Will Star Wars Episode VII announcement hurt Star Trek Into Darkness marketing rollout? | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Will Star Wars Episode VII announcement hurt Star Trek Into Darkness marketing rollout? November 2, 2012

by Joseph Dickerson , Filed under: Editorial,Marketing/Promotion,Sci-Fi , trackback

Disney announced on Monday its purchase of Lucasfilm, and with Lucasfilm comes Star Wars. Disney’s also said that a new Star Wars trilogy will be made. This is interesting timing for science fiction, when new Star Wars movies are being made alongside new Trek. What does this latest announcement mean for the upcoming Star Trek Into Darkness film? Op-ed guy Joe Dickerson takes a look at the merger in this latest editorial. Hit the jump for the story.

Timing is everything.

As you have probably noticed there is not a lot of news about Star Trek Into Darkness out there… Intentionally so, because JJ Abrams has always been agressively secretive about his movie and TV projects. The most recent news of note was the announcement that Heather Langenkamp (Nancy from the Nightmare on Elm Street movies) will have a role, and that a trailer would be out “this year” (announced by JJ Abrams on this Ain’t it Cool News video):

That’s it. Keeping your cards close to your vest until you are ready to play them is all well and good, except when another science fiction franchise trumps your ace. As all fans with a pulse know by now, Disney announced Monday that they would be buying Lucasfilm and all properties owned by the company… including, of course, Star Wars. Along with that announcement was the announcement of a new Star Wars film, Episode VII, a sequel to the original trilogy. The fan press speculation and buzz went off the charts and is still going strong – it’s hard to find a site on the Internet that ISN’T talking about it.

Here’s the (potential) problem… this Star Wars buzz will fade over time, but it won’t go away completely. The window to promote the new Star Trek movie is about to open (some say it should have opened several months ago, but that’s another discussion). All this Star Wars Episode VII buzz and future news could “suck the oxygen” out of the room, distracting media attention from the new Star Trek movie when it needs it the most.

“No big deal,” some of you may think, “Star Trek is different than Star Wars – they can mutually coexist.” True, and many people (like me) are fans of both franchises, but the fact of the matter is for either a new Star Trek or Star Wars to succeed it has to appeal to casual fans and “normal” people… that’s why studios spend so much marketing their films. Disney has historically started promoting movie projects VERY early (TRON: Legacy, for example, had a teaser trailer two years before release), and with a $4 billion dollar purchase of LucasFilm, they will want to maximize that investment as soon as possible.

Disney CEO Bob Iger with George Lucas as he signs the deal to sell Lucasfilm to Disney

Both franchises can coexist, but in my opinion there’s a real possibility that early coverage and promotion of Episode VII will make people ignore Star Trek Into Darkness… or confuse people (yes, there are people out there who don’t know the difference between the two series). I’d wager that the marketing people at Paramount are concerned about this as well, and (hopefully) are adjusting their marketing plan accordingly.

So, what say you? Do you think that Episode VII buzz will help or hurt the new Star Trek? Let us know in the comments (and please, be somewhat civil to each other, OK?)

Speculation that Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher may return in Episode VII is one of the many rumors already swirling.

Joseph Dickerson is a writer, User Experience Architect (and Star Trek fan) focused on designing effective and innovative on-line and mobile applications. For more from Joseph visit josephdickerson.com or follow him on twitter: @josephdickerson.



1. Nathaniel Hix - November 2, 2012

There’s more than enough room for both Star Trek and Star Wars. This won’t be a problem. Who here won’t be seeing both? Don’t lie!

2. Jeremiah - November 2, 2012

I think it’s too early to say whether the news about SW VII will help or hurt the advertising for the new star trek movie. However, it’s pretty safe to say that a lot of people will hear more about Star Wars (like we haven’t already) because it does seem to get more attention than Star Trek ever has in the media.

3. Jeffery & the Hamstrings - November 2, 2012

Gotta say, the fact a trailer, teaser or poster artwork hasn’t been released yet to be completely baffling.

I’m not a hardcore Trek fan, but just seeing something (other than the 4 frames…..) would be nice…..

4. Remington Steele - November 2, 2012

Thanks for the article!

In before more complaints….

5. Orb of the Emissary - November 2, 2012

Resistance is Futile.

6. Emperor Mike of the Empire - November 2, 2012

J.J needs to get things going and when he does he needs to go on a big time media Blitz and keep the fever pitch up till Star Trek comes out.

7. Emperor Mike of the Empire - November 2, 2012

The Terran Empire will destroy the so called galactic Empire or Republic. They have no chance.

8. Darrell - November 2, 2012

I think the high interest shown for one will boost the other as was the case back in the 80s when the franchises were first flying alongside each other with wild success for both!

9. MAXIMUS - November 2, 2012

J.J. Abrams has always been the wrong guy for Trek. It’s so annoying that he keeps everything such a secret. What’s the big deal? Just release some non spoiler pics and a teaser.

He should learn from Peter Jackson on how to excite fans. Jackson shares what he has and builds up things for the fans.

Now this whole hush hush thing is going to bite Abrams in the butt.

He should let Bryan Singer or Peter Jackson handle Trek. Or better yet, Manny Coto.

Trek 11 was a great star wars movie. Let Abrams do Star Wars movies. He always said he’s more of a star wars kid anyway.

10. Emperor Mike of the Empire - November 2, 2012

In a Ship War. Star Trek Ships will always beat the Star Wars Ships. Lol.

11. Schultz - November 2, 2012

The SW789 hype might just help Star Trek. Science fiction will be on many people’s minds, but they have to wait at least until 2015 for ep7. So they’ll say “let’s go see the new Star Trek instead”.

12. Shannon T. Nutt - November 2, 2012

Someone in the Star Trek universe was once quoted as saying “Star Trek was around long before Star Wars, and it will be around long after.”

When we thought we were just getting six films, that statement had a lot of truth to it…now, however, Star Wars is going to be like the James Bond franchise – no end in sight.

It DOES take a lot of wind out of the Star Trek sails, but I don’t think it will hurt NEXT year’s movie. Actually, it would be really nice to have a Star Trek movie in the years we don’t have a Star Wars one. :)

13. Mirk - November 2, 2012

I hope it is a kick in Abrams ass, because it is a big bullshit, he does not show us anything about the new movie. But I am afraid it will not even touch him anyhow.

14. Picard's Fish - November 2, 2012

Why can’t they make a trailer that doesn’t reveal anything about the plot?

15. @chrisdude - November 2, 2012

Hopefully, Star Trek Into Darkness won’t feel so much like a Star Wars film, and people will think of them separately.

I don’t think it will matter. The movies won’t have to compete for TV ads or other actual promotions. Blog attention could be sucked up by Star Wars, but only fans scour blogs for info.

16. Chain of Command - November 2, 2012

The only thing that has ever harmed the Star Trek movies is Paramount Pictures.

17. JJ's Secret - November 2, 2012

Star Trek is lost to us, folks.. JJ’s lack of confidence in his own film has doomed our beloved franchise. The children of today are growing up with Star Wars, not Trek… The long last impact of that simple fact will doom our beloved world. No TV, no Movies, fewer and fewer books, because JJ doesn’t want to ‘spoil the story’… and makes fun of his own fans on TV.

The battle is lost. Star Wars has won, Star Trek is dead. JJ killed it for all us, keeping everything a secret, and not allowing the fan base to build the incredible momentum that is usually does.

18. Lt. Cmd. Erik Fuller - November 2, 2012

I agree with #2 in that it is WAY to early to determine the fallout of the new against Star Trek. However, I also believe that the two franchises can coexist peacefully and that fans of both or either can look forward to the next 10 years and beyond.

19. Riker's Mailbox - November 2, 2012

Admittedly, I took some guilty pleasure in seeing the Star Trek franchise in such great shape after J.J.’s Star Trek movie, and seeing Star Wars struggling after the prequels. Don’t get me wrong. I love Star Wars. I was just happy to see the Trek franchise rise from the ashes and pull ahead.

This is not a competition though. Star Trek has always been science fiction. Star Wars is fantasy. Though to regular people, both involve space ships, so there will be some dilution of excitement on the Trek side to mainstream audiences.

But there is room for both in my world! Live long and may the force be with you.

20. William Kirk - November 2, 2012

I´ll go to see Ep VII, but not a JJ-Trek movie. Sorry, not a Trek for me…

21. kmart - November 2, 2012


Yeah, it is kind of like the mid 70s, when Paramount’s not knowing what to do with TREK kept them from cashing in on the enormous goodwill and interest created by the series, and let SW steal their thunder at a time when TREK was on bestseller lists with the tech manual and the shuttle was being renamed ENTERPRISE. Difference is that this time the so-called creative is the one who doesn’t know how to do it properly (popularity be damned, TheAbramsThing is less TREK than voyager or even Lil ENTERPRISE.)

Not imagining next space system to be called MILLENNIUM FALCON, are you?

22. THX-1138 - November 2, 2012


4 frames? I only saw 3!! Where is this mysterious 4th frame?! JJ is holding out on us again!!


23. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 2, 2012

Gee, it might hurt Trek, IF Trek had any marketing!

24. Jack - November 2, 2012

“All this Star Wars Episode VII buzz and future news could “suck the oxygen” out of the room, distracting media attention from the new Star Trek movie when it needs it the most.”

So maybe it’s good that these Trek guys haven’t, er, blown their (metaphorical) wads yet and revealed details… There’s still tonnes of anticipation.

And, hey, Spiderman, Batman and Avengers all came out in the same summer. There’s room for both — especially since the Star Wars stuff is, as I understand it, barely in the planning stages.

25. grag - November 2, 2012

I don’t see this as a problem. They’re on completely different cycles. The SW news will still be all rumor and speculation about story, casting, etc. during the the time STID is ramping up for release. Different kinds of news, different kinds of attention.

26. weyoun_9 - November 2, 2012

I think the Star Wars talk can only help the Star Trek buzz…but in ’08 we had something to see with the Quantum of Solace release. Plus posters. Plus some other buzz. We have had nothing and it does feel like if Paramount and the JJ-Team don’t get to the marketing soon, or even let us know the timeline for the release of the first trailer…iIf they don’t do something to create some kind of buzz…their job will continue to get progressively harder with or without Disney’s Star Wars.

27. EPISODE 7!! - November 2, 2012



28. n1701ncc - November 2, 2012

Star Trek is Gene Rod. vision to the future. Star Wars is adventure all its owe. The 2 are totally different and should not be compared

29. Aurore - November 2, 2012

“Both franchises can coexist, but in my opinion there’s a real possibility that early coverage and promotion of Episode VII will make people ignore Star Trek Into Darkness…”

Early coverage and promotion of a movie which does not exist yet?
Isn’t that Episode( VII ) targeted for release in 2015?

I’m sorry, I did not understand that part of the article.

I hear Mr. Abrams is “thrillified” by the announcement. Hopefully, he’s not
(too) intimidated by it; as has already been pointed out, there’s room for both franchises, in my opinion.

30. MJ - November 2, 2012



31. MJ - November 2, 2012

@26 “We have had nothing and it does feel like if Paramount and the JJ-Team don’t get to the marketing soon, or even let us know the timeline for the release of the first trailer…if they don’t do something to create some kind of buzz…their job will continue to get progressively harder with or without Disney’s Star Wars.”

Yep, this huge Star Wars announcement has “caught JJ sleeping” in the middle of his Trek ultra-secrecy approach to STID. He and the studio had better rethink this dumbass approach immediately in light of the Star Wars news, and get a fracking trailer out no later than The Hobbit release.

32. SirMartman - November 2, 2012

This is great news!,,

Nothing like alitlle competition to keep eveyone on their toes!

Darth Vader: What Are You Going to Do Next?


33. Jay - November 2, 2012

I never agreed with JJ’s idea of marketing (waiting until the last possible moment to start marketing – and keep everything a secret). I think it is a bad, bad idea.

I think Disney knows what they are doing and has proven it for years. Early buzz, early promotion and marketing.

I don’t think though, that Star Wars VII news will cause people to ignore STID in May. That movie won’t come out until 2015, so people will certainly go see movies this summer.

I don’t think one really has much effect on the other. If at all. I just think marketing on STID should have started with at least a teaser trailer by now.

34. Dolphinboy - November 2, 2012

I dunno about any1 else, but I think both trek and wars are dead. There was always a clear distinction between the two – as some1 previously stated ‘star trek is science fiction, star wars is fantasy’ but jj and co made trek for the masses, losing the science and heading into fantasy, and I fear that with Disney at the helm of star wars, we will get cute cuddly ewok and jar jar binks movies. I am a huge fan of both franchises, but there will only be six episodes to star wars and nemesis was the last trek movie for me however bad the prequels and trek 10 were

35. Jay - November 2, 2012

Well, one thing is for certain – NO ONE is talking about STID, and just about everyone is talking about the next Star Wars movie.

Sad but true.

36. Well Of Souls - November 2, 2012

Personally, I think this is great news. As oppossed to the reboot of 1 great franchise, we now have 2 “Star”Fi films to look forward to. I’m sure they will monitor the scheduled play dates of each others film and perhaps to avoid any conflict will use some marketing common sense and alternate the years of actual theatrical release. With the upcoming releases of these 2 films + all their sequels we are in for years of movie magic to come. I also look forward to attending the sequels of Avatar, Prometheus, Hobbit (prequel to LOTR), Planet Of The Apes, all DC Comics & Marvel Comics live action flicks, Jurassic Park, just to name a few. In other words, I prefer not to drink just champagne, it’s nice to have a mix drink or a beer from time to time as well. The SciFi/Fantasy experience has been reborn. Long live our path to the stars…

37. Jay - November 2, 2012

#34 I think Star Trek is far from dead and ST09 was the best Star Trek movie since TWOK. Nemesis was pretty awefull in terms of production quality and story. Definitely not as epic as ST09 and it felt (like most of the TNG movies) like a special TV episode more than a movie.

38. Mel - November 2, 2012

My 8 year old nephew is quite a big Star Wars fan, although he hasn’t seen any of the movies. But he loves the animated series.

I think Star Trek also needs at least an animated series on TV to reach kids. They grow up and will watch the movies in the cinema and if they ever make another live action Star Trek TV series, they may watch it, too.

And the new Star Trek movie should be promoted more. I really don’t understand why Abrams think, that less promotion is better. There should have been a short trailer months ago. And other titbits should have been also released earlier. The more information about the movie is on the Internet on all kinds of different sites, the higher is the chance that non fans stumble over it and get interested in seeing the movie.

39. Jay - November 2, 2012

#36 I agree. I loved the new feel and direction of Star Trek with the last movie. I’m also interested and excited by the thought of a new Star Wars movie picking up after Return of the Jedi…. Will Mark Hamel return as an older Jedi Master Luke? Harrison Ford as Han Solo? Certainly could be done, while the movie could center around new heros and villains.

I’ve always had Star Trek and Star Wars at the top of my favorites list, but I love most Sci-fi fantasy movies. Especially any dealing with space.

40. Jannek - November 2, 2012

small note: HEATHER Langenkamp, NOT Nancy Langenkamp will have a role in the movie.

41. EPISODE 7!! - November 2, 2012




42. Jay - November 2, 2012

#38 Exactly. Where is the website by the way? Wasn’t there a fun webiste for ST09 by this point (6 months before release)? A website with some clues and maybe still images from the new movie?

43. Baggins - November 2, 2012

I think that Peter Jackson should take over Star Trek franchise after he complete Hobbit trilogy.

44. Well Of Souls - November 2, 2012

@ 37 & 39 Jay. Awesome, we’re on the same page. And I guarantee there are millions more out there who would agree. There is more than enough room in the sanbox for our favorites to play.

45. Zip - November 2, 2012

I think it’s a Plus for a Sci Fi Fans, including Star Trek.
I think there was a time when many movie goers did not know the difference, but i also think those days are gone. In this era most movie goers, especially Sci Fi Fans know the difference.
As for the Star Wars News, I think it will help all up coming Sci Fi movies.
I ‘ll finish with two brief examples; I don’t go to Scary movies very much, but lately i’ve been draged along by my better 1/2, and the odd time that I do enjoy the Scary move,,, well the more likely I’m going to another one soon.
My second example, Retail… If I want a new pair of shoes,,, I go to the part of town that has the most shoe stores, i want to see them all. ( I expect this example was for the movie goer that’s not a fan but it still works to show my point, This day and age, we want more of everything we like, weather it be movies, electronic toys, or shoes.
Nice Job Anthony, I stop by every day, mostly just read and not post. been here since day one, will be here to the end. end

46. Brevard - November 2, 2012

It’s Heather Langenkamp, not Nancy Langenkamp. Nancy is the character she played in A Nightmare on Elm Street.

47. THX-1138 - November 2, 2012


That statement pretty much sums up exactly what is happening. Everyone is talking Star Wars and nobody is talking Star Trek. So the discussion about whether it will hurt or help Trek has been answered.

As for now, it sure ‘aint helping Trek.

BTW anyone who thinks that Star Wars is dead is woefully mistaken. The fact that the internet blew up over this is all the proof you need. Geeks who love SW (like me) are excited as heck about the announcement. I love both franchise, but Trek was my first love and I will always be loyal. But as a 12 year old when Star Wars came out I will NEVER forget that feeling I had as I first saw the logo flash upon the screen to the orchestra hit of John Williams’ score followed by the now legendary plot titles crawl and then the blockade runner flashing over head pursued by the GIGANTIC star destroyer.

It was utterly mind blowing to me then. I was hooked from that point forward, crappy prequels be damned.

Also just a note: In a recent interview about Lucas’ announcement, Mark Hamill said that George asked himself and Carrie Fisher to lunch this past summer to let them know he was going to make eps 7, 8, and 9. Mark thought this was unusual as George never discussed his upcoming projects with them before. They would chat occasionally but not in this manner. APPARENTLY nothing was offered at the time but it does make one wonder if there is a plan to have the original 3 make some sort of appearance in the upcoming movies. Luke the Jedi master trains a new group of Jedi, Obi Wan Kenobi style. Sort of a passing of the torch.

I’m totally geeked out. I get The Hobbit, Star Trek Into Darkness, and new Star Wars movie series’ coming out in the next few years.

