel, at least not without absurdly huge quantities that would prove impossible to use.

Enter Jon Cole.

Here are Jon Cole’s experiments again:


Now, the National Geographic piece cited in the video claims, as the voice of expert opinion, that IF nanothermite CAN cut steel, THEN the demolition theory has merit. But they could not cut steel in that piece. Therefore the demolition theory has no merit.

So National Geographic made a modus tollens argument. If A, then B. Not B, therefore not A.

Regarding the Cole video, Jon Cole could not get thermite, but he did concoct thermate as a substitute. Long story short: If thermate could cut through steel, then so could thermite.

Jon Cole then went on to prove that thermate could do exactly what CSICOP and others say can’t be done. True, if you just lay the powder on the beam and ignite it, it won’t work. But Cole realized that if you placed the thermate in a shell and attached it to a beam, the shell would focus the heat enough to cut through the steel, and that this would work with even small amounts of thermate — not the huge quantities the skeptics say would be necessary to do any damage.

So that part is settled. Yes, thermate/thermite can cut through the steel enough to severely weaken the structure and aid in its collapse.

So if we are still following National Geographic’s modus tollens argument, then Cole’s experiments mean the demolition theory DOES have merit.

But notice that the video of Cole’s experiments were uploaded in December of 2010, and the CSICOP piece came out in July/August of 2011! 7 months later, and they are still propagating a fallacy about what thermate/thermite can do.

CSICOP does that a lot about any phenomenon they find troublesome.

2026. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

Hopefully it will stick this time. My one correction at 2002 should come after, but since my original post disappeared, it now comes before, where it does not make any sense way up there.

2027. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

Ha! Post # 2 already gone!

2028. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

Now it’s back. Here we go again. Whatever, Trekmovie. Whatever.

2029. Other Guy - September 20, 2012

2017. Phil


2030. Daoud - September 20, 2012

I had a post from earlier tonight around 2000 that has now disappeared. Someone’s really messing this place up.

2031. Other Guy - September 20, 2012

I read it, DM.


CSICOP = bad

2032. Other Guy - September 20, 2012

I think after 30 days comments become disabled for each article.

Time is ticking.

2033. Roberto Orci Senior - September 20, 2012

All of this conspiracy talk brings back fond family memories of Bobby as a child. Even at the earliest years, he was coming up with conspiracies. I remember at the tender age of three, when he established his first conspiracy.

Back in those days, we had bottled milk delivered to our house in Mexico city daily. Bobby was always mystified about where exactly the milk came from. So one day, Bobby is missing from our home, and my wife is going crazy looking for him. We then received a call from a guy from a farm down the road that Bobby has been found.

When we go to pick him up, little Bobby has this huge smile on this face. He then says to me: “Papa, do you know that people have been secretly taking milk from cows and then bottling it, and then making secret deliveries of the milk all across town in the middle of the night!”

That started an interest of Bobby’s in conspiracies that my wife and I continued to nurture through his formative years.

2034. dmduncan - September 20, 2012

For those of you who think GMO foods are harmless and don’t care that the people you vote for take bribes to defeat legislation to label foods as GMO, this may come as a shock:


2035. Harry Ballz - September 20, 2012

2033. Roberto Orci Senior “secret deliveries of the milk”

Talk about milking a conspiracy!! I promise not to udder a word!

Hey, don’t have a cow, man!

2036. K-7 - September 20, 2012

OMG, this phasing thing is happenning now for me as well. One minute, I see three repeated posts, and the next they are gone. Is anyone seeing my posts above on thermate versus thermite?

2037. K-7 - September 20, 2012

Well then, here is the short version — hopefully this gets through. I have added some letters on works that might be restricted.

“Long story short: If thermate could cut through steel, then so could thermite.”

That is incorrect. Thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite, and that is why it has militaryx applications and is a restrictedz material. Thermate can actually cut through tankz armorx for example, while ordinary thermite can’t come close to doing that.

So your basis for knocking down the CSIx group falls apart based on this simple fact.

2038. K-7 - September 20, 2012

“on words that might be restricted”

damn typos

2039. K-7 - September 20, 2012

#2034. What kind of Control Group were they using in that study…how do healthy rats in a control group get cancers similar to the test group in 13 months? Sounds like the lab itself was toxic is the more likely explanation. An unexposed rat population doesn’t get cancer in 13 months? wtf? That has got to the worst lab I have ever heard of.

2040. Harry Ballz - September 20, 2012

EAT ME!!!!!


2041. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 20, 2012

I think this may be an Orci/Pascale conspiracy against the roudy, bored trekmovie regulars….hmmm

2042. boborci - September 20, 2012

2033. LOL!

2043. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 20, 2012

#2042 – So Bobby, was Daddy telling the truth?

2044. boborci - September 21, 2012

2043 Rose


2045. Aurore - September 21, 2012

“You ask me to prove who I am by asking me weird advertisitng question. I direct you to evidene that you may be thinking of my dad. Instead of saying, “wow, you must be real” you quibble with me and you make it unclear if you believe me merely to deny the non insult that you may be ‘mistaken.'”