48. MJ - November 2, 2012

Dolphin Boy, you really need to stop smoking crack before you post here. :-))

49. MJ - November 2, 2012

“That statement pretty much sums up exactly what is happening. Everyone is talking Star Wars and nobody is talking Star Trek. So the discussion about whether it will hurt or help Trek has been answered.”

Exactly, if there was every any major event that shows how ill-advised the JJ ultra-secrecy approach it, this is that seminal event.

50. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 2, 2012

This may have just cemented a third Star Trek

51. Joel - November 2, 2012

By the time the marketing for Star Trek starts rolling, Star Wars will still only be in rumor ville. Star Wars is dominating the news right now, because who predicted a few days ago that Disney was about to buy Lucasfilm for $4 billion?

There won’t be a poster/trailer/website for Star Wars 7 by the time Into Darkness comes out and that’s fine. This might affect Star Trek 3, but I doubt it’ll have any effect on Into Darkness.

We all know the marketing machine will ratchet up sometime in the next 6 weeks or so. In the mean time, those of you that aren’t reading the Star Trek Ongoing comics should change that immediately. It might not be much, but it’s new or re-imagined Trek every month. We might not have a poster or official image from the movie, but I’ve had 14 issues of new Trek to read over the last 14 months and it’s been glorious.

52. Dave - November 2, 2012

Bet we’re getting a Trek trailer with Jack Reacher.

53. MJ - November 2, 2012

You all know, including my detractors, that I make some major Trek predictions from time to time that almost always turn out to be right. Here is my latest major prediction:


This SW mega-news is gong to force JJ off the dime, and we will have some significant news on STID (at the very least, announcing the trailer release data) within two weeks from today.

There you have it!

54. njdss4 - November 2, 2012

I think the announcement of Episode VII will help THIS Star Trek movie, because people might start getting anxious for the next Star Wars movie and want some big budget sci-fi to hold them over until Ep 7 comes out, so they’ll go see Trek. However, this could hurt the NEXT Star Trek movie, as there’s a good chance that Trek 3 and Ep 7 could be coming out within a year of each other.

At the moment, though, the biggest disappointment from this is just that there still isn’t a trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness (and I still don’t like that title).

55. Jack - November 2, 2012

“Yep, this huge Star Wars announcement has “caught JJ sleeping” in the middle of his Trek ultra-secrecy approach to STID. He and the studio had better rethink this dumbass approach immediately in light of the Star Wars news, and get a fracking trailer out no later than The Hobbit release.”

MJ, you should totally consider becoming a motivational speaker.

56. THX-1138 - November 2, 2012


You’re right. in the short term it probably won’t hurt Trek. But make no mistake: the plot outlines for the next 3 Wars movies are done, according to those that know. Disney and Lucasfilm aren’t going to F around here. You can be guaranteed that pre-production will start right after Christmas with filming happening in 2014 in order to make a 2015 release. And knowing both of these companies they will be sure to keep their product in the front of our minds. This may change JJ’s approach to how a possible 3rd Trek movie is handled and by then hopefully it won’t be too little too late.

Heck, by then maybe JJ abandons Trek altogether and joins the Star Wars side. Don’t think for a minute that if they come to him and ask that he wouldn’t jump ship immediately to be involved. Star Wars is his true love.

57. Bill - November 2, 2012

Personally I think there is nothing to worry about here at all. JJ’s next Star Trek movie well be awesome and it well do fine. I’m excited this well be like the good old days all over again! You’ll have a Star Trek movie one summer than a Star Wars movie the following summer this should be awesome!!! Think of it this way; Wrath of Khan than Jedi and than Search for Spock. Hopefully this well stay going for a while!

58. Jack - November 2, 2012

I can’t see Peter Jackson fitting with Trek. It would be epic, but it wld have a much differen t pace and feel. I can’t even picture him being interested
In Trek.

I’m really not a Bryan Singer fan, although I like the oppresive weirdness his movies generally have.

Brad Bird = yes. And I quite liked Tom Twyker’s stuff in Cloud Atlas (the non-future stuff).

But I’m not an expert — it’s easy to throw out directors’ names. Heck, Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-man was terrific. Jason Reitman might add a weird comic realism.

59. Jack - November 2, 2012

Luke and Leia look a little not-siblingy there. Although, that said, my brother sometimes holds me like that.

60. Well Of Souls - November 2, 2012

@ 53. MJ. I will have to agree with your prediction that some tidbits will start to appear pertaining to major upcoming Star Trek announcements in wake of the recent Star Wars news. And I do believe 2 weeks is a gracious amount of time to wait while the higher ups allow the pot to simmer a bit with this recent merger… The clock is ticking MJ. Will be watching for a breakout announcement to happen on or before November 16. LOL

61. Rubbersoul - November 2, 2012

So, Mr. Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and Abrams. How do you intend to mess up Star Wars?
You sure want to write/direct the movie if you do not have made the deal already.
Rebooting it? Visualize the Force with lensflares? Undo the birth of Darh Vader? Substitute all of the cool elements of the franchise with semi-mystical stuff like it was done in Prometheus?

Rumours have it the Damon Lindelof already wrote the script in disguise of Disneys 1952 movie project…

62. SoonerDave - November 2, 2012

All, Please accept my apologies for what appear to be multiple/duplicate posts. It is not intentional. The last post seemingly disappears/reappears on various refreshes, and I have no clue why. Please forgive the duplication.

63. sean - November 2, 2012

Star Wars VII shouldn’t prove much of a problem. It will have momentum for a short time, but the reality is we’re talking about a movie that won’t be released for several years (and I highly doubt it will be out in 2015, given they have no script and no director). SW fans are feeling pretty divided given Disney’s involvement, so it’s no sure thing.

It’s also not much of a ‘prediction’ to say we’ll have a trailer in a few weeks, since Abrams and Orci already told us we’d have a trailer before the end of the year and we only have 8 weeks left in the year.

64. AJ - November 2, 2012


The perception that Star Trek and Star Wars are the same property is prevalent outside of the US, which is a key developing market for Brand Star Trek. I lived in Russia the past few years, and JJ’s whirlwind promotional tour for ST09 was widely perceived as “Star Wars with the Russian Guy” (Yelchin).

With no previous TV or cinematic history, and approximately $0 spent on brand-building since then due to JJ’s 3rd grade marketing savvy, it will stay this way. In fact, they should take advantage of the confusion with Star Wars. It will be the only marketing “Trek” gets in international markets where the ‘cone of secrecy’ non-spend profit-reduction marketing model is completely lost on the local populations who don’t even know about the franchise.

65. paul - November 2, 2012

@61. Rubbersoul

those rumors have already been debunked.

i’m a little concerned about the lack of marketing for STID, it’s starting to feel less like they’re trying to preserve secrecy and more like they’ve got something to hide. crossing my fingers i’m wrong about that though.

66. MDSHiPMN - November 2, 2012

If you can have more than one movie based on a terrorist plot, more than one rom-com, more than one kids movie, you can have more than one movie that partly takes place in space.

They don’t even come out at the same time. If anything blame the weak marketing by Paramount. We should have a trailer with holiday films, or major fail.

67. Lt. Bailey - November 2, 2012

I remember reading about SW 7, 8 & 9 after the first film came out and was such a success. Even though Lucas said he was done after creating 1, 2, & 3 no doubt due to the reaction of fans.

From what I recall, the actual storyline was supposed to pick up after 6 ended some years in the future (long time ago…) where the children of Han & Leia take over the stories. Then Lucas would do the beginning of the saga of how it all began after that trilogy ended. The rumor was a film every 3 years, but that proved to be untrue when the gap between 6 and 1 turned into a generation almost.

Not really worried about Disney taking over, they make great entertainment films. I am a fan of both but I will always be faithful to ST as I was a kid when TOS came out on TV in the mid 60s and grew up with those characters before SW came out and I was a year out of high school by then. Star Trek is science fiction while Star Wars is science fantasy, big difference for me.

68. Keachick - November 2, 2012

MJ – You are not as clever as you think you are.

Your “prediction” is simply based on what is already known about the release of STID’s first trailer. Even Phil has reminded in previous posts that my hopes that perhaps the first teaser/trailer would happen with the release of Skyfall would not be the case, because first Bob Orci said that the trailer won’t occur until November/ December and was later confirmed by JJ Abrams himself.

The premier for the first Hobbit film takes place on 28 November 2012 in Wellington, NZ.

The first countries to see the Hobbit movie will actually be places like *Belgium and Estonia (12/12/12). NZ, US, UK etc see it on 13/14 December. If JJ Abrams is able to have STID trailer precede the Hobbit in its worldwide release, that would be outstanding. It also happens within the time frame as told to us here by Bob Orci himself, and later by JJ Abrams.

Fingers crossed. Here’s hoping…


Promoting STID preceding the Rise of the Guardians (US release date 21 November) could also be a good idea, emphasising the fact that the same actor plays key roles in both movies, ie Chris Pine. There may be MPAA considerations, but it is most likely that any STID trailer (even if the entire movie does not) will have a G or PG rating anyway.

I believe that Chris Pine was recently in Moscow, Russia for a couple of days filming some scenes for the Jack Ryan movie. Apparently he was recognised in a Russian nightclub by many female patrons and all were very happy. I am sure that, by now, many Russians, especially those who are into sci-fi know well enough the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars.

69. Jeffery Wright - November 2, 2012

I like Star Wars, but let’s face it, it is where it belongs now, seeing as how ‘Wars is a childrens fairy tale that happens to be set in ‘space’.

I’m not worried about Trek, which is also in good hands.

Competition brings out the best, we never may have seen the first Trek movie if it weren’t for Star Wars.

Not to mention the existence of the brilliant ILM that has innovated motion picture special effects far beyond its time.

70. SoonerDave - November 2, 2012

Okay, after several reviews of this thread I’m realizing my original post was, in fact, being deleted. Could someone advise why?

71. Elias Javalis - November 2, 2012

If the story is good (i like the fresh approach) i ll go and see Star Wars..I am more concerned with trek right now…Both of them are good but lets focus on trek now!

72. EM - November 2, 2012

I don’t think that the buzz about Star Wars will hurt the buzz about Star Trek. You see, other than this web site, there is no buzz about Star Trek!
I am looking forward to both franchises continuing.

73. CoolPT - November 2, 2012

Better get Leia on a treadmill fast and up her Prozac if you want her to keep playing the role…

74. Bill Peters - November 2, 2012

Trek in my mind is in good hands, JJ and Crew are in Trek to stay, Mind you the next Star Wars film at the Earlyest is 2015 and having a 3rd Star Trek Movie come out after Star Wars Ep 7 Isn’t Bad, Wrath of Khan came out after a Star Wars movie so did Search for Spock.

75. Romulus - November 2, 2012

Insurrection and Nemesis were destroyed at teh box office by The Phantom Menace adn Attack of the Clones. So I expect JJ to complete his Trek Trilogy and then Trek will be shelved for several years until the New Star Was Trilogy wraps.

76. MJ - November 2, 2012

@68. Keachick, as somebody, who, over and over, has been wrong on things related to my predictions (i.e. you monthly long insistence 1.5 years ago that they would still make the Summer 2012 release despite me telling you it was not happening), I can appreciate you wanting to diminish my latest prediction.

My latest prediction has definite two-week window, and it is based on NEW and SPECIFIC information being provided within two weeks, not the nebulous comments about the trailer coming out later this year/early next year.

77. EM - November 2, 2012

@ 73. CoolPT – Grow up.

78. SoonerDave - November 2, 2012

Trying again….

Contend that SW cannot impact JJTrek2 marketing, because you can’t affect what doesn’t exist.

Believe the ongoing decision to market STID by not marketing it will be affected by the SW announcement, because the public attention will now be focused over the coming six or seven months by Disney’s Star Wars rather than the promotion of Trek in the effort to make it conspicuous by its absence.

We’ll see.

79. NX01 - November 2, 2012

That’s what JJAbrams gets for dropping the ball. We should of had 2 Star Trek movies in all this time. The original Star Trek was a 5 year mission. He made us wait almost as long for one additional movie.

80. EPISODE 7!! - November 2, 2012

the way i look at it is thus:

SW IV-VI = original Trek (TOS/movies1-6)

SW I-III/Clone Wars stuff = the berman TNG era (TNG/movies 7-10/DS9/VOY/ENT) (Rick McCallem and Rick Berman could be drinking buddies)


81. Bryan - November 2, 2012

Since both Franchises have been around there are maximum four scenarios that will never change.

1) Love Star Trek, Dont care about Star Wars
2) Love Star Wars, Dont care about Star Trek
3) Love Both
4) Hate Both

No marketing, or announcements are really going to affect Star Trek Into Darkness – especially considering Star Wars 7 isnt due until 2015. And Besides, people DO go to more than 1 movie a year.

82. pilotfred - November 2, 2012

Not a big star wars fan as i find them a little to silly at times but hey good luck with episode 7 i will go and see
As for the film hurting stat trek cant see it i feel it may even help the film!i want to see harry potter while waiting for the lord of the rings same thing may happend to the fans and cinema going people

83. Anthony Lewis - November 2, 2012

I love that 3 years later we are still getting the “JJ made a great Star Wars Movie” trolls.

It has been explained a million times why he likes to keep things hush-hush. And for all the people saying this will bite him in the butt……

It hasn’t happened yet, not with anything he has ever made.

84. DonDonP1 - November 2, 2012

Respectfully, I have lots of love and respect for both the CBS-owned “Star Trek” and the Lucasfilm-owned–or dare I say Disney-owned–“Star Wars.” For that, I am looking forward to next year’s release of “Star Trek Into Darkness” as well as the special 3D editions of “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones” and “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.” I am proud to say this: Live long, prosper, and may the Force be with you all.

85. Bob - November 2, 2012

Give us a Frakin’ trailer already!!!!

86. MJ - November 2, 2012

@83. Hey Apologist, love your persistence. Keep it up! You are dead wrong, but I admire you for sticking to your story!

87. G.Carlo Manfredi - November 2, 2012

To be fully honest I believe that the power of marketing men is always a bit over-estimated. True, advertisers well know that the first line of the battle will be fought inside the very deep emotions of customers. But… It will be the community feeling of that very historic moment to make people choose which kind of movie they will prefer. Given Star Wars as a beautiful techno-fairytale, and Star Trek as a positivistic techno-metaphore of the society, in a “worried about the future” age people will go for the myth of S.W. while in a age that would see prevaling optimism and cooperative mood, the same people will look for the message inside S.T. Assuming that they will be truly worthy movies. So, Don’t panic, Long life and be the Force be with you :-)

88. Adolescent Nightmare - November 2, 2012

Who would win in a fight between a Star Wars fan and a Star Trek fan? They should have a live fan fight. If they can find a Star Trek fan that is not old and fat.

89. Brady - November 2, 2012

Star Wars doesn’t matter to Trek.

What has and WILL continue to hurt Trek is the HUGE gap between movies, no tv series, no cartoons, no games, no anything. 1 movie every 3.5 years is a horribly bad decision when it’s your bread and butter.

90. Jack - November 2, 2012

88. I was wondering if you were the guy/one of the guys impersonating folks on here. The posts have that mocking tone that snarky kids do so well.

91. Khan was Framed! - November 2, 2012

I share the sentiments of my colleagues on this one: there won’t be any impact to Star Trek.

Although I do think he sold it now because Mr. Lucas has inside information about 2012 & is using the money to build a secret underground bunker in New Zealand.


92. Jack - November 2, 2012

MJ. So you’re a fan… but you want the movie to fail?

Sure, you’re just predicting it, but you seem to be taking a bit of glee in being the harbinger of box office doom.

93. No Khan - November 2, 2012

I’m happy to have both back. There’s no reason people can’t be fans of both of them.

94. Buzz Cagney - November 2, 2012

Right now i’m thinking of seeing Skyfall for the second time. Really enjoyed it. I still think The Spy Who Loved Me is the best but Skyfall is a fine addition to the series,

95. Geodesic - November 2, 2012

As long as they don’t open at the same time, it should be fine for the two to coexist. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings killed Nemesis.

96. EPISODE 7!! - November 2, 2012

SW & ST At The Movies : A Brief History

1977 SW (if ST had got out first would it have killed at the box office like SW?)
1979 ST TMP (changed from a tv show to a movie due to SWs Avatar like success. fans think they gonna get SW style action/thrills – get Star Trek: A Space Odyssey instead. Original story Planet of the Titans reads abit like Prometheus)
1980 ESB (coming only 5 months after TMP it mustve seemed like ST was dead in the water)
1982 TWOK (originally titled The ‘Vengence’ of Khan but changed to Wrath due to ‘Revenge’ of the Jedi next year)
1983 ROTJ (mustve seemed abit tame/kiddy after the ultra adult Khan)
1984 TSFS (feels alot like a Star Wars movie in places – abit like Empire. Lucas influnence at work in expanding/opening up the ST universe)

1998 ST INS (the trailers b4 had TPM attached – kind of made ST INS redundant )
1999 SW TPM (oh dear)
2002 AOTC / NEM (Nemesis is dah bomb – steals a clone from AOTC?)

2013 STID
2015 SW VII

97. Phil - November 2, 2012

The short answer is no. Unless STID is in serious trouble in post production, the announced marketing campaign should be rolled out in the next couple of weeks. The just announced SW Ep.VII isn’t even in pre-production yet, so there is nothing for them to market.

What it will do, if Paramount is serious about Trek being a tentpole franchise, will be to jumpstart other Trek projects, ramp up merchindising, and get future movies on a much tighter schedule. JJ has probably had the meeting with Paramount that went something like this – ‘JJ, we want to thank you for what you have done with Trek, but to capitalize on the D/LF purchase, we need a movie out of you every two years, starting in 2014, and much more visibility on promotion. If you can’t do it, tell us now’. If he doesn’t, JJ will be the executive producer, and someone else will be directing.

Back in 1999, The Matrix and The Sixth Sense were not hurt by the Phantom Menace. If anything, it helped by having a very high profile SF project to prime the audience for other SF movies. There is room for both franchises, but at least for the time being SW is still the elephant in the room.

Last thought – George Lucas caught lightening in a bottle with Darth Vader, and Darth Vader is dead. Ep. VII implies a post ‘ROTJ’ story, and it won’t be easy for Disney to just blow out a story to recapture the magic. Hey, what happed to the 3D releases that were supposed to be making all this money?

98. P Technobabble - November 2, 2012

The universe will unfold as it should…

If that’s good enough for Spock it’s good enough for me.
Should be good enough for you, too.

99. Karen Brown - November 2, 2012

Honestly, since the new Star Wars won’t even OPEN until 2015, while Star Trek opens this coming May, I can’t see how it will affect it. I mean, the real tension comes when a movie goer looks in their wallet, then at the movie listings and says, “This movie or that?’ If your budget is so tight that you can’t see a movie in 2013, then again in 2015, I can’t see it having the kind of affect they are talking about. AND, by announcing it, and their time, they help Trek avoid opening the THIRD movie at the same time, which is good.

100. EPISODE 7!! - November 2, 2012

i got the 100 spot YEAH!

101. Toonloon - November 2, 2012

What I haven’t seem anyone comment on is the echoes this has of when Gene was bumped to executive producer status and was effectively out of the loop when it came to the movies. If Disney release the original trilogy on HD against George’s wishes, we’ll see if that parallel gets stronger.

102. EPISODE 7!! - November 2, 2012

what about ST 3? will it be 2016 or 2017? i cant see another 4 year wait so that would rule 2017 out (besides Episode VIII might be out summer 2017). and i doubt theyd bang it out in 2 years after STiD or want to release it the same year as EPISODE 7 so no 2015 either.

so logically ST3s release would be summer 2016. (so long as STiD dosnt bomb)

103. EPISODE 7!! - November 2, 2012

@101 – it seems George is stepping back like GR had to after TMP – so in a way the ST prequels were TMP which means Ep VII will be TWOK


104. Smike - November 2, 2012

I’m a HUGE fan of both franchises, and as much as I personally love both universes, the new Star Wars trilogy WILL unfortunately hurt JJ’s Trek a lot, though I don’t see any immediate danger for STID… Even if the Star Wars promo buzz started right away, STID’s release is only six months away… C’mon…

However, JJ’s concept, from the very beginning, was to make Star Trek popular again by turning it into “the new Star Wars”, including a more esotheric approach at science, space battles, cool monsters and generic planets… and make no mistake: I liked the idea A LOT…

BUT: This strategy would have only worked if there hadn’t been any new Star Wars for ages… As people can now look forward to more original Star Wars, this very popular niche ceases to exist! There is no need for “Warsified Trek” anymore, because there is Star Wars. Full stop.

So JJ’s concept is now pointless. He or his successors have to turn Trek into Trek again, focusing on true SciFi, the human condition and GR’s original utopian philosophy. The world simply doesn’t need two Star Warses, it needs true Star Trek and true Star Wars.

Is this a bad thing? I don’t think so. They can still turn it around. Just look at what they did with SKYFALL… The franchise reboot with CASINO ROYALE worked (as did Trek09), but Craig’s first two outings were a bit too Bournish or Furiously Impossible on my account. Now, they did a TRUE Bond movie that’s much closer to the original spirit but is still set in the new chronolgy. It MAY work for Star Trek as well.

105. Flake - November 2, 2012

People need to chill out, let the Star Wars news pass and then await the trailer and beginning of the marketing blitz. By the time st comes out we will be sick of seeing ads/trailers/interviews!

106. Phil - November 2, 2012

Ummm, George is out of the picture, guys. Kathleen Kennedy is calling the shots now.

107. Flake - November 2, 2012

Star Trek 13 will definitely have to give any Star Wars movie a wide berth though! If sw comes out in winter leave st in summer, if sw is in summer switch trek to winter! Don’t let em get too close because then sw will absolutely overshadow trek and hurt it.

108. Keachick - November 2, 2012

MJ – Please stop being an ass and at times, an unpleasant one at that. Since November/December have been the months that we have been told we can expect something about STID, there is no reason to believe that a trailer may not come within the next two weeks, right on schedule. Nothing to do with George Lucas, Star Wars or Disney and nothing to do with your bleedin’ “predictions”.

I, for one, am sick of your apparent gloating on predictions of how STID might fail at the box office etc (Jack is right!), your whiny, bitchy comments about not getting what you want, when you want it, you telling those like me that we will eat crow or whatever… There, I have said it!

SoonerDave – Quite a few of my posts have been deleted over the last three months, for reasons I can’t fathom. I recall reading that other posters have had the same thing happen to them. It seems that random(?) deletion of posts while other posts get repeated several times, imposters running a-muck, is part of the fun of coming and posting to Trekmovie since early August. When all returns to normal, we will look back on this time as the “good ol’ days” and think, “Well, that was interesting, even fun, at times, while it lasted.”…;)

This is either laugh or cry time – your choice!

109. Red Dead Ryan - November 2, 2012

Well, there is a great benefit to Disney acquiring “Star Wars”. It now forces Paramount/CBS to bring their “A game”. Disney has plans to expand the “Star Wars” saga with another trilogy, plus potential live action television series.

With the rivalry already in place between the Trek and Wars fanbases, I suspect the same will occur between Paramount/CBS and Disney.

For the past few years, I have felt the earliest we would see a new Trek live action show on television would be in 2020. Now with Disney planning a live action “Star Wars” show to potentially air in the next few years, the folks at Paramount/CBS have to have been shaken awake by the stunning acquistion of Lucasfilm by Disney.

110. Keachick - November 2, 2012

Of course, I am hoping that STID is a great success. There is no reason why it shouldn’t be, however the movie business and the public can be fickle at the best of times. We won’t know until we know…

The third Star Trek movie really needs to be ready for release in 2016 (three year window to make the next Star Trek), in time for the 50th anniversary of Star Trek coming to our screens and into our hearts.

Star Wars will do its own thing, or not – always has, always will.

111. Keachick - November 2, 2012

Just to clarify – I am not making predictions. I am not in a position to make any worthwhile predictions because I do not have enough background information to base anything on. If I did, I would probably be under contract not to say, write or do a darned thing with regard to STID. Clearly, the *word* has not been given yet to anyone, otherwise we would be hearing/seeing something – get it!

I mentioned that I’d like and would not be surprise if I saw a trailer with the Hobbit and/or Rise of the Guardians because that is what I might do if I were promoting STID. I have no doubt that Paramount/Bad Robot have their own ideas and strategy on where best to put trailers etc. Maybe we will see a trailer or two with the two movies I mentioned, maybe not.

112. MJ - November 2, 2012

@108 “I, for one, am sick of your apparent gloating on predictions of how STID might fail at the box office etc…”

There you go again!!! I NEVER said anything remotely like that. I did say that the studio and JJ don’t have a clue as to how to properly market a major genre film like this (and they don’t!), but I NEVER said Trek would do poorly or “fail at the box office.” That is a flat out lie to say that I ever said that.

As usual, you are making stuff up. I get that it is a bit embarrassing to be shown to be wrong multiple times by me, but please don’t resort to making stuff like this up.

“there is no reason to believe that a trailer may not come within the next two weeks, right on schedule.”

Where do you get this from? JJ said “a trailer by the end of the year.” My prediction is very specific — due to the pressure from the Star Wars film, JJ and Paramount are now going to have to respond with formally announcing the details of the trailer release, withing the next 14 days. The first half of November is not “the end of the year.”

“stop being an ass….I, for one, am sick of your apparent gloating on predictions….. your whiny, bitchy comments about not getting what you want, when you want it, you telling those like me that we will eat crow or whatever… There, I have said it!”

Sheesh, again, I get it that it is a tad embarrassing when time after time, my predictions, forecasts and information that you always fight me on, prove correct, but you shouldn’t take it personally.

It would be a lot easier here if you just thanked me for my consistently good inferences, information and predictions rather than continuing this game where you insist that I am wrong or my information is not credible all of the time…that approach of yours here towards me is not working out.

113. EPISODE 7!! - November 2, 2012

@110 of course the 50th anniversary!! Like Skyfall. perfect timing for the final JJ Trek movie (with reset the timeline finale) and maybe a new tv show! (septemeber)

114. MJ - November 2, 2012

“So JJ’s concept is now pointless. He or his successors have to turn Trek into Trek again, focusing on true SciFi, the human condition and GR’s original utopian philosophy. The world simply doesn’t need two Star Wars’s, it needs true Star Trek and true Star Wars.”

Hmm. That would be like saying with Iron Man several years back, that who needs a Thor, Captain America and Avengers movie….those movies will eat up too much space….and stop with the Batman and Spiderman movies as well.

See dude how easily your logic falls apart here!

BTW, in the first place, I disagree completely with your overriding point here that Trek 2009 was like Star Wars…it wasn’t.

115. LizardGirl - November 2, 2012

Disney buys Lucasfilm. That’s the only thing that’s happened so far. So I don’t think we should worry about STID specifically.

I will say this. Most of us are spoiled when it comes to graphics. So presently movies can’t get away with great special effects and a sucky story (i.e. Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, Battleship: both btw have great graphics and SFX). So the plot of both Star Trek and Star Wars will have to be solid on top of fantastic effects, acting, music, advertising, etc.

I think STID will actually be the catalyst for what’s to come from Disney as well as what we can expect from the final installment of the Star Trek trilogy. I have this feeling that maybe, just maybe the geek world IS looking at this as a declaration of war.

We talk about Star Wars now, but a lot of us are curious as to what’s going through the mind of JJ Abrams right now, the current head of the new Star Trek franchise. Disney may be wondering what he’s thinking too. He IS a very popular director who has expressed a love for Star Wars. They may try to have their way with him! :O

Whether he plays double-dutch between the two franchises or not, I believe everyone (us, some media, Disney, and other invested/ interested parties) will look to Star Trek to set the actual stage.That would be STID, which apparantly will be attached to Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit this year.

The last ST movie will definitely need to go beyond big to make a decent lasting impression, because in the end, Star Wars will have the last word movie-wise. That, I think, is where merchandise and an animated series comes in. Because Star Wars is just getting started again. Star Trek will be on it’s way out. And it’s hard enough to remember what you had for breakfast let alone a movie you saw a few years ago. Continue Star Trek on TV. But go big with the movies as well.

116. LizardGirl - November 2, 2012

Holy crap why is my comment so far down!!! I thought I was going to be post #100…or at least #105….awww

117. MJ - November 2, 2012

Kind of sad folks, that it takes a Star Wars story to breathe life into this site again.

Thanks Joseph Dickerson — please post more stories, dude. We need you, Kayla and Matt to take the reigns here now that Anthony is essentially — are far as any of us can tell — done with anything more than once a month articles on this site. Here’s hoping that you all make this site great again…thanks!

118. LizardGirl - November 2, 2012

Clarification to my post 115

When I say:

“That would be STID, which apparantly will be attached to Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit this year.”

I mean the trailer not the actual movie (yeah I know, Duh, but just wanted to clarify anyway).

119. Keachick - November 2, 2012

“#92 – Jack
MJ. So you’re a fan… but you want the movie to fail?
Sure, you’re just predicting it, but you seem to be taking a bit of glee in being the harbinger of box office doom.”

Actually this is what Jack wrote and I was simply agreeing with him, because that is how you come across, how it feels to us sometimes. I am not making stuff up.

Also, my impression is that a Star Trek trailer will be out by the end of this year and perhaps a second one coming in the new year. In other words, the first trailer could happen any time from now on, given that it is now November (ie the six month window). The first promo on 17 November could be kinda good – exactly six months from US release of movie!

Lizard Girl – “That would be STID, which apparantly will be attached to Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit this year.”

Do you know this for a fact? How? Anyway, I hope you are right.

It seems that a comment of mine did not post properly – some posting/computer glitch my end this time, I think. What I wrote was a clarification. I have no idea what promotional material Paramount/Bad Robot have or what their strategy is.

However, if I were promoting the movie, getting a STID trailer preceding the Hobbit movie (and/or Rise of the Guardians) is what I would try to make happen. ROTG is another possibility because the same actor plays key roles in both movies, ie Chris Pine.

120. Keachick - November 2, 2012

Sorry, guys, for repeating. I now see the post has come through. I thought it had been lost in cyber land.

I see that “by the end of the year” can be interpreted differently…

121. Punkspocker - November 2, 2012

Roll out Trek during the holiday season. Dont wait. Trek is big enough. Most fans will be excited for both. My 8 year old loves SW, we both love Clone Wars. But dont mess with Indy, please!

122. CsMisi - November 2, 2012

Episode VII might hurt Star Trek 3 if they will push it to the same release year. But the hype building around Episode VII might even help Star Trek, as it will bring a higher space opera awareness to the general public, and Star Trek is already coming out next year. It might even help a new Star Trek TV series to higher viewers. If JJ and CO are riding correctly the new hype they might be even more successful.

123. Dom - November 2, 2012

It should help Trek! Face it, if SWVII turns up in 2015 and Star Trek 3 in 2016, the lust for science fiction/fantasy wil increase. Star Trek should do very well off Star Wars. STID should be fine!

124. Kirk, James T. - November 2, 2012

It all depends on how well and how good Star Trek Into Darkness does and is…

I do agree that JJ Abrams needs to perhaps relax his mystery box take on films – especially franchises as lucrative as Star Trek. Trek could be MASSIVE, The Dark Knight huge, Avengers huge, Skyfall huge but it really does all depend on how well its marketed. I don’t think this Star Wars announcment will do much really. The reaction to it hasn’t been all that positive as far as I can see.

The big test will be 2015 and a possible third and final movie for Trek but as for the next Trek, the ball is in Star Trek’s court, if it does well then it’ll be Star Wars that has to live up to the expectations not only of its own original trilogy but of the (hopefully) mega popularity Star Trek recieves after the next movie.

On a final note, I can’t believe how negative Star Trek fans are….

125. Ciaran - November 2, 2012

The only thing that’s wrong with that is the name of the Nightmare on Elm Street actress is HEATHER Langankamp. Her character in the movie was NANCY Thompson. Had to clear that up. LOL.

126. steve - November 2, 2012

There’s only one thing that matters: making good movies. The last Trek movie did so well because both critics and audiences liked it. So I don’t believe anything about the Star Wars announcement, or whatever happens with Star Wars from here on out, will impact on Trek at all, if the new movie is good.

Granted, Star Wars has such a massive built-in global fan base, that they could probably put out 3 more movies as bad as the last three, and still make billions. Trek doesn’t have that luxury, because it’s never been as mainstream as Star Wars.

But JJ and Company made a huge advance with the last movie in taking Trek into the mainstream, and if they continue that success with the new one, especially in the global market, I believe that Trek could some day come close to doing Star Wars level business.

127. LPL - November 2, 2012

“Jim, come to the Darkside”.

Star Wars will have an impact on Trek. I already see the above as a running gag.

128. Kirk, James T. - November 2, 2012

Also the more Star Trek fans and star trek fan sites like this one go on about this being a big issue, the more the media will pick up on it as Star Trek being the weaker of the two franchises.

The reality of it is is that Star Wars has been riding a very large wave created by the original trilogy. The pequels were a disaster in terms of popularity among general audiences and SW fans and Star Wars has really only existed in secondary formats, comics, games, toys and animated TV series in recent years. Star Trek enjoyed a massive revival in 2009. The big issue here is due to the 4 year gap, have people already switched off? Star Trek (2009) has undoubtably won new fans and the appreciation from casual movie-goers but there is perhaps a sense that the momentum from the 2009 movie has kinda burnt out, really Star Trek’s follow up should have been released in 2011 or 2012 but again I go back to my original point, if Star Trek Into Darkness wows critics and audiences and expands on the success of the 2009 movie then Star Wars will be irrelevant. The work to bring in the audiences starts before the end of the year, it has to, Paramount/Abrams needs to come out with a trailer that will make the Star Wars news irrelevant. That will grab people’s attention, really that trailer should have been attached to Skyfall and not the Tom Cruise movie it’s bound to be attached to but with there being so many formats to view a trailer these days, as long as its amazing then It doesn’t matter what movie it’s attached to.

Star Trek Into Darkness has an amazing line up of actors, Benedict Cumberbach to name one will be enough to pull in an audience. I don’t think we should be worried as Star Trek fans, Star Trek has already proven itself, I just hope that Star Trek Into Darkness takes us a step beyond the 2009 movie and adds to the Trek universe in the way that The Dark Knight added so much to the Batman universe.

129. MJ - November 2, 2012


Great, so you are now saying that some feelings Jack had about me is your basis for saying that “I, for one, am sick of your apparent gloating on predictions of how STID might fail at the box office etc…”


I NEVER said anything remotely like that. I NEVER said Trek would do poorly or “fail at the box office.


Make up something else please instead of picking on me for stuff I never even came up with. JESUS H. CHRIST !!!!!

130. Steve Gennarelli - November 2, 2012

I know its fun to compare these 2 popular franchises, but neither affects the other.

131. NuFan - November 2, 2012

My Prediction:

No one cares what MJ and his proxy server want.
We see nothing before Christmas.
Not one thing.

My Other Prediction:

No Fans Apologize in May, 2013

132. bob - November 2, 2012

can we say marketing….star war has always know how to use the power of marketing and selling cool products for fans…….unlike star trek that promises some things then cancels them and we are left with lame items like potatoe heads….not every action figure under the sun, and cool ships to go with them.

would someone at CBS/ Paramount please listen and loosen the licence agreements to give us cool items. let kenner build our figures not the proven and failed galoob and playmates again!!!

133. MJ - November 2, 2012

Good, now that we have your prediction of “absolutely nothing before Christmas” on record, we will see who is right when my prediction expires at midnight on November 16th.

Glad to get you on record, NuFan.

And BTW, if you didn’t care what I said, you never would have written your post and inferred slam on me above. LOL

134. Kirk, James T. - November 2, 2012

The Hobbit is another movie a Star Trek Into Darkness trailer could be attached to with great effect.