….Still no apologies for mistakenly believing that I was “mistaken” about the two Robertos?

This time, all my questions have been answered…..


P.S. : If I had been mistaken, admitting it would not have been a big deal for me; I’ve done it several times before, on this site….And….I do it in “real life”, as well.


2046. Hugh Hoyland - September 21, 2012

I wonder how many times this board has been peeped at by DHS with so many people typing so many “watch words” in it lol.

(Waving at the snoop “Hi :])

2047. Phil - September 21, 2012

2032. Nope.

2048. Phil - September 21, 2012

@2046. If the fine work of TSA is representative of DHS, probably none.

2049. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 21, 2012

2009. A. Pascale.

Priceless. Thanks, that was funny.

2050. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 21, 2012

2033. Roberto Orci Senior

That had to be Aurore. Good burn. But still accurate.

: 0

; )

: )

2051. Aurore - September 21, 2012

2050. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 21, 2012
2033. Roberto Orci Senior

That had to be Aurore. Good burn. But still accurate.

: 0

; )

: )


When the moderators get back, I hope they ‘ll look into this thread, very closely, in order to determine who said what .

I don’t impersonate people, TrekMadeMeWonder (?).

Not on any thread. Not even “infected” ones.

But, thank you very much for your consideration.

2052. Bob Horsey - September 21, 2012

I’m the real Bob Horsey

2053. Roberto Orci Senior - September 21, 2012

At the risk of embarrassing my son, his repeated reading in 1981 of Lattimer’s, “Lincoln and Kennedy: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations,” played a major role in stopping his bed childhood wetting problem.

2054. dmduncan - September 21, 2012

2037: “So your basis for knocking down the CSIx group falls apart based on this simple fact.”

Too hasty, Picky Pete.

The 911 skeptics actually claim thermate or nano-thermite is what did the job, but nano-thermite often gets shortened in discussion to just thermite.

So the score is unchanged. Same problem. And if you want I can also now accuse the CSICOP piece for a straw man for ignoring the irrefutable case Jon Cole made that it is possible. Something CSICOP too often does. They take weak cases, or misrepresented cases, knock them down, and then have you believe the weak examples are representative of ALL the examples, so the reader can go back to sleep assured that his world-view is still supreme and that nothing really exists to challenge it.

And hey, feel free to eat all the Monsanto generated GMO corn you want. People ought to have the right to make that decision, which is why foods should be labeled. I hear France is having quite the reaction to that study.

A for me, I’m going to do my best to stop using the industrial food supply.

2055. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 21, 2012

#2053 – At first, I thought that this was another of these nonsense posts written by yet another imposter. However, maybe not, since I am myself often confronted by a parent who seems to take delight in deliberately embarrassing, making fun of her offspring in front of other family and strangers, especially when it comes to anything Star Trek. She can’t recall my bedwetting because I was one of those fortunate children who never had that problem, but it does seem that other older relatives appear to take delight in recounting embarrassing stories about a person’s childhood…

@Roberto Orci Senior – Perhaps you might have some insight into why this appears to be a fairly common practice among parents and older relatives.

2056. Rose (as in Keachick) - September 21, 2012

For the record, I have been honest about who I have “impersonated” on this board. The last comment by “Jack” was mine as well. I did it to prove a point. I have no reason nor desire to pretend to be anyone else posting here. I am just myself – Rose(mary) who also goes by the name of Keachick, because the actual kea birds (found only in NZ) fascinate me.

2057. Bill Lutz - September 21, 2012

its a better title than
STAR TREK: The Klingons Strike Back…..
(Still won’t go and see it though…)

2058. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 21, 2012

So smart, Bill.

2059. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 21, 2012

And Funny!

2060. dmduncan - September 21, 2012

When Anthony gets back and bans all the site regulars for sockpuppeting phony papa Orci & Son, It’s just going to be me left here staring across the “room” at Aurore.

2061. MJ - September 21, 2012

The is so little to talk about now that even fake orci, “Boborci,” has checked out.

2062. boborci's cat - September 21, 2012

meow meow meow meow meow WTC7 BOOM! meow meoe meow meow

2063. MJ - September 21, 2012

@2062. Case in point. Now we just need Harry Ballz to make the logical sex pun based on the Bob Orci’s “cat ” post. LOL

2064. Phil - September 21, 2012

Well, Nichele Nichols was at LAX today to welcome Endeavour today, which was the good news. The bad news was she could not stop slobbering all over Antonio Villaraigosa, the clown who is single handedly responsible for bankrupting LA….

2065. dmduncan - September 21, 2012

I’m calling for MONGO to post a TREKMOVIE CLASSIFIED AD.

2066. dmduncan - September 21, 2012

2066. Phil – September 21, 2012

Well, Nichele Nichols was at LAX today to welcome Endeavour today, which was the good news. The bad news was she could not stop slobbering all over Antonio Villaraigosa, the clown who is single handedly responsible for bankrupting LA….