But lets sit down, come on boys and girls, gather round… A general audience will really go and see any movie that they find appealing. Most of them will remember the 2009 Star Trek movie, many of them may have it on Blu-Ray or DVD, they may have seen it on TV at some point. Clearly leaving 4 years in between isn’t ideal. No talk of Star Wars Episode 7 will quell people’s enthusiasm for Star Trek, it’s it’s own beast, it has for the frst time since Gene Roddenberry a leader with a reputation beyond the core fan-base and hundreds of thousands of loyal followers that will go in droves to see the next movie. We really don’t need to be the weaker fans and get all worried whenever Star Wars comes back into the limelight, Star Trek will go on as it always has done, inspiring people, challenging people’s opinions. Star Trek in reality is far more enduring than Star Wars can ever hope to be. Trek has a depth and a deep philosphical tale to tell, it’s our future and one thing i’ve certainly recognised is that really Star Trek after the 2009 movie is a more vibrant, exciting and enjoyable franchise that doesn’t pretend to be anything more or anything less than what it is. Star Wars is a creatively barren, toy producing factory floor universe with aliens created ONLY to sell toys to kids. The integrity once held by Star Wars with the original trilogy has long since gone and I’ll tell you this now, Star Wars has a lot more to prove to a general movie going audience that it does still have the creative nouse to tell original and exciting stories not lost in an ocean of CGI with emotionless and empty characters and plots that we all still remember from Lucas’ prequel trilogy. What Star Wars needs is to take a leaf from JJ Abrams Star Trek book….

135. Magic_Al - November 2, 2012

1966: Star Trek (TV)
1977: Star Wars
1979: Star Trek: The Motion Picture
1980: Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back
1982: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
1983: Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi
1984: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
1984: Star Wars: Caravan of Courage – An Ewok Adventure (TV)
1985: Star Wars: Ewoks – The Battle for Endor (TV)
1986: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Head to head, which franchise went south?

136. Kirk, James T. - November 2, 2012

Bob, actually Hasbro, the makers of Star Wars toys (previously the now defunct Kenner name) now have the license to make Star Trek toys!!!!!!

In terms of marketing in particular toys, Star Wars has really not been rivaled by ANYTHING. Even some of the most successful movies of recent time (Avengers, The Dark Knight) have not enjoyed the level of success at toy store level and really thats not too much of a worry. Kids interests are in general evolving from plastic ships and action figures to hand held tablets, computers and games. Thats not to say they still don’t enjoy collecting toys from popular franchises but really, Star Wars has had decades of success because thats really what Star Wars was about. Selling toys!

Where Star Trek really needs to go next if it wants to be a major force alongside a future that includes new Star Wars is into the hearts and minds of the kids. CBS/Paramount and Bad Robot along with Hasbro need to push the Star Trek brand into the living rooms of Kids, an animated series airing on Nickelodeon would be something that like The Clone Wars, would introduce kids to the Star Trek universe giving it its own identity away from that of Star Wars so that kids can easily identify the two. Another thing Star Trek should be doing is realy focusing on getting kids involved with new and exciting sciences, for a show about the future and a future that in part has helped real inventors an scientists develop technology used today, Paramount/CBS have been poor at making it clear to kids that if it weren’t for Star Trek, they wouldn’t have an ipad or a mobile phone. Some real work and investigation needs to be sought out about how best Star Trek could become a beacon for kids to learn more about technology and science.

Star Trek’s biggest challenge is to remain mainstream, develop its popularity with kids and to really brand its unique identity compared to Star Wars because the only similarities they share is that they both have ‘Star’ in their titles and they are both set in space.

137. AdamTrek - November 2, 2012

People don’t understand the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars? Really? So does this mean that Star Wars Into Darkness won’t be released since Disney bought the Enterprise from Lucasfilm?


138. LPL - November 2, 2012

I really like the ad on top, for Star Wars trooper clothing, NOT.

Talk about timing (good or bad is up to each to choose).

I hope they advertise ST clothing on the SW site(s).

This is funny, if not sad.

139. sean - November 2, 2012

Here’s some coverage on the London 5 Captain’s meetup:


140. DiscoFett - November 2, 2012

Somehow Attack of the Clones and Star Trek: Nemesis came out in the same year without much confusion. It was Lord of the Rings that stole the show from Nemesis. As long as they don’t release at the same time, they shouldn’t conflict.

141. Kirk, James T. - November 2, 2012

@ 135, I’d have to say Star Wars went south after Jedi and never bounced back creatively.

Creatively speaking, Star Trek trumps Star Wars hands down. Continued success with TNG reaching its peak of popularity I’d say with Star Trek: Generations and Star Trek: First Contact. From Voyager onwards Star Trek then became more and more tired until 2009 when boom Star Trek was back and in many way’s is perhaps the reason Lucas has decided to hand it over to a new group of people to create new stories in much the same way as Paramount handed it over to Abrams.

Lets break it down:

2009: Star Trek dir. JJ Abrams – $385,680,446 worldwide – comparable to Batman Begins worldwide gross with BB making slightly less than ST

2012: Disney buy Lucasfilm including Star Wars

2013: Star Trek Into Darkness dir. JJ Abrams – hype has been building for this movie within magazines and around internet sites since 2009, the anticipation is killing many as to when Abrams will release a trailer

2015: Star Wars: Episode 7 to be released, dir. unknown, story unknown but is expected to take place after Return of the Jedi – fan reaction and mainstream media reaction to Disney taking over has not been all that positive with fears that Star Wars could become overstreached. Restricted really by being fantasy rather than sci-fi, there’s no easy fix by recasting Han Solo and Luke Skywalker so although Star Wars may still be a hit with the kids, will it still be a hit with a general audience or will Star Wars become over saturated and thus overcomplicated for non-fans to enjoy? Producing an animated series and selling toys is one thing, making console games is another but the future of Star Wars as a blockbusting force is something that isn’t as secure as it was before everyone saw The Phantom Menace.

2016: The Third Star Trek movie? JJ Abrams is the key to the success of Star Trek as a mainstream property. If Star Trek Into Darkness lives up to expectations then really after the 2nd JJ Abrams movie has been out people should be comparing it to Skyfall and The Dark Knight, the latter of the two has been a constant go to movie for the writers in trying to get across what they were trying to aim for with the second Star Trek movie. We could be looking at a Star Trek trilogy that stands alongside that of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight saga as one of the best stories ever told of the modern era, something that should have been said of the modern Star Wars movies but wasn’t and thats a huge point not to be missed, there is still a huge cloud over the Star Wars universe creatively speaking. However If thats the case and the media/mainstream begin to see Star Trek as a major player as the Dark Knight trilogy (i sure hope it is), then however well Star Wars does, it just wont matter.

2016 and beyond. It is certain that Star Trek will return to TV, something Star Wars failed to reach after plans were shelved as over expensive. With three more Wars movies on the way and countless more afterwards, Its possible to think that Star Trek’s return to the small screen will mark the first time space-based Sci-Fi on TV airs since Battlestar Galactica and Stargate left our screens.

Looking at it like this, I just can’t really see Star Wars making any negative impact on Star Trek. The 2009 movie did it’s job in making Star Trek relevant to the masses, Star Trek Into Darkness will hopefully build on that, not going to say it’s going to be easy but Into Darkness could be huge.

Its exciting I think, both franchises are dearly loved, both have stigmas attached to them and both not since the 1980’s are really back under the watchful gaze of the mainstream media eye. Lets just hope that Star Trek Into Darkness delivers that “The Dark Knight” moment for Star Trek.

142. TREKWEBMASTER - November 2, 2012

The LACK of PR about Star Trek Into Darkness is very disturbing. Having a site which was heavily devoted to the Paramount Webmaster Program and now with the sequel’s pending release, there is NO MENTION about using the same PR push with the 2009 movie; and the PR is virtually NONEXISTENT!

This really gives webmasters very-little time to produce graphics, articles, and build-up the hype before the release of the film in 2013. I haven’t heard whether Paramount will reprise its role with the Trekwebmaster Program, which was a great idea giving webmasters and fans the ability to use media they’d not have access to otherwise.

I’m just wondering what’s the deal with the media black-out? I’d rather have bunches and bunches of photos, rumors, and other PR materials to promote than ZERO that we have now and it’s so close to the holiday season.

JJ what are you giving TREKKERS for Christmas a bag of switches and some coal to go in our stockings?

Star Trek deserves more than what it’s been given. Perhaps this “Reboot” wasn’t a good idea after-all?

143. TREKWEBMASTER - November 2, 2012

OH, JJ that 3 frame preview whatever you want to call it on Conan or whatever show was:

VERY VERY PATRONIZING. Instead of farting in church, perhaps throw a bone to the fans who are VERY EAGERLY waiting for…



We’ll Still ALWAYS have the ORIGINAL UNIVERSE if yours fails…

144. LPL - November 2, 2012

LOTR have nothing in common with ST except Nemesis being launched at about the same time as The Two Towers.

Saw both as a fan of both, but LOTR has a much greater fan base than ST. Although The Two Towers was the weaker of the Trilogy, It had no impact on the fact that Nemesis was disappointing, very disappointing, to say the least.

145. BringBackKirkPrime - November 2, 2012

Not sure what will happen as a result. But it is interesting to remember that the reason Star Trek the Motion Picture, and the Trek movies after that happened, was a direct result of the first blockbuster Star Wars movie. If it weren’t for that success in 1977, there would have been another “original series” Star Trek t.v. series (Star Trek Phase 2). Instead, they went forward with a full blown Trek movie for 1979 based on the 1977 Star Wars movie. So, who knows? This new twist on the Star Wars universe could be a positive for the Trek universe.

146. Jack - November 2, 2012

Hey MJ. Someone posting as MJ definitely predicted that this movie would have lousy box office. The biggest box office disappointment of 2013, or something. Based on Abrams’ secrecy.

I tried googling trekmovie, MJ and predict//prediction to find it, but there were a lot of results to sift through.

147. LPL - November 2, 2012

143. Trekwebmaster

I agree. This patronizing is becoming tiring ever since Cloverfield. JJ’s viral marketing, if you want to call it such, is getting old.

148. WillH85 - November 2, 2012

I don’t think it’s going to hurt Trek that much. Star Trek’s meant to be an ongoing saga, the future history of humanity. Star Wars was set out as a trilogy originally and then Lucas just decided to keep milking that cow for everything he could get from it. I think for every person that’s stoked for a new trilogy, there’s at least one fanboy that wants to rage. While yeah, there are some purist Trekkies out there that don’t like the new direction, most people seem pretty happy with it. So, you have Star Trek going strong and Star Wars being milked for money. I’d say we have the upper hand now.

149. TREKWEBMASTER - November 2, 2012

When you MOVE Star Trek into the Main-Stream, it is diluted to an extent where those things which appealed to the Trekkies and Trekkers of yesteryear, are so different as to be NOT unique or interesting that attracted fans to Star Trek in the first-place.

The First Mistakes (IMHO:)

1. Increasing the size of the USS Enterprise to almost the same size as a Galaxy Class starship, and not changing the docking ports and viewports; and you mean to tell me that new ship has viewports the size of a football field? Suspension of disbelief, HEH we don’t need that! We’ve got CGI! PFfffftttttttttt.

2. There’s nothing recognizable in the new ship as corridors, color schemes, or salient design cues which hearken back to the TOS / TMP era, even things that changed, the TMP changes are seen as progressive and moving the franchise forward, updating it, and making it more modern for the big screen, but this “reboot,” erases everything on the slate and goes and creates this “Frankensteinian” hybrid “reboot.” If you guys had kept true to the production design of the entire film as you did with the uniforms, we’d probably see a very different ship more closely resembling that which we are so fondly used-to, and the bridge and interior sets would have developed more closely to what we’re used to. CGI cannot fix everything, especially when engineering looks like a beer factory. And what’s all that water doing in that huge pipe? Do they really need plumbing that big or are turds really that much bigger in space?

3. I still don’t like that new ship design, it’s ungainly and the deflector dish is too much forward and I still cannot shake the pylons looking like chicken wings or those nacelles resembling those 1970’s Barbie microphones with the radio antennas. Looks like they put Nutty Buddies on pylons and painted it. I still like Koerner’s version of the ship the best. You guys should have used it; but we all know how GROUP THINK is and VOILA, we get what we got.

4. If you cannot take critique constructively, then you’re in the wrong business. I really am not concerned how much money folks are paid and if you see it that way, then you’re not in it for the right reasons that Star Trek stands-for. Star Trek has always valued quality over quantity. Quit rehashing things and branding it as something “new” and “improved” and then trying to sell it back to us again. It’s still the same old repackaged stuff with a new wrapper. And sometimes I feel or it looks as if they really don’t care if the contents are so jumbled and non-salient, and all they really care about is the “repackaging” not the quality of the contents inside.

Pardon my rants, but this is how I see it. I’ve been watching Star Trek since it began in the mid-sixties and I KNOW THIS SHOW like very few of us here do. I AM A TREKKER, NOT A TREKKIE, so don’t patronize me please sir.

150. LPL - November 2, 2012

149: I’ve been also a fan since the show was on TV in the 60’s.

SW was a catalyst for ST. Everybody agrees on this, it is a matter of record.

The question now is: What happens with ST with SW announced as a future trilogy. My answer is that ST will benefit from SW AGAIN, just because of the hype being caused.

In 2015, ST will hopefully come back from Darkness and SW will get back into it. I don’t mean this figuratively, but plot wise (Ok , but I hope so. :)

151. Milo - November 2, 2012

As long as JJ Abrams is running Star Trek, with a new Star Wars film coming out, this is bad for Trek. JJ-Trek is a lot more Star Wars in feel, and yes, “normal” people (whatever the hell that means!) will get confused.

The BEST option right now is to let JJ-Trek die. It would let JJ be free to maybe direct one of those new Star Wars films (which frankly I bet is what he really wants to do anyway), and hopefully open the door to someone who is more respectful of the Star Trek franchise.

Re-boot the re-boot!

152. VOODOO - November 2, 2012

Absolute nonsense that a Star Wars film that is going to be released in the year 2015 is going to affect a Star Trek film that is going to be released in a matter of months… NONSENSE!!!

TPTB would be far better off not wasting time on an inferiority complex to the Star Wars franchise and concentrate on promoting their new film which to this point they have done an extraodinarily poor job of promoting…Abrams insistence on secrecy over plot and details of the film are a nice idea, but it’s gotten to the point that one would think he is trying to keep the very existence of a new Star Trek film a secret.

As to the authors suggestion that the general public may confuse the two films is ridiculous…Both of these franchises are pop icons that have been around for generations. If someone can’t tell the difference between SW and ST at this point I don’t think that they would be the target audience for either one of these films.

This article was alarmist, poorly written and illogical,

153. Steve - November 2, 2012

I think the Star Wars announcement may well consign the Abrams-verse to obscurity. Star Wars fans have wanted a true sequel to ROTJ for decades, and given how soon Disney will be releasing that sequel, there will be major decisions made and publicized between now and STID’s release date – the writer, the director, the involvement or non-involvement of Mark Hamill and the other stars of the original trilogy, etc. Meanwhile, I stopped caring about who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing months ago – I don’t even remember when STID is supposed to be released. I concluded that a production so desperate to maintain secrecy must have something to hide – an undercooked concept, or the awful idea of Cumberbatch-qua-Khan. And now, it’s hard to care at all given that I can instead wonder what the new Darth is going to be like, whether Luke is going to be swinging his lightsaber again, etc.

More basically, the problem is that JJ Abrams has made Star Trek into an imitation of Star Wars. Not necessarily a bad imitation – I thought the first movie was a fun if silly and shallow ride – but an imitation nonetheless. Star Trek initially survived in Star Wars’s shadow because it offered something different – it was mainly in a different medium, it was more cerebral, it was more sci-fi. Now Star Wars – freed from Lucas’s meddling – has come back to reclaim its throne. Star Trek won’t last long unless it goes back to doing what it used to do best.

154. TREKWEBMASTER - November 2, 2012

What scares me about Ep 7 is Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher; and how they are going to look w/ their ages now.

Will it be like TRON where they CGI a young face over the actor?

Or will they go with what they’ve got now and age them more realistically to ENHANCE the natural appearance as actors age? I really hope they can pull this off, or we’d be better getting used to seeing Leia as sleeping beauty surrounded by many dwarf droids waiting on her Lord Vader / Luke Skywalker prince to kiss her so she’ll wake up?

Perhaps Lucas did the right thing, he’s finally free and can do things totally new w/out being tied down to all things Star Wars.

Lucas was smart w/ merchandising, unheard of at the time. But he learned it from STAR TREK. AMT / ERTL models of the USS ENTERPRISE kept us going after the TOS was cancelled. I cannot count how many models I had to buy because the old TESTORS glue melted polystyrene models way back when if you put too much on.

I so loved my models, it kept me “connected” to Star Trek during the “lean years,” during many many reruns. One of my main complaints is that none of the toys really matched-up with anything we see in TOS, they did what they wanted to throwing away what was already designed and canon.

I think this is what bothers me the most about the new REBOOT, it is reminds me very much of the early merchandising of Star Trek, when you’d get toys with very different sizes and even the overall shape might be similar, no one wants to see a phaser with an emitter the size of a coke can…every Trekker knows it’s not that big and you know what? These things can affect SALES of everything if it’s not very very very similar to those depicted as canon. Would you buy a USS ENTERPRISE model w/ a SQUARE saucer made and PR’d to be “just like” the original?

Of course not!

155. NCM - November 2, 2012

Getting people hyped about Star Wars can boost excitement for Trek and, I hope, promote general interest in sci.fi, across age groups. I think more SF is always better than less (unless it’s all stink). I doubt this will change anything for JJ and crew. They’re set to release a trailer shortly, and then they’ll begin promo. Perhaps they’ll see this as an opportunity to ride mounting waves of excitement. Good times ahead and it’s a fine time to be a SF fan again.

Besides, about the time we’re really restless for the third film in this Trek trilogy (or gods forbid it, mourning lowered expectations), SW will release the first in that trilogy.

Trek first, all the way, but I used to love SW and I’ll have high hopes for this next phase.

Would love to know Bob Orci’s thoughts…!

156. Ahmed - November 2, 2012

# 151. Milo – November 2, 2012

“The BEST option right now is to let JJ-Trek die. It would let JJ be free to maybe direct one of those new Star Wars films (which frankly I bet is what he really wants to do anyway), and hopefully open the door to someone who is more respectful of the Star Trek franchise.”

I wouldn’t say that JJ doesn’t respect Star Trek, but he sure as hell, not giving it all attention that it deserve. I’d be happy to see someone else take over Trek.

This news about the new Star Wars trilogy will have some effects on Star Trek, in what way, I don’t know but I hope it will be in a positive way.

157. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 2, 2012


When you MOVE Star Trek into the Main-Stream, it is diluted to an extent where those things which appealed to the Trekkies and Trekkers of yesteryear, are so different as to be NOT unique or interesting that attracted fans to Star Trek in the first-place.”

Perfectly put, TREKWEBMASTER, If I might say so myself.

ST09 was suppossed to be different than TOS, but it sucked. But I wonder if it was supposed to leave the average Trekker feeling slightly off.

Hell, I am sure that Bob O (that self described brave ‘Trek fan,’ who apparently reads posts here) does realize that he and Kurtzman purposely created an epic tragedy for all of Trekdom.

Isn’t it logical that they will now fix things? Perhaps that is the reason for this blackout of news. Geez. Are we even sure of the Title, yet?!

I think we are being played a bit.

Perhaps and hopefully the writers and producers will do the right thing, for the many, and make a trilogy of it, and steer the whole alt-Trek-verse back to TOS territory and established lore, look and feel.

That would the perfect kicker for ALL that prefer the original series.

158. Mikey1091 - November 2, 2012

The one and ONLY thing I like about this is new star wars movies. Now, assuming, Disney has no problem whatsoever with fanfiction and fan-films, then I’ll be behind this purchase 100 percent. Well OK, 99 percent, because Lucas was dumb enough to hand it off to someone else rather than do the movies himself, but still.

159. LPL - November 2, 2012

Yeah, I used to glue those saucers also and pieces making up the Galileo. Those were great years filled with imagination.

I do not want to start to second guess what will be the new plot of SW, but like I said earlier, all new scifi is good and brings renewed life to the genre. All the time. This is a good thing for all scifi fans.

160. Jack - November 2, 2012

” I’ve been watching Star Trek since it began in the mid-sixties and I KNOW THIS SHOW like very few of us here do.”


161. MJ - November 2, 2012

“Hey MJ. Someone posting as MJ definitely predicted that this movie would have lousy box office. The biggest box office disappointment of 2013, or something. Based on Abrams’ secrecy.”

Great…that F’ing imposter again then! I NEVER said that and don’t think that in the slightest The new movie, if it is good, will make at least $350M worldwide in spite of their lame marketing approach.

Dude, if I had a shotgun and this impostor was here right now, I send him running up my driveway and I’d fire a round of buckshot at his “probably” fat ass.

162. Jack - November 2, 2012

157. Yes, epic tragedy — the critics loved it and it made more cash than any Trek film ever, apparently (I’ve seen diff numbers for TMP’s adjusted grosses). And it got people excited. And it ressurected a dead franchise that had become diluted, tired and byzatinely self-referential.

Fine, you didn’t like it — but plenty of equally well-Trek-educated fans did, according to comments here.

It wasn’t perfect, but it certainly was better than at least half of the Trek films in the franchise, especially he last two. Heck, I always thought the Voyage Home was overrated because it was the start of the actors playing themselves and not characters — but we all have opinions.

I get grumpy with the “I’m a bigger, better, more knowledgable fan” stuff.

163. Romulus - November 2, 2012

test..test, please reply if you can read this post.
a lot of my posts are not being published.

164. Jack - November 2, 2012

161. MJ. Seriously? Er, (sheepishly) that comment was the main reason I’ve been griping about this for weeks — that and a few other similar predictions about secrecy dooming the movie and fans refusing to see it. Oops.;).

165. LPL - November 2, 2012

160 Jack: ” I’ve been watching Star Trek since it began in the mid-sixties and I KNOW THIS SHOW like very few of us here do.”

162 Jack: “I get grumpy with the “I’m a bigger, better, more knowledgable fan” stuff.”

We are all ST fans here. There is no need to get “grumpy”.

166. RAO - November 2, 2012

JJ Abrams: “Damnit, now I have to make a Star Trek movie instead of Star Wars with Trek names!”

I don’t think a Star Wars revival is going to work. As previous posters have said, the entire franchise is two good films and a whole bunch of trash. Trek’s entire catalogue dwarfs that of Star Wars, even if you include Voyager. Very very few franchises stand the test of time, most flounder after the second installment (Terminator jumps to mind). However, if it’s successful and JJ’s Trek is as well, it could mean the start of a new era of sci fi popularity and thus open the door for Trek on TV. It may never be as good as it was, but it sure beats reality TV and bad sitcoms.

167. Keachick - November 2, 2012

MJ – “JJ said “a trailer by the end of the year.”

Yes, that’s also what I thought he said. Note he used the word “by”, not “at” as in “at the end of the year”. I interpret “at the end of the year” to mean, in a liberal sense, the last month, December or the last day of the year ending at midnight.

“by the end…” I take to mean anything happening anytime in a particular, up until 31 December at midnight.

There is a very reason why English has any number of prepositions!

168. Keachick - November 2, 2012

Edit – meant to write, “…in a particular YEAR…”

169. Keachick - November 2, 2012

Romulus – “test..test, please reply if you can read this post.
a lot of my posts are not being published.”

As you can see, I see it! As I said, this is all part of the wonder of coming to the trekmovie site – been happening since early August. Don’t worry!

170. Craiger - November 2, 2012

What if they rebooted the original SW Trilogy?

171. Dr. Cheis - November 2, 2012

I think Star Wars will help Star Trek in the long run. If Star Trek is reluctant to advertise until the very end, the Star Wars hype will help carry Trek along for the ride.

Sort of like how Avengers, Dark Knight Rises, and Amazing Spider-Man all rolled out more or less together even though Avengers was by far the most hyped of the three. I think a group of space adventure movies coming out sort of together will help boost excitement for both rather than Trek by itself. And let’s face it, Star Wars will always draw bigger crowds, so why not ride the coattails?

172. TREKWEBMASTER - November 2, 2012


Jack, sorry you’re jaded. But I was there when it began, I cut my teeth on it.

I remember the animated series and the extra door on the bridge which wasn’t in the series. That made me notice things were different. People have to use the restroom too on the bridge, so it was logical to put a door there.

I like certain parts of the new movie, but the design of the Big E, the interior design / production design was nothing like what we’ve seen in TOS or TMP. It’s like it was a hodge-podge of things kit-bashed together to make something else. Which wasn’t necessarily good for anything other than some PR akin to something you’d see on a skateboard than a starship.

Young folks won’t appreciate that I’ve watched TOS in my diapers in the sixties and can remember it. Apparently, neither can you and it’s sad you see the glass half empty instead of half full.

Jack, some fans here well educated or not, accepted it, because they fell for the PR and JJ’s version of the reboot w/out question, but those are TREKKIES.

I’m a TREKKER, I question EVERYTHING. And I am very vocal about it. There is a huge distinction and difference in being a TREKKIE and a TREKKER. You’re talking Romulans and Vulcans. They both have pointed ears, but there’s a universe of difference between them.

Voyage Home was the WORST TMP era film in everyway possible. It was a waste of talent and money down to Spock’s rocket-boots and the BIG E having 73 decks or more…

They tried to make the 2009 movie feel like BSG and they should have just done their own thing and created their own paradigm than rebooted one which already existed. There’s the paradox. Personally, I would have rather seen a totally new crew and ship than a reboot of what is and is solidly in place as canon TOS / TMP. You can’t improve upon perfection, so why even bother.

I am really not impressed much.

173. Sean - November 2, 2012

They messed up SW in a big way with that last trilogy….I’ll rent these new ones when they come out on DVD….they’re gonna be awful & by the 3rd one comes out the “brand” of SW will be completely run into the ground & a tired pathetic movie franchise…..this coming from a guy who loved eps 4-6 as a kid….time for the prequel generation to experience disappointment, can’t fool me twice

ST & Batman did it right in the mid to late ’00s…..maybe too good….I don’t care to see another batman movie again, but the serialization of ST from the beginning gives it more “legs”…I’d love to see a rebooted TNG down the line

174. Admiral Archer's Prized Beagle - November 2, 2012

We will see an Episode VII teaser before we see an Into Darkness teaser.

175. LPL - November 2, 2012

I do not see the point in arguing which movie was good and which was the worst. All ST movies were ST movies. Whether good or bad is pointless. It is ST. I personally think one of the “worst” is my personal favorite and I have my own reasons for it.

I agree that ST should not have been rebooted, but it is a done deal. So far.
What was one of the excuses again that I heard?: Too much canon to abide to?. Granted, they don’t grant Phd’s to hardcore ST fans, but maybe they should. Ultimately, this is the knowledge base and Paramount should look into this. Not necessarily with a director who is mostly a SW fan and try to woo us with some fake light show (and an engineering section).

176. Pensive's Wetness - November 2, 2012

Wow. i think i just stay with reading the articles here, no longer even worry about what BS everyone says (since no one here seems to take the term ‘civil’ seriously anymore…)

177. Pensive's Wetness - November 2, 2012

and the article author is correct, it may cause problems for JJ (but nothing deadly in my opinion because unless someone actually has script and story boards in hand, my guess is 2016 at the earliest for anything movie wise from the Mouse…

178. Jonboc - November 2, 2012

172 “Voyage Home was the WORST TMP era film in everyway possible. It was a waste of talent and money down to Spock’s rocket-boots and the BIG E having 73 decks or more…”

Considering the merits of your history with Trek, I have to attribute this to a momentary brain fart :). While I highly disagree with your assertion that The Final Frontier was the worst movie… it was, indeed, the Final Frontier, not The Voyage Home, that featured rocket Spock and 7o-something decks.

Also, we differ on Trek 2009… I really dug JJ’s spin on TOS trek and it’s ultimate liberation from the shackles of Berman’s mediocrity. And as far as improving on the perfection of the canon of TOS and TMP? I’ll just say this…the word perfection is very generous. I was there in 79, asking why does Vulcan suddenly have moons? ;)

179. MJ - November 2, 2012

@172 “I’m a TREKKER, I question EVERYTHING. And I am very vocal about it. There is a huge distinction and difference in being a TREKKIE and a TREKKER. You’re talking Romulans and Vulcans. They both have pointed ears, but there’s a universe of difference between them.”

What a dumbass statement. You sound like some teenager attending a ST convention in 1985.

180. MJ - November 2, 2012

“Voyage Home was the WORST TMP era film in every way possible.”

You’ve got to be kidding me??? Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is among the best of the original ST movies.

Ah, but you are TREKKER…ah, that explains why you hate Trek IV…it is all becoming clear to now…NOT??? WTF??? LOL :-)) ???

181. Kevin - November 2, 2012

JJ Abrams is extremely successful and Paramount has highly skilled marketing people with huge budgets and market research to support their decisions. Let’s try to relax. They are professionals at making and marketing movies. It will be fine.

As for Star Wars, the announcement this week was a huge surprise so it got a lot of coverage. Over the next seven months that massive interest will fade to a normal level. In the meantime, the professionals at Paramount and Abrams’ team will do a great job of raising awareness.

Don’t forget the last movie won the award for trailer of the year.

182. Jack - November 2, 2012

160 Jack: ” I’ve been watching Star Trek since it began in the mid-sixties and I KNOW THIS SHOW like very few of us here do.”

162 Jack: “I get grumpy with the “I’m a bigger, better, more knowledgable fan” stuff.”


Okay, I had that first bit in quotes, I didn’t say it — 49 said it — and, yeah, my sigh and grumpy reactions were to these (not just this comment but these sorts) of “i know Trek better than you, I’ve been watching it longer than you” stuff. Great, I’m glad you’ve enjoyed it for so long and I’m glad your sharing your perspective. But it’s entirely possible that someone who only started watching it a decade or two ago, could have seen it all as many times as you have, or more — and read all the books, comics etc. Or not — you may or may not have a better grasp on Trek history and minutua than some others here… So?

183. Andy Patterson - November 2, 2012

I say bring it on! This is some of the most exciting news I’ve heard in a long time. I have new found respect for Disney. If Walt could see what he’s built all these years later.

Truly awe inspiring to think about everything involved. ILM, Skywalker Sound,…all the characters. Just incredible! Awesome possibilities here. And a way to bring balance back to the universe. ( In many ways.) Disney knows how to market and protect properties. I have a very healthy respect for George Lucas but it’s gotta be better than what’s been done last 15 years. And the prospect of bringing Hamill, Ford and Fisher back is very exciting to me. I don’t care what anyone says. Talk about a money machine!

I’m on record as saying I don’t like Abram’s Trek. This new Star Wars is something I actually look forward to.

184. dmduncan - November 2, 2012

Hahaha! Very clever title photo. Three death stars arranged in the shape of Mickey Mouse, and “Star Wars” in the Disney font. I like it!

185. dmduncan - November 2, 2012

Even though none of the Star Wars sequels matched the original in my view, I think the first three were still better than Return of the Jedi. Or at least the Ewoks part of ROTJ. The conclusion of the Emperor/Vader/Luke story was good enough.

But nobody should have been surprised by Jar Jar Binks after the series ended in an EWOK JUBILEE!

186. MJ - November 2, 2012

“I’m on record as saying I don’t like Abram’s Trek. This new Star Wars is something I actually look forward to.”

Congrats on that! Now please disappear and go hang out at a Star Wars site where you obviously would prefer to hang out.

“This isn’t the web site you’re looking for…Move along.”

187. Red Dead Ryan - November 2, 2012

I noticed that there were a number of posters here who agreed with each other about why they didn’t like J.J Abrams’ “Star Trek”. And many of those reasons were ridiculous. Like how Abrams allegedly turned “Star Trek” into “Star Wars”. Utter nonsense.

I figure most of those posters are really one or two losers who have nothing better to do than by bitching and bitching ad nauseum.

As for the sequel, I think that it should earn at least $350 million worldwide. But if they want to make $500 million+, they’d better get their act together and do a proper international promotional blitz this time.

They didn’t do that last time, and the poor (at least in non-English speaking countries) international box office take showed.

188. Phil - November 2, 2012

Even though the Disney/Star Wars story is still lead news, I’d bet in the Paramount boardroom that there is probably more concern that a well reviewed IM3, also riding the coat-tails of The Avengers, could end up swamping STID. Would not be suprised is the release date changes a bit just to put a little space between the two movies…

189. TREKWEBMASTER - November 2, 2012

I don’t really hate TVH, it was at a time where I expected more from the franchise. After the whales and you save Earth, what else can you do to match it? Go visit w/ God?

The Undiscovered Country is a favorite. But I really liked Nemesis, and I don’t understand why everyone says it’s so bad. Perhaps it didn’t have the PR the others did? It did leave some ends left untied. But there is also another reason.

You always hear folks talk about TOS and TMP in-relation to JJ’s reboot / sequel, but I’ve noticed that NO ONE dares mention TNG.

Yes, I went there. At WARP speed, even! LOL!

But, there are aspects of Trek-Dom that only a TREKKER would understand. As, the prime universe still having an intact planet Vulcan, but in the Alternate Universe, It is destroyed. It is confusing, but when you jump down the Rabbit Hole, you don’t ask “How Far Does It Go?”

When the budget didn’t allow for one thing, compensate, Lt. and get your manual over-rides ready. Many a brilliant scene can be pulled-out of your arse when improvising.

On a personal note, I’m not as opposed to JJ’s version of Star Trek, it’s just that I really don’t like those comfort-zone items that were so endeared in my youth. That was an innocent era, when I really “could” see the majestic Starship Enterprise flying through the stars, if even only in my daydreams. But Star Wars came-out when I was 12, and it was an AWESOME UNIVERSE, the toys got better and I was in HEAVEN! LOL.

Total geek-dom. But then came TMP and when they killed Spock in the early 80’s, I almost ran amok and vowed never to watch Star Trek again, but secretly, inside my heart of hearts, I knew they’d bring him back. This reminded me of the book: “Spock Must Die.” Which is an excellent piece of literature. Dark. It just couldn’t be, could it?

You can read about the plot in “Spock Must Die,” here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock_Must_Die!

Perhaps JJ is shining a light on the “polarity” and “duality” which pervades our society, these days. Perhaps that’s the reason why I have a sudden impulse to resist? The “Cognitive Dissonance” of considering two alternate and conflicting existences of both, which adds to this feeling to further it? But it’s not tied-up. There are loose ends.

This goes into quantum physics where I get my mind boggled most of the time, but the “Prime” and “Alternate” universe is troubling, at best. Reminds me of the TOS episode with the two Lazarus characters, both of a different “polarity.”

I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective, as with the Talosians, who had illusion rather than reality, or Lazarus, or JJ’s version of the universe.

I suppose I am spoiled how Captain Janeway violated every Temporal Prime Directive in the book and did it neatly in less than an hour, which leaves me a bit disheveled and ragged when contemplating the “temporal” aspects of the alternate version of reality rebooted.

I’ve rambled enough, but I hope this illustrates a few high-points of why or why I don’t feel or not feel certain things about the new movies, etc.


Which ideology is correct? Is there even a question or…

Do we just accept everything to be “it is what it is?”

190. Red Dead Ryan - November 2, 2012

“The Voyage Home” was an okay movie, not great. It had heart, and some very good character moments, especially between Spock and McCoy.

But the movie is cheesy. The music sucked. And some of the comedy scenes seemed forced. And William Shatner stopped acting as Kirk and began acting as himself.

But the “Double dumb-ass on you!” scene is still a classic.

191. Andy Patterson - November 2, 2012


MJ I’ve noticed you seem to think your opinion is law on everything. And might I add you’re really an irritable, unpleasant ass too. In fact you seem to delight in it. I have an opinion also. So suck a bag and you move on!

192. sean - November 2, 2012

Let’s not play the ‘I’m a better fan than you are’ game. It’s no fun and no one wins.

193. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point. - November 2, 2012


Framing it in the way that you did, Star Trek died the day Star Wars was released.

194. Sebastian S. - November 2, 2012

I’m extremely glad that Disney got the Star Wars’ franchise out of George Lucas’ out-of-touch, atrophied hands. He’s been steadily killing his own creation for the last 13 years. First a string of substandard prequels, then even MORE prequels with the utterly boring and inconsequential Clone Wars cartoons. I was starting to wonder; will the SW movies EVER move forward past “Return of the Jedi”? Or will they continually revisit the ‘in-between’ period between episodes 2 and 3?

Frankly, if I want a ‘real’ Star Wars fix? I’ll either watch the first two movies of the original trilogy or I go on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, so I was over-the-moon happy with the Disney/Lucasfilm deal; it’s a match made in geek heaven.