Singlehandedly? Come on. There HAS to be a way to blame it on republicans.

2067. Red Dead Ryan - September 21, 2012



…..you’ll have to excuse me, I’ve been drinking a lot of Coke!


As you were. Carry on!

2068. boborci - September 21, 2012

5 reasons conspiracy theorists are more popular than you think.


2069. Phil - September 21, 2012

@2066. Yep, singlehandedly. To show you how worthless Republicans are here in CA, the Dem’s here tend to blame the private sector for all the states problems before they blame Republicans. One of these days some poor slob is going to be identified as the last living taxpayor in this state. Sacramento will probably cut this guy up and sell him for parts to ensure he pays his fair share….whatever the hell that means.

2070. dmduncan - September 21, 2012

A team of people who put the big picture together and then PROPAGATE it throughout the culture. Transparency instead of opacity. Light instead of dark.

You’d need one hell of a white board.

2071. Trekmovie Classifieds - September 21, 2012

WEBSITE. Used. Needs some TLC.
Some trolls here and there. Aftermarket
Orci parts. Comes loaded with opinions.
Call Anthony @ 555-TRK-MVIE

2072. Roberto Orci Senior - September 21, 2012

Son, yes, it gives me a chuckle to see you bring that up. Remember in high school, how you were so shy even into your Sophomore year. But then, you deduced the Iran-Contra conspiracy two years before it even hit the major media outlets, and presented your findings to your political science class, which caused a major uproar in class, but which caught the eye of that cute girl — can’t recall here name — that broke the ice for your socially. That became a watershed personal event for you that led to your becoming class president your Senior Year with you and your friends labeling yourselves “The Grassy Knoll Ticket.”

Ah, the memories!

2073. Roberto Orci Senior - September 21, 2012

“Roberto Orci Senior – Perhaps you might have some insight into why this appears to be a fairly common practice among parents and older relatives.”

Rose, my darling, speaking for myself it is only through the pride that I have in my son Bobby that I get some minor pleasure out of teasing him now and then. And some of my teasing has actually made it into his work. I remember, with him being such a huge Star Wars fan, that I thought he was playing a practical joke on me when he told me that he got the job to right the script for Star Trek. My response to him was, “yea right, I can see it now, you will probably have Lt. Vader reporting to the U.S.S Hood, eh son?”

Rose, I am sure your parents are teasing you out of love and pride as well. Allow them their amusement, Rose, as there is no harm in it at all.

2074. Harry Ballz - September 21, 2012

2063. MJ “we just need Harry Ballz to make the logical sex pun”

MJ, you wouldn’t want me to be a PUSSY and wimp out, would you?

Q: what do you get when you pour a pint of vodka down a cat’s throat?

A: a tight pussy!

2075. K-7 - September 21, 2012

Duncan: “And hey, feel free to eat all the Monsanto generated GMO corn you want. People ought to have the right to make that decision, which is why foods should be labeled. I hear France is having quite the reaction to that study.”

Your really need to get your facts straight:


Some selected quotes:

“Such flagrantly flawed, irrelevant experiments will never make inroads in the scientific community, but their existence is important nevertheless because their spurious findings are picked up and repeated again and again by anti-biotechnology activists.”

“Séralini’s claim that in his experiments the cultured cells were exposed to agriculturally relevant doses of Roundup, a brand name of the ubiquitous herbicide glyphosate, is disingenuous. The food products produced from widely cultivated, herbicide–tolerant, genetically engineered soybeans and corn contain only minute amounts of Roundup that are several orders of magnitude lower than those used by Séralini in his experiments. Roundup itself is about as toxic as baking soda. Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that Bt protein actually protected exposed cells from damage by Roundup. But of course in the real world isolated cells would never be exposed to either substance.”

“Fourth, Séralini’s results are trumped by the well-known findings from actual animal feeding experiments: Bt proteins do not harm animals at doses a million times higher than humans would encounter in their diets. Numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles have established that Bt proteins are non-toxic to animals or humans. Bt proteins have narrow biological specificity and affect only a few species of closely related insects but have no effect on other insects or higher organisms. These facts alone make Séralini’s experiment irrelevant.”

2076. boborci - September 22, 2012

2075 k-7

your defense of war criminals and corporations is so courageous. hats off to you. world is a better place thanks to you.

2077. Aurore - September 22, 2012

….Fake Roberto Orcis or not, if this thread was really about “performance art” for some, for me, it was extremely informative…..on many levels.

2078. boborci - September 22, 2012

2081. me, too ..learned a lot.

2079. captainkirk - September 22, 2012

I asked this on another thread but didn’t get a reply. Assuming this is the real boborci, is the villain of Star Trek Into Darkness a character that appeared in one of the first six Trek movies?

2080. Phil - September 22, 2012

@2080. Well, it’s the fakeBob, so he doesn’t know. And the real Bob wouldn’t tell under threat of death from JJ, because of the first six Trek movies (or all of them, actually) the only villian of note