Besides, look at how well Disney has handled Pixar and Marvel’s “Avengers” (consistently brilliant characters and storytelling that are never overshadowed by the technology; a lesson Lucas lost sight of some time ago). Lucas seemed to have burned the recipe to make a good SW movies. It seems that there are many filmmakers today that could really nail it (Peter Jackson, Joss Whedon, Alfonso Quaron, etc); filmmakers who are not only graceful action directors, but also put characters FIRST in their spectacle.

And there really is no need to compete; if both a Star Trek and Star Wars film come out the same summer? Rest assured, I will see them BOTH.


195. MJ - November 2, 2012

@191 “MJ I’ve noticed you seem to think your opinion is law on everything. And might I add you’re really an irritable, unpleasant ass too. In fact you seem to delight in it. I have an opinion also. So suck a bag and you move on!”

The feeling is mutual — been hearing your Trek 2009 hate for years now and it is wearing on a lot of us here. Now you say you prefer Disney Star Wars to Trek 2009. So go and be a Star Wars fan then and do us all a favor and take your tied act over to Bobb Fetts, Mickey and Donald’s duck’s fan site then.

“This isn’t the web site you’re looking for…Move along.”

196. Red Dead Ryan - November 2, 2012

I don’t think that’s the real Andy Patterson.

197. Magic_Al - November 2, 2012

^190. “And William Shatner stopped acting as Kirk and began acting as himself.”

When was this not the case? Kirk has always been Shatner interpreting how Shatner would feel if what was written in a Star Trek script was Shatner’s knowledge and experience at that moment. If there’s a substantive change in his performance over the years it’s that he’s become less “stagey” and would no longer play a closeup scene in the turbolift as though the viewer was in the back row of a theater. (“I’m losing command!”)

198. Michael Ormes - November 2, 2012

I hope that they create engineering the way that JJ originally wanted and intended to at the beginning.There has always been so so many things missing from all the other TREK movies and episodes and I think 09 TREK corrected 99% of those errors.TREK always seemed to drop the ball when it came to realism during situations involving fighting and things of that naturand never really captured the real emotion that a person would actually feel when confronted with extreme situations.The look and feel of the organic and environmental reactions to dangerous and physical situations felt cheap and non-existent,until TREK 09.

199. Bob Tompkins - November 2, 2012

The announcement is certainly taking attention away from Star trek [and everything else], but that’s by JJ Abrams’ choice.

200. Bob Tompkins - November 2, 2012

Does this mean Disney owns the Howard the Duck and Red Tails franchises as well?

201. MJ - November 2, 2012

My word is law and it kills me when you guys don’t take me seriously.

202. Bob Tompkins - November 2, 2012

@MJ…the site would be better off without you.

203. Platitude - November 3, 2012

Why all the hate on JJ? I’ve seen every Star Trek and the newest one is not only my favorite, its my favorite movie of all time. Its simply a fantastic film. He revived the franchise for goodness sakes, you should be sending him flowers and candy IMO.

And I think more Star Wars is good for Trek. The more Sci-Fi becomes mainstream, the more Trekkies we can convert! :)

204. MJ - November 3, 2012

***** POST #201 IS NOT ME *****

205. Elias Javalis - November 3, 2012


Couldn’t agree more…:)

206. M.J. - November 3, 2012

So does the fact that lindeolf now has luke as is twitter background, suppose to indictate anything or is fraking with people?

I hope it means nothing, I dont want to see any of JJ’s Isle of misfit film makers laying one finger on star wars

(please note I am not implying or trying appear to be the other MJ, my first and last name initials are M.J. and so I am posting as such cause i refuse to use silly screen names. to distinguish myself i am having a period after each initial

207. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - November 3, 2012

I need to preface my comment by saying I’m not much of a Star Wars fan.

Just as I do not wish to see any of the original cast in Star Trek any longer, I certainly would not want to see any of the original Star Wars cast in a new movie. Then again, after the first two original films, I don’t think Star Trek was any good, and even those first two are a little painful for me to watch these days.

Episode 7 should have all the things that make Star Wars great. So let’s have Jar Jar running an Ewok brothel. It is regularly visited by Jedi masters and Sith Lords, and all kinds of hilarious hijinks ensue.

I suppose there’s always a possibility that somebody talented could involve themselves and actually make some good Star Wars films. But I won’t hold my breath.

208. M.J. - November 3, 2012

there is a big difference the sequel trilogy is just that a sequel, and set many years latter after ROTJ there is no reason why Luke should not be played by Hamil and Leia played by Fisher. Just as there is no reason why Anthony Daniels shouldnt be playing threep-o or Kenny Baker as R2

also Peter Mayhew said back when ROTS came out that he was asked to sign a 3 picture contract. so i would expect to see him in atleast 2 of the sequels. this is not like Trek where the new movies take place before the original movies, and the fact that it was originally part of Lucases plan to have a 9 part saga,( despite his claims he never said that even though there is audio and printed interviews proving other wise). Ive felt for years that The live action series has always been nothing more than a smoke screen for the development and pre production of the sequel trilogy till it was ready to be announced.
only the sale to disney surprsed me.

209. Tim - November 3, 2012

Talk about nice timing! Ewan Mcgregor just posted a photo of him and Cumberbatch for August: Osage County movie. Haha! And… seriously?! Peter Jackson? I love the man but let him work solely on Middle-Earth!!! I just can’t understand all the hate on JJ. He revived Trek! What more can we ask for?

210. MJ - November 3, 2012

@206 @208. Thanks dude for the modification to your initials. Now folks can tell us apart at least.

(and Post #201 is not either of us — that is the trouble-making imposter)

211. MJ - November 3, 2012

@209 ” there is no reason why Leia should be played by Fisher”

Hmm. Do we really want to see this in 48FPS 3D in 2015:


Not to pick on here, but seeing her play Leia on the Big screen looking like this would ruin all my Star Wars memories of Princess Leia forever.

And age had not been kind to Hamill either:


Just like I didn’t want to see an 81 year old 300 pound Shatner in Trek, I don’t want to see — lets be honest here folks — butt ugly and old Fisher and Hammil in 48FPS 3D on the big screen.

212. Elias Javalis - November 3, 2012

If there is an original Star Wars Story, (no Evil Empire with black and white helmets, no teddybears and copy/paste armies), I ll honor it accordingly!

213. Cheve - November 3, 2012

Current movie business os all about franchises. Unless they are released in the same month, which would be absolutely stupid, they will both feed on each other’s audience.

214. Norman Bates - November 3, 2012

If the new SW films are going to be anything like the prequels, the ST has nothing to worry about.

215. captain_neill - November 3, 2012

Well Star Trek has always been my favourite over Star Wars. Loved the original trilogy but the prequels sucked and I hate Lucas’ tinkering with the originals over the years.

As long as JJ Abrams remembers he is making a Star Trek film and not a Star Wars film it should be fine.

JJ Abrams made changes to Trek that as a hard core fan I was not happy with but can still enjoy his movies.

216. Rico - November 3, 2012

This is a non-issue. People are more savvy than most give them credit for. These movies are not coming out at all close to each other so it won’t be a problem. Now, give us a trailer JJ!!

217. TwilightTrek - November 3, 2012

I wonder if JJ will jump ship and be part of the new Star Wars movies. It always seemed like he liked Star Wars more than Star Trek. Also I wonder if this means Trek movies and products will happen at a quicker pace to keep up with Star Wars.

218. John from Cincinnati - November 3, 2012

Uh, I think her name is Heather Langenkamp, not Nancy

219. Kirk - November 3, 2012

This is absurd. Star Trek and Star Wars are two different things. It’s like saying the sales of oranges will suffer, because apples are available too. Get over it and make a fruit salad with both.

220. Tyrannosaurus rex - November 3, 2012

I think the two franchises benefit each other. We wouldn’t even have Star Trek movies if Star Wars never happened.

221. Phil - November 3, 2012

@211. What, no love for Grandpa Solo? Damn kids, get off my lawn….


Yeah, it’s time to recast Indy, too.

222. Charlescharles - November 3, 2012

Cause we can’t afford tickets for both movies… (Tgf sarcasm)

223. Planet Pandro - November 3, 2012

I think the only thing hurting the “Star Trek Into Darkness” marketing campaign is…the “Star Trek Into Darkness” marketing campaign

224. HubcapDave - November 3, 2012

This is all much ado about nothing…….

225. Red Dead Ryan - November 3, 2012


True, there’s always been a little bit of Shatner in Kirk when he played the captain. But starting with “The Voyage Home”, and especially during “The Final Frontier” and the Nexus scenes in “Generations”, he seemed more like how he is in real life as opposed to being Kirk.

Contrast these performances with those of both “The Wrath Of Khan” and “The Search For Spock”. Nick Meyer managed to reign in Shatner during TWOK, allowing him to give one of his best performances as Kirk, not just in that movie, but in TSFS as well. His performances became less nuanced in the final four movies he did.

226. Disinvited - November 3, 2012

Well, according to the LA TIMES:


”…Paramount Pictures, which has developed a reputation as the most frugal and conservative of Hollywood’s major studios, as a story in Tuesday’s Times details.

Abrams admits he has been on the receiving end of difficult negotiations for that exact reason.

“Certainly on ‘Star Trek’ and the sequel and on ‘Mission: Impossible’ three and four, we had massive budget issues always,” he said. “Yet we always get it figured out before production starts and realize that the money you don’t get forces you to rethink something and challenges you to figure it out in a new way.”” – Ben Fritz, LOS ANGELES TIMES

It’s a safe bet future STAR WARS will have a bigger budget than anything STAR TREK for the foreseeable future.

227. NX-UESPA CLASS STARSHIP - November 3, 2012

Might as well start SpaceBalls 2: The Search For More Money. Dark Popsicle will make his appearance. May The Schwartz be with you!

228. JJ's Secret - November 3, 2012

I’ve said this before, and after reading many of the comments here, I am more convinced than ever…

JJ’s lack of confidence in his own movie, his lack of communication about it, and finally, his blatant disdain and ridicule of the fans of Star Trek spell the doom of our beloved franchise. It’s over, folks.. Star Wars has won, 6 more movies, all the hype, all the behind the scenes videos, all the kids buying the toys, the animated shows, the TV specials, the stories in every magazine.. they all will be about Star Wars, and Star Trek.. well, JJ will be laughing at all of us every single day, just like he did on Conan…

Check it out folks, we are the big joke, three frames of film, with him laughing all the way. Conan joining in… we are the ones that lost… Star Trek Into Darkness, or whatever they want to call it.. will be a flop. They are ashamed and embarrassed by it, and they don’t care about those that love it.

JJ doesn’t care.. the cast just wants their paycheck, the studio is kicking themselves right now because Star Wars just took over the hype machine for the next two years… and we are sitting around here acting like children.

JJ wins.

229. sean - November 3, 2012


After the major losses Disney suffered on John Carter, they aren’t likely to be any less frugal than Paramount. All the major studios are tightening the purse strings right now, and as JJ himself said, that’s not always such a bad thing. It often forces directors to get more creative.

230. LizardGirl - November 3, 2012

@119 Keachick

Hmm…I scoured many posts from various threads and couldn’t find what I was looking for: proof that we’d get a trailer attached to the Hobbit. Could’ve sworn I read that….never mind! he he.

“That would be STID, which apparantly will be attached to Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit this year.” post 115 & 116

I retract this statement. There’s no proof!! Wishful thinking! :D

231. Andy Patterson - November 3, 2012


MJ you are the definition of the anonymous cyber bully. At least I use my real name. I’ve noticed people steer wide and clear of you just to not deal with you. I myself have been guilty of this too. Not doing it here, not now. Not again. You’re kind of the more unpleasant Sheldon Cooper. You’ve got an opinion on EVERYTHING. And you’ve got to deal it out in the most caustic divisive way always. What a great trait to have. I’m sure you’re a treat to be around in real life. I’d love to meet up with you. Really would. I’m quite the conversationalist myself.

So you’re speaking for the collective? You’ve taken a poll? “Been wearing a lot on us”. Sorry that’s taken it’s toll you, old fella. I don’t really speak of my disdain for the movie that much. Maybe been over a year since I have. It’s not allowed to speak it. Although there are others who share my opinion.

I can love Trek and Wars. I’ve never seen a problem liking them both. Or liking the iterations I like. Our self made purgatories…as Spock said.

@196 Yes it is me. Enough is enough.

I’ll say it again. in regards to this site….. To paraphrase from a line in “Foxy Brown” that Samuel L. Jackson says to Deniro’s character. “What happened to this site? It used to beautiful.”

There’s a word Robert Plant utters after the second verse,… right before the guitar solo in “Communication Breakdown”.

232. LizardGirl - November 3, 2012

Ooh, okay. Keachick, this is how my brain was convinced we’d get a ST trailer with The Hobbit. It was all based on hearesay but nevertheless…

Benedict Cumberbatch who’s in both movies. What better way to cross advertise?

Bob Orci said we should get something December/January on twitter (I swear I’m not pulling this out of my butt but correct me if I’m wrong!)

The next big blockbuster within that time period? The Hobbit

Again, hearsay, yet that’s why my brain decided we’d get something Trek with the Hobbit. And yes, I hope I’m right too! :)

233. DeShonn Steinblatt - November 3, 2012

Episode VII promises to be “Not Your Father’s Star Wars”, and virtually everyone over 40 will hate it with every breath in their bitter souls. In that sense, the Star Wars franchise and the Star Trek franchise will come to represent the Twin Towers of Butthurt for aging fanboys all across the internet.

Other than that, the two have nothing in common and the notion of a competition is siily.

234. Disinvited - November 3, 2012

#229. sean

CARTER didn’t lose any money according to the way people around here calculate huge profits from the 2009 STAR TREK effort. Besides, it is unclear to me why you appear to be lumping the two together?

Maybe because the predicted no budget limitations for the 2013 ST sequel based on a wave of profit it would ride from the 2009 effort, never materialized?

Isn’t it reasonable that the reason there’s no active marketing of the ST sequel at this time, is because of the alluded budget cuts?

235. Jack - November 3, 2012

Why is Joseph Dickerson turning this site into his own personal blog? I’m not thrilled with these op eds. The guy can’t write.

236. TREKWEBMASTER - November 3, 2012

I found it ironic that MJ has two personas, nice MJ and bad MJ.

Suppose those two can meet-up in the “Alternate” universe like Spock?

I wonder what would happen if they did, but I suppose they’d deny being MJ to everyone and themselves?

Just a little fun poking here.

The world is bad enough, why do we have to be ugly to each other, especially when anonymous over the internet?

But, some people have a need to be the “Top Dog” in reality and virtual reality.

You know what they say in Starfleet Academy about Captains who clamor for the Biggest Ship, always have the smallest shuttlecrafts! LOL.

237. MJ - November 3, 2012

@235. Well, look who’s grumbling about the articles this time? :-) Guess you get to give yourself a free pass to grumble, but heaven help to person who grumbles about an article here when you are in a good mood. :-)

238. MJ - November 3, 2012

@232. Dude, you are the cyber bully here — what kind of an ass shows up on Trekmovie.com, the site which was created primarily to cover the new JJ series of Trek movies, and basically tells all of us that you welcome the Disney SW movies because JJ’s Trek movies suck — that is what you are trying to shove down our throats here, and I am not going to put up with it.

Post all the overly long diatribes of personal hate against me that you can muster here if makes your feel better and if if provides you a sense of personal moral cover, but I’m not taking any crap from anyone who shows up here telling us they prefer Disney Star Wars to Trek 2009. I repeat, I am not going to take your anti-nuTrek pro-SW crap here — and you can take that to the bank and cash it!

“This isn’t the web site you’re looking for…Move along.”

239. MJ - November 3, 2012

@237. LOL. Well said!

240. Disinvited - November 3, 2012


I would say ToS character, Lazarus, would be more apropos.

241. Red Shirt Diaries - November 3, 2012

Andy Patterson,

MJ is too extreme in his response as usual, but really, what did you expect the response would be here when you told us you were so happy to see that some Disney Star Wars movies were being made now that would be better than Trek09?

Again, I don’t agree with MJ’s over-the-top negativity, but I would bet that the gist of his response to you reflects the opinion of the vast majority of us here. I do not come to Trekmovie.com to see someones gleeful posts about how great Disney Star Wars is going to be as compared to Trek 2009. That is insulting to read that on this site.

MJ’s surely an ass, but I stand with him on the content portion of his criticism of your posts on this one.

242. AJ - November 3, 2012

Here in the Northeastern US, there is NO hype about Star Wars. Not even on major news networks. An old sci-fi franchise switching corporate ownership is back-page news.

While I agree that STID’s lack of any marketing whatsoever is due to the film being delivered over-budget, Paramount is indeed throwing the film under the bus by not doing anything. Box Office Mojo often says that the studio takes in 1/3 of the gross numbers a film does in cinemas before home video/TV, etc. Foreign sales are overtaking domestic sales for many genre films sometimes by up to two-thirds. That means, to break even, STID must gross $555m. Substantially more than ST09 pulled in. Because so much of the world is 100% unaware of Star Trek, the lack of a full international marketing brand-building campaign RIGHT NOW is essentially a nail in the franchise’s coffin.

243. sean - November 3, 2012


Huh? I’m confused, *you* lumped them together in your comment (saying Star Wars would have a better budget available than Trek). I simply pointed out that Disney had one of the biggest financial losses in modern Hollywood, and that said loss would likely influence the kind of budgets they will approve in the future. That seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption in my book. I don’t think Paramount is the only studio that will be tightening budgets in the near future.

John Carter’s budget was well over $300 million, and it made $282 million worldwide. How is that comparable to Trek, which had a budget of around $130 million and made nearly $400 million worldwide? According to official reports, JJ’s budget was increased for STID (around 185 million).

I loved John Carter, so I don’t have an agenda here.

244. Red Shirt Diaries - November 3, 2012


I’m not getting at all how you claim to be this super-expert Trek fan, but yet try to insist that Star Trek IV – The Voyage Home is the worst Trekmovie ever made? What is up with that?

245. Uberbot - November 3, 2012

I never got that “us vs. them” mentality of Trek and Star Wars fans. Why does it have to be either/or? I like both…although when I say that, I am talking about A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back and the GOOD parts of Return of the Jedi and Revenge of the Sith (you know what I mean on that!).

Is Star Wars overrated? Yes. Can Star Wars and Star Trek co-exist? Yes.

It’s not a competition! I’d like to see both franchises release a film every two years! And more than that, I’d like to see a NEW sci-fi franchise come along that blows them BOTH out of the water! Is that too much to ask?

246. Andy Patterson - November 3, 2012

@ 241

Fair enough. I know the majority like it. I get it. I always have. That’s why I keep fairly quiet about it. I don’t really push my agenda. When I have said it I don’t believe I’ve ever been personal or ugly about it (maybe, except when it first came out). I say it and I’m done. Even though this is the name of the site that shouldn’t preclude one’s opinion being stated. It’s called open discussion. It’s what makes life interesting. But when I do say something,…boy! it’s like it’s not even open for discussion. I feel like I’ve been more attacked for saying I like the prospect of a new Star Wars film than what I think of Abram’s Trek. Which makes no sense to me. Gleeful post? I’m just excited to be feeling a sense of hope about something else I love. And again, where is Anthony?

247. Disinvited - November 3, 2012

#243. sean

I like JOHN CARTER too. I was typing about your lumping THAT movie into the mix, and not my lumped STAR WARS.

If anything I think CARTER parallels ST:TMP in being accused of “losing” money where none actually was. It’s a good studio ploy.

But this may be relevant: I think CARTER was marketed horribly too, in the U.S.

248. MJ - November 3, 2012

“TREKWEBMASTER, I’m not getting at all how you claim to be this super-expert Trek fan, but yet try to insist that Star Trek IV – The Voyage Home is the worst Trekmovie ever made? What is up with that?”

Multiple people now have commented on this now. Not sure why he/she won’t respond and explain further to us all why Trek 4 is the worst Trek movie? I’m sure he/she has good reasons though, given his/her extreme knowledge of Trek that he/she has made a point of mentioning several times to us lesser knowledgable Trek fan peons. LOL

249. sean - November 3, 2012


Well, Carter was made by Disney and now we’re talking about Star Wars being made by Disney. Even if John Carter is the biggest scapegoat in movie history, it doesn’t really matter. As far as the studio is concerned, it lost and lost big. They will be cautious with future budgets for science-fiction in the future, even for Star Wars. There are many great articles out there on the subject, but most agree that Carter would have a ripple effect on SciFi.

I agree that the marketing for Carter was terrible, though based on what I’ve read that mainly falls on Stanton, who insisted on control. It’s actually a great example of what I was getting at with my earlier quote from JJ Abrams, with a studio failing to reign in a director and just giving him carte blanche. Some restrictions can be a good thing.

250. MJ - November 3, 2012

Sean, you are correct — John Carter (I love the movie, BTW) was not only marketed poorly by Disney, but Stanton did pull a “Michael Cimino” on them by being arrogant and not working with the studio.

251. M.J. - November 3, 2012

SO MJ you would rather see a younger actor in old age make up playing them, when they are both still alive and in Hamil’s case still acting(Hamill is actually a BAFTA award winning actor now) For a number of years it been rumored that the sequel trilogy would take place decades after the Original Trilogy with an much older Luke.

On your other question mjThere has been no confirmation or talk that the new trilogy will be filmed in 48FPS, in fact you probably wont hear much of any studio suggesting filming in the HFR format till after audience and critical reaction to it is more known after the HOBBIT part I. the early complaints from test screenings of small amounts of footage has actually pushed back the number of screens that WB is even going to be presenting HFR on anyways.

252. M.J. - November 3, 2012

JJ the cone of silence is starting to negatively affect your film, you best be showing that trailer or even a poster soon.

253. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 3, 2012

Not a Star Wars fan… seen the movies but not my cup of tea. I don’t see how this Star Wars announcement will hurt Trek in the slightest.

And for those comparing Trek to Star Wars… John Carter was more Star Wars-like really.

Sorry, I haven’t been worried about the new Trek movie and still am not and won’t be.

254. M.J. - November 3, 2012

So The Real you honestly arent a bit worried that just over 6 months away there is still no poster no trailer, not even an official production still released by JJ and co?

all right buddy hope your right, but thats definately not the way to promote a movie that you feel confident about.

255. MJ - November 3, 2012

@251 “SO MJ you would rather see a younger actor in old age make up playing them, when they are both still alive and in Hamil’s case still acting(Hamill is actually a BAFTA award winning actor now) For a number of years it been rumored that the sequel trilogy would take place decades after the Original Trilogy with an much older Luke.”

I don’t think the older Hammil and older Fischer fit my view of what an older Luke and Leia should look like. If Hammil were to have some plastic surgery to get his face cleaned up, and Fisher were to lose 75 pound, I’d be willing to reconsider this. But at this point in time, I’d say bring back Harrison Ford, and recast Luke and Leia. For example, Viggo Mortenson would make a great older Luke, and Julianne Moore would make a great older Leia.

That is MY OPINION, and I make no apologies for it. Feel free to disagree, of course.

256. sean - November 3, 2012


Yeah, I actually really enjoyed John Carter. But I don’t think anyone can argue against the fact that the marketing stunk. I only saw it because someone forced me to, as the commercials seemed totally uninteresting to me. They told you nothing about the actual content or storyline. Someone at Disney should have stepped in and cut a trailer that actually let the audience in on the concept.

257. Markus McLaughlin - November 3, 2012

Wake up, JJ, it’s time for a TEASER TRAILER to STID and start discussing tidbits and releasing photos, that should take some of the sting of SW VII. I KNEW Lucas had a story treatment for a SEQUEL TRILOGY, he just didn’t want to make them… Coincidence, I think not! The timing sucks, that’s all…


258. Red Dead Ryan - November 3, 2012


You make some good points, MJ. I agree that Mark Hamill is now too old and ugly, and that Carrie Fisher is too old and fat, plus her voice is shot to hell. Harrison Ford could still pull it off, and maybe Billy Dee Williams.

259. Red Dead Ryan - November 3, 2012

“John Carter” is a great movie. It’s such a crime that it bombed at the box office. The marketing was a disaster. And now we won’t get a sequel.

260. Keachick - November 3, 2012

What timing? Not time would be a good time, from some people’s perspective. Disney buying out George Lucas’s franchise and film company does not put a sting into anything. JJ has said that a teaser trailer and/or other STID promotional material will be out “by the end of the year” and there is no reason to think that won’t happen. What George Lucas and Disney do is of little consequence…different franchise, different company, different film makers!

George Lucas “played off” Star Trek, ie was inspired by Star Trek TOS and the fact it became a lot more successful in re-runs, made created ILM and made Star Wars, which then allowed Star Trek movies to be made using all the latest special effects ILM was able to provide for movies at the time, especially sci-fi ones. Star Wars did its thing – with the first three movies (episodes 4, 5 and 6) and later with the prequels (episodes 1, 2 and 3). Meanwhile, Star Trek has carried on making movies, for better and worse, with the 12th movie to be released May 17, 2013.

George Lucas, I believe, always liked Star Trek. It gave him ideas. However, he also had his own ideas and he did his own thing – Star Wars, for better and worse.

Both franchises have had the benefits of ILM, as have many other movie makers since ILM came into existence and has been improving on its mission, to provide good special effects et al, for film makers of movies and television series. ILM had very few, if any, real competitors until WETA came along…

*As I predicted, where I am, the news about GL, SW and Disney will soon be guinea pig bum paper. Can’t get better than that…:)

261. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 3, 2012

254. M.J.

Nope. Not worried one bit. We will most likely get a trailer sometime between end of November/mid-December… and a poster will follow. I am perfectly happy with seeing nothing at all right now. I work in the entertainment industry and always feel that movies that release things so far in advance getting buzz but it dies off quickly then there is nothing and then something again. I hate yo-yo marketing.

Right now listen to all the buzz … people wondering why there is nothing. Where is the news? Who is the villain? What’s the story? Is it Khan? Is it Mitchell? Lots of speculation. Free publicity! And then you will get so much more talk in the months leading up to the movie. That will create even more buzz.

If JJ and Paramount have that much confidence in the movie to release nothing right now… then I am definitely not worried. They are still in post-production right now anyway. I would rather them focus on that.

So, nope… not one single worry or concern.

262. Keachick - November 3, 2012

Lizard Girl – You are right. Yes, of course, Benedict Cumberbatch appears in both – the Hobbit film series and STID. Yet another good reason for the first STID teaser/trailer to appear preceding the first Hobbit movie!

In both films, it seems that Benedict Cumberbatch is playing bad boys. In STID, he is the unnamed bad boy; “one mean dude” according to Chris Pine. In the Hobbit films, he does the voice of Smaug, not a very friendly dragon at all, and also plays the Necromancer (who turns out to be Sauron himself – one very, very bad ‘un). If BC is not careful, he will start getting something of a bad, wicked reputation…oh dear, oh dear, oh dear…;)

263. Yar's love child - November 3, 2012

Can’t hurt a marketing campaign that doesn’t exist yet.

I guess “super-soon” means within the next decade.

264. Keachick - November 3, 2012

Re #262 – @ Bob Orci, JJ and co – MAKE IT SO!

If Paramount did not insist on Star Trek being converted to 3D, it is possible that we might be seeing STID nearer to Christmas 2012/early 2013. It would be running up against or perhaps, better still, ALONGSIDE the Hobbit – An Unexpected Journey. The way I see it, Tolkien’s Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are great books, and are being turned into great, classic movies, ones bound to stand the test of time.

Having a Star Trek movie run alongside the Hobbit can add a certain class, substance to Star Trek. Star Trek, especially if JJ and co are able to intelligently develop the stage set in ST09, will be surely seen by many as being a “cut above the rest”, in the same way that Peter Jackson’s Tolkien movies are likely to be seen over time.

For better or worse, STID is not being released now, however I doubt having the first STID trailer precede the Hobbit movie will harm either!

265. Keachick - November 3, 2012

Something OT just to keep ourselves balanced and happy…Yes?


Love the picture of Chris here!

266. helen - November 3, 2012

I think the lack of pr for the star trek film has done severe damage to its box office chances. The producers needed to nurture fans to build up interest and have failed to do so. They wont change their strategy because they clearly have no intention of changing course but ignoring the potential audience throughout 2012 will come back to bite them in the a*s next May.

267. guest - November 3, 2012

There is no excitement for Star Trek Into darkness. The producers only have themselves to blame

268. K-7 - November 3, 2012

#183 “I’m on record as saying I don’t like Abram’s Trek. This new Star Wars is something I actually look forward to.”

Hey Patterson, I find this statement offensive to all Trek fans posting here. We don’t need your elitist talking down to all of us here, and saying that some unkwown future Disney version of Star Wars is better than Star Trek (2009). What and arrogant and preposterous statement to make here!

269. Craiger - November 3, 2012

What if they rebooted thw original SW just like they did with Trek? Cast younger actors that kind of look like the original cast?

Or continue SW after Return of The Jedi and also cast age appropriate actors for the roles of Luke, Leia and Han?

270. Red Dead Ryan - November 3, 2012


That might be interesting, though we already know that Darth Vader is Luke’s father.

It looks like they’re going to continue on after “Return Of The Jedi”. My guess would be that Han, Luke, Leia, etc. will be recast by actors in their late 40’s or early 50’s.

271. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - November 3, 2012

All, this can’t be the real Andy Patterson posting that Star Wars smack-talk and other childish attack posts for the past day. The real Andy Patterson, who I have not seen post here for some time, always had more thoughtful things to say than these types of incendiary remarks indicate.

This is probably the imposter again. Sigh!

272. Yar's love child - November 3, 2012

I absolutely don’t want this interpreted as slam on the moderators of this fine site, but i definitely get tired of coming here and not seeing anything new for weeks at a time. We’re crossing the line from “building suspense” to “just plain effing annoying”

273. P Technobabble - November 3, 2012


I totally disagree with you on that.

274. Phil - November 3, 2012

JJ’s silent treatment hasn’t hurt his other movies, as such, it probably won’t hurt STID. In terms of marketing the franchise, it’s really bad, though, and the Lucasfilm sale to Disney will probably be a kick in the pants to CBS/Paramount that thet can’t live on repackaging old content. Will be good for Trek in the long haul….

275. M.J. - November 3, 2012

258 I would like to see how you look after a horrible car accident that requires you to under go major facial reconstruction.
And see how you look 30 years latter.
What a incredibly shallow thing to say

276. K-7 - November 3, 2012

#275. M.J., I agree with MJ and Red Dead Ryan. They are talking about casting an older Luke Skywalker, and they want someone that looks credible to the part. I agree with them 100%. And I think it is cheap shot to make this into some kind of thing where you infer that MJ is picking on people who were in car accidents.

This is about casting Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia in a new Star Wars trilogy, and we need to face the fact that neither of these actors looks credible to play the part anymore.

This should not be about sentimentality or vanity, which is where you are coming from. Let it go!

277. HubcapDave - November 3, 2012

My guess is that we’ll be seeing a Trailer for STID soon. the first trailer for Star Trek (I’m not counting the Jan 2008 teaser) Was shown first in front of Quantum Of Solace, which came out mid-November 2008. Since STID is following a similar path, and premieres in a similar timeframe as ST did, we should be seeing the trailer in the next few weeks (in from of Skyfall, perhaps?)

278. Sebastian S. - November 3, 2012

I find it ironic that if Hamill is indeed in the new SW movie (and I hope that he is) he would just about be the same age that Sir Alec Guinness was when he played Ben Kenobi in the original Star Wars movie (early 60s). I think a more ‘weathered’ Jedi master Luke Skywalker would be appropriate for the new movie anyway. He should look older; it would give his character more gravitas. By the way, Carrie Fisher has lost a lot of weight recently and looks much better these days. And I think a more mature Leia would be fitting anyway, if her ‘twin brother’ Luke looked older as well….

Personally, I think if Hamill and Fisher were in it? It would give the new movies a sense of legitimacy that the prequels sorely lacked IMO (ironic, since George Lucas himself directed all three prequels).

Shatner in Airplane 2 said it best,
“I guess irony can be pretty ironic sometimes…”

279. MJ - November 3, 2012

@275. Hey newbie, that is a ridiculous response. No, I am not picking on people who had car accidents 30 years ago. But yes, I am taking an objective view on whether either Hamill or Fisher are up to playing Luke and Leia, and I am saying, NO, they are not.

If this seems cold to you, sorry! But we are talking about reigniting a multi-billion dollar franchise here, and Harrison Ford is the only guy (except maybe Williams as RDR pointed out) who still looks like he would fit the part of the original character a couple of decades later.

Whoever casts Luke and Leia for the new films, I hope that they do the right thing and avoid the “sympathy casting” approach that M.J. and probably a lot of older SW fans will want. Just like in Trek, where we finally had to le Shat go (with many fans here still calling for his return), SW’s fans needs to let Hamill and Fisher go. Like Shat, Hamill and Fisher just wouldn’t be credible on the big screen anymore playing those iconic roles. And when you think about 48FPS 3D, well, that will only accentuate how old and different they look.

280. MJ - November 3, 2012

@279. Sorry, but Carrie Fisher has gained all the weight back and more:


Princess Leia? Not!

And Hamill has also piled on the pounds recently — he is approach the “Shat weight class” now:


I do feel bad for the actors though. In the late 90’s, instead of giving us the horrid prequel triology, Lucas should have then gave us this sequel trilogy and brought these two back then — in their early 40’s.

So, as with all things Star Wars, is it Lucas’s fault here. ;-)

281. DiscoSpock - November 3, 2012

If Disney is seriously considering bringing back Hamill and Fisher, then they need to put stipulations in their contracts that will get back in shape for these movies. You just can’t have them looking the way they look right now as Luke and Leia.

282. DiscoSpock - November 3, 2012

Daniel Craig, I agree with you. Those comments do not come from the Andy Patterson that I remember from past discussions on this site.

283. Adolescent Nightmare - November 3, 2012


But I am a 43 year old father of six.

284. MJ - November 3, 2012

“But I am a 43 year old father of six.”

Which would certainly be a nightmare from and adolescent’s point of view.


285. sean - November 3, 2012


Apparently the new Star Trek mag has news on the movie, I’ll have to go out tomorrow and see if I can pick up a copy.

286. Sebastian S. - November 3, 2012

# 281 and # 280

They won’t necessarily be playing their younger ‘action hero’ selves.
I assume (since the new movies will be taking place 30 years post “Return of the Jedi”) that they would be playing older, more parental roles to a new generation of Jedis. And it’s not as if Alec Guinness was rippling with six pack abs back in 1977; he had a paunch, and he wore a toupee….

And Harrison Ford is white haired; he’s not exactly his Han Solo prime, either. And even Peter Mayhew was in a wheelchair last time I saw him (this past summer). People age, it happens. Leia could be the new chancellor of the New Republic. Luke could be a Jedi Master, ala Ben’s wise sage role in the original movie (and Hamill would be about the right age, too). Point is, having Hamill and Fisher would give the new movies a much needed sense of legitimacy it might otherwise not have…

Unless they’re rebooting the SW movies (which they’re not, from the press report)? I can’t imagine recasting Luke and Leia when the characters are supposed to be the actor’s current ages anyway.

287. TrekTech - November 3, 2012

Lets be honest. STID has been poorly marketed after way too long a wait. At this point it would have to be the perfect movie but theres NO buzz! Very poorly handled and saying Star Wars isnt Trek USED to be true PRIOR to JJ but JJs a Star Wars fan NOT a Trek fan as was so clearly demonstrated in the forst outing. I wouldnt be surprised if JJ isnt camped out on Alan Horns front porch as we speak trying to get in on the new Star Wars. Also compare MERCHANDISING. ST09 merchandising SUCKED because the designs SUCKED. Figures, props, ships languished on store shelves. New Star Wars marketing will likewise destroy the JJTrek. So, by trying to make Trek in to Wars JJ will now have to compete directly WITH SW and he wont win.
JJverse worked well in a vacuum but the scales just tilted.

288. MJ - November 3, 2012

@286. We will have to agree to disagree on this one Sebastian. I respect your opinion on this — and it will be shared by a lot of people — but to me it is putting sentimentality above the franchise and the story.

I guess if they are really suppose to be in their 60’s and playing bit sage roles are you describe, I might buy it. But storywise, I would prefer to have Luke, Leia and Solo as equal in the action roles as the younger jedi group that I wil assume they will introduce. Ford’s Solo was always about 10 years older than Luke and Leia anyway, and his is such good shape (can play someone who looks mid-50’s; dude — they can dye his hair), that I think he by himself would bring in the original fans. Pairing him, with say a Viggo Mortenson (for Luke) and a Julianne Moore (for Leia) to play mid-40’s brother and sister would be and outstanding way to mix in the old and the new, with keeping some continuity. You could bring back Billy Dee as Lando as well — he still looks the part.

PS: I know this is a really bad joke, but Hamill and Fisher these days look more like Admiral Akbar than Luke and Leia. ;-)

289. MJ - November 3, 2012

@288 “Lets be honest. STID has been poorly marketed after way too long a wait. At this point it would have to be the perfect movie but theres NO buzz! Very poorly handled.”

Agreed. It’s funny, with so many major topics here, a lot of people have been piling on me for month, ensuring me that the marketing campaign was coming, and to trust JJ and the studio…blah! blah! blah!

Well now that it is November, and we have NOTHING outside of JJ messing with us on Conan, I am getting a kick out of seeing how so many people that said I was wrong on this the past four months are not starting to agree with me.

290. MJ - November 3, 2012

“are NOW starting to agree with me.”

291. Phil - November 3, 2012

Well, maybe there is a way to make the next movie with Ford, Fisher and Hamil….

Star Wars Episode Seven – On Golden Droid
– Driving Miss Leia
– The Sunshine Droids
– Grumpy Old Rebels
– So Very Tired…..

292. K-7 - November 3, 2012


The Forces of Madison County
True Force
The Worlds Fastest Indian Pod Racer
The Old Man and the Nebula

293. Red Dead Ryan - November 3, 2012

Me and MJ’s criticism of Mark Hamill’s current appearance have nothing to do with his car accident decades ago. There’s no guarantee that he’d look any better now if his accident didn’t occur. Aging can be a real bitch for many people, and others manage to age well, like Harrison Ford, Liam Neeson and Denzel Washington.

Like MJ said, if Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher appear in short cameos as elder Jedi scholars/masters, in full Jedi robes, then that could work.

But to expect two aging, heavy-set, and no-longer-good-looking part-time actors to wield lightsabres, do backflips, jumps, and other fast-paced frenetic actions is just naive, and would make the movie, and the actors, total jokes.

294. M.J. - November 3, 2012

“Will Star Wars Episode VII announcement hurt Star Trek Into Darkness marketing rollout? ”

What marketing rollout, far as i can see there has been no Marketing Roll out as of now or from the looks of it within the next 2 months.

295. M.J. - November 4, 2012

Red dead ryan that is just shallow and wrong. But if your to shortsited to see that then so be it. And who said anything of them doing backflips and jumps and other fast paced frentic actions? and even if they were they worked around Christopher Lee’s age and Ian Mcdiarmid age in regards to his battles in AOTC and ROTS

And Mark Hamil is not as heavy as you make him out to be, I just saw him 3 weeks ago at the BAFTA LA Behind closed doors Q&A and yeah hes a bit bigger than his ROTJ days, but he is no where in the same league weight or size wise as Shatner or other actors who have gotten bigger as they got older. and certainly nothing that he couldnt rid himself of when prepping for a role. Pretty sure though that Luke will be more of the elder Jedi mentor type role in the new movie, but even if not, there is no reason why his character couldnt have gotten more battle scars in the years following Jedi.

So sad that you are so shallow and shortsited.

296. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - November 4, 2012

My objection in seeing Hamill and Fisher in the films again has nothing to do with their being rotund or not. It’s the fact that they can’t act. Mark Hamill has the presence of kelp. In no way could he convince me that he is a Jedi Master. He wasn’t all that convincing 30 years ago.

297. Red Dead Ryan - November 4, 2012

Both Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee were in far better shape than either Mark Hamill or Carrie Fisher.

I’m not being shallow or shortsighted, just realistic.

I mean, there have been some on this site who were hoping the Trek sequel would be a remake of “The Deadly Years” just so that they can see the remaining TOS cast members play older versions of the new cast. Others still wanted to see William Shatner command the Enterprise in the sequel.

These wishes are just unrealistic and hard proof of delusion within portions of the fanbase.

At some point, all actors have to let go of their iconic characters, and fans have to move on and just accept the fact that new actors will be cast into their roles.

298. MJ - November 4, 2012

M. J.,

You criticism of RDR is unwarranted IMHO. He (and I) is just being objective, while you, my friend, are being overly sentimental and sappy concerning Fisher and Hamill.

Let’s agree to disagree I guess — we’ll consider you overly sentimental and lacking in objectivity, and you can consider us as shallow and unsympathetic to poorly aged actors. So everybody wins! ;-) LOL

299. Red Dead Ryan - November 4, 2012


He was convincing 30 years ago. But I agree, that he isn’t, and wasn’t ever going to be, the A-lister that Harrison Ford is. Hamill does good voice work, however.

I just can’t see him credibly playing an older Jedi master for 30-60 minutes of a two-hour epic film. He hasn’t done a whole lot of live-action acting in movies after ROTJ.

300. M.J. - November 4, 2012

MJ i see the stories i Have heard are true, its your way or no way.
Guess what YOU Arent a master of the Universe, Your not the only person along with you sychaphantic sidekick Red Dead Ryan who’s opinon matters.

The fact of the matter is if the sequel trilogy features Luke and Leia, it WILL be Mark and Carrie. like it or not Quit trying to force YOU’RE opinons down everyones throat.

301. M.J. - November 4, 2012

And my criticism is very much warrented, as both Red Dead Ryan and yours comments were very shallow and vain.

302. M.J. - November 4, 2012

MJ when was the last time you saw Mark or Carrie in person?
I saw him just a few weeks ago IN PERSON, and again he is no where in the same realm as looking like shatner.

And again there is no reason why he couldnt play a older Luke who has (like in the expanded universe cannon) continued to see his share of battle scars and is now settled into the position of older mentorish statesman type of jedi.

I am not the one who is not being objective its you.
And yes Carrie has fluctuated in her weight but again she has lost quite a bit in recent months as anyone who saw her with her mother Debbie Reynolds back in Aug at the re premiere of Singin in the Rain in Hollywood. Again if episode 7 takes place 30-35 years after Jedi there is no reason why Leia wouldnt look as carrie does now.

303. M.J. - November 4, 2012

Red Dead you do know that both Ian and Christopher didnt actually do the fighting in those movies right you do know it was a combonation of CGI bodies and stunt actors right? Ian was about the same weight when they filmed episode 3 as Hamill is right now its just all the emperors robes and clokes hid the weight. and Christopher lee if you look at the publicity photos for 2 and 3 you can see he has a pretty decent sized belly as well, that belt hides it a bit.

304. MJ - November 4, 2012

@300 “MJ i see the stories i Have heard are true, its your way or no way.”

Huh??? I specifically said:

“Let’s agree to disagree I guess — we’ll consider you overly sentimental and lacking in objectivity, and you can consider us as shallow and unsympathetic to poorly aged actors. So everybody wins! ;-) LOL”



305. M.J. - November 4, 2012

Oh and for the record way back in 1983 GL even said he imagined doing 7 , 8 , and 9 when Hamil, Fisher, And Ford were in their 60s or 70s with them returning for the roles.

“The idea would be that Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford would return to appear as older versions of Luke, Leia, & Han, in Episodes VII, VIII, and IX , which will most likely be produced around the second decade of the 21st century, when they’re in their 60s or 70s”

Keep in mind latter on lucas claimed he never said there would be a sequel trilogy and that even after he died there was explicit instructions that no future movies be made because the entire star wars story had been told, obviously now that last part is no longer relavant.
but still even back durring the promotion for JEDI Lucas stated he would like to see them in the those roles in their 60s and 70s even if its a much smaller part of the story of that trilogy

306. M.J. - November 4, 2012

MJ its how said basicly you were saying your right and I am nothing more than a sentimental fool. I can read between the lines.

307. Optimistic Doodle - November 4, 2012

“Do you think that Episode VII buzz will help or hurt the new Star Trek?”

The key is marketing.

Maybe it’s a good thing marketing choose to wait. They now have the opportunity to adjust. I’m sure marketing will gear up soon…

Let us keep our cool ;-)

308. Red Dead Ryan - November 4, 2012

The thing is, while stunt people did most of the fighting for both McDiarmid and Lee, both actors at least looked like they were actually fighting. They looked credible.

I can’t see Mark Hamill being able to fool anybody, with or without stunt doubles.

The way he is now, it would be a total parody.

And Carrie Fisher’s raspy, deep voice would be a distraction.

309. MJ - November 4, 2012

“MJ its how said basically you were saying your right and I am nothing more than a sentimental fool. I can read between the lines.”

AND I said RDR and I were “shallow” and “unsympathetic” — those we my exact words being critical of us. There was no reading between the lines — my comments were equally critical of both our views, and was an attempt at a truce, with a bit of humor for all of us.

For Christ’s sake, dude, stop behaving like such a gentle flower here.

310. M.J. - November 4, 2012

re read your post dont just cherry pick what you quoted, now that I have commented on it.

again it appears your reputation is WELL EARNED.

311. M.J. - November 4, 2012

Red, whatever Lucas himself even said back when Jedi came out he planned on Mark, Carrie, and Harrison to play the roles again when they were in their 60s or 70s. read the time magazine interview i posted above.

312. M.J. - November 4, 2012

But hey Red Dead Head and M.J. know more than anyone about what works for movies and what doesnt.

By the way how many feature films have you guys made?
How many studios have you worked at ?
Whats the extent of your involvement in what the general population wants to see in movies?

Oh yeah right……….


313. MJ - November 4, 2012

““The idea would be that Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford would return to appear as older versions of Luke, Leia, & Han, in Episodes VII, VIII, and IX , which will most likely be produced around the second decade of the 21st century, when they’re in their 60s or 70s”

This was also the Lucas who gave us the horrid prequel trilogy. I’m not really interested in seeing a new SW series where Luke, Leia and Solo are like 70 and get bit sage roles. That doesn’t excite me, and makes me worried that we are going to get something like the prequel crap with a bunch of teenage jedi’s again and overwhelming special effects instead of a good story.

The SW I would get excited to see would have Luke and Leia in their mid-40’s, played by new actors (Mortenson and Moore would be outstanding), and Harrison Ford reprising his role as a mid-50’s Han Solo.

“The fact of the matter is if the sequel trilogy features Luke and Leia, it WILL be Mark and Carrie. like it or not Quit trying to force YOU’RE opinons down everyones throat.”

No offense dude, but you are the one saying “it WILL be” — so you are the one who is forcing this down our throats. By contrast, I have just stated my opinions here and have not insisted like you have how “it WIll be.”

“Guess what YOU Arent a master of the Universe, Your not the only person along with you sychaphantic sidekick Red Dead Ryan who’s opinon matters.”

You are going out of your way to pick a fight with us. Why? Ostensibly, since we’ve never seen you post here before, you are a new face. Yet, your lanuage here related to RDR and I (i.e. “I’ve heard the stories” — where have you heard the stories? At the Trek grocery store in you neighborhood perhaps? LOL) comes across as someone out to settle a score. And you show up insisting that you are “MJ” as well. Dude, whoever you are, I’m not inclined to buy your act here, and I think that you have some weird agenda that involves picking fights with us.

One might conjecture that you are “the imposter” again here, this time trying to be more clever than before? If so, well, you’ve shown your hand to quickly by making comments that show you are very familiar with RDR and I — hardly the type of comments I would expect to see from a new poster here.

314. MJ - November 4, 2012

@313 “But hey Red Dead Head and M.J. know more than anyone about what works for movies and what doesnt.”

More personal grudge type of remarks — again, as if this M.J. person has known RDR and I on these boards for years. Otherwise, from just the posts here, where would this vitriol be coming from.

Nice try, Stunkill, or whoever the hell you are.

315. MJ - November 4, 2012

“again it appears your reputation is WELL EARNED.”

Again, this is hilariously out of place for you to come up with this. You are new here, but you have heard all of these things about my and RDR’s reputation, like in public circles, people are talking about us. Hhh???

What, are their like Trek cocktail parties where people are gossiping about us and whispering to you: “watch out for those guys, MJ and RDR on Trekmovie.com, they have a really bad reputation there.” WTF??? LOL

Whoever you are, this is bizarre! But I will give you this — you are entertaining me!

316. MJ - November 4, 2012

Whoever you are, good night. I am going to sleep.

Remember to set your clock back an hour.

317. Aurore - November 4, 2012

“I hear Mr. Abrams is ‘thrillified’ by the announcement. Hopefully, he’s not(too) intimidated by it….”

“ I had this impromptu meeting with George Lucas before we shot (Star Trek)… I was like, ‘What do I do? How do I make this movie work?’ And he was like, ‘Just put lightsabers in it.’”

Mr. Abrams, from the commentary track to Star Trek: The Future Begins (2009).

….I’m telling you….This man is capable of doing something CRAZY (funny ….from my perspective) in the coming weeks….


318. Aurore - November 4, 2012

“….I’m telling you….This man is capable of doing something CRAZY (funny ….from my perspective) in the coming weeks….”


It will be called “Marketing”.

……And, he always said it was coming…..

319. Aurore - November 4, 2012

I just hope nothing will be done out of “fear” regarding an announcement some seem to view as possibly problematic ( as stated earlier, I, personally, don’t ) for the Star Trek franchise.

It would look somewhat desperate, to me.

In short, in my opinion, if, for instance, the powers that be initially really believed that it would be preferable to release a trailer for Christmas or “shortly after”, they should “stick to” that original plan…

320. Kirk, James T. - November 4, 2012

Here’s my prediction….

Once Paramount/Bad Robot start the marketing push for Star Trek Into Darkness, the mainstream media will turn its attention to Trek. Once it comes out anything is possible from:

Star Trek revs up and delivers The Dark Knight of the Trek franchise

Star Wars has a lot to live up to as Star Trek Into Darkness breaks box office history

Star Trek is the king of Sci-Fi so where does this leave Episode 7?

or it could be…

Star Trek sails into darkness but is there light at the end of the tunnel with Star Wars?

321. Sebastian S. - November 4, 2012

# 288 MJ

You’re right; it IS a bad joke…..

Point is, you won’t have 50-60 somethings running around in metal bikinis or ‘action’ duds. They are the “Yodas” and “Obi Wans” of this new franchise; the wise elders who counsel the new generation. No reason why this couldn’t work. Christopher Lee played Count Dooku when he could barely walk without a cane.

Again; did we see Sir Alec running around, Jedi-jumping in a tight uniform in “A New Hope”? Of course not; because he was a 63 year old man, for chrissakes! Harrison Ford is 70. Hamill is 61. They can’t be the main action heroes anymore. And recasting everyone except Harrison Ford is just a bad move; any way you spin it, it’s just wrong (it’s either blatantly ageist or sexist, or a slap in the face to the integrity of the franchise; take your pick). You don’t just throw out people because they nearing retirement age. That’s an obsolete attitude that’s got to stop; John Glenn going into space at 77 should’ve put that one to bed….

When 60-something YOU reach, look as good you will not.

322. The Keeper - November 4, 2012

It will have little to no impact on Star Trek films.

323. Sebastian S. - November 4, 2012

# 322

I agree; I will see both no matter what.

But I have to say, the lack of marketing for STID is going to really hurt it in the long run. They need to start marketing now; it’s six months to go, and hardly a peep. ST shouldn’t coast on reputation alone; that strategy didn’t help “Nemesis.”

324. TREKWEBMASTER - November 4, 2012


It didn’t resonate with me for some reason. I liked the dark and hidden things only brought to the light by “embracing the pain” by accepting it and the wacky and attempts at light humor. But this film seems to say “Hey, you need to learn to laugh at yourself,” I still didn’t like the contrast and comparison style of it. It seems as filler material between the whales and Klingons.

The Final Frontier wasn’t an outward unknown but an inward unknown that we thought we knew but didn’t know anything about like we thought we did. I really didn’t see the point when you find that God which you thought was God was really some trapped entity trying to escape by masquerading as God. In a way, that’s exactly what this movie is doing, a movie desperately trying to masquerade as a really good Star Trek movie, when it’s just only average at best.

For all intent and purpose, the film I really don’t care for is The Final Frontier when Kirk and Company trek off into the black to find God by embracing their pain only provided conveniently by a heretic Vulcan half-brother of Spock. Can we say PLOT DEVICE?

325. TREKWEBMASTER - November 4, 2012

Darn with all this P@SS and Vinegar, you’d think we’re a group of diplomats going to the Babel Conference.

Until we have something CONCRETE, winks at JJ and Company, then we can gripe and moan about things that we know are REALLY going on.


326. CAPTAIN BILL - November 4, 2012


327. boborci - November 4, 2012


328. Gary S. - November 4, 2012

Thats great trailer logic Lizard Girl.
I hope that it comes to pass.

329. dalek - November 4, 2012

Things I do not want to see in Star Trek into Darkness:

1) Anyone mentioning toilets, urinating or excreting waste matter. Original series canon dictates that the crew does not go to the toilet, nor needs to expend any waste matter in the 23rd century. Starfleet officers do not urinate and there are NO toilets on the starship enterprise (even Nero’s tampering with history will not alter this!!!)

2) Any indication that Star Trek V: The Final Frontier will happen in the new universe. I don’t care if you have to kill Sybok in the first act. This movie so bad the fans have erased it from canon!

3) Spock’s toenails.

4) An Alan Dale cameo unless he is playing a good guy for a change (you guys cast him in everything as a bit part evil senior executive with no motives except he is rich, shouts a lot and enjoys killing people)

and finally I don’t want to see:
5) Steve Buschemi as Captain Sebastian Hornet inventor of the Photon Torpedo.

330. Mel - November 4, 2012

When will we get trailer?

331. P Technobabble - November 4, 2012

I’ve never made an attempt to count how many people actually post on this site (or any other Trek site, for that matter), but I would have to guess the number is miniscule when compared to the number of people who go to movies, the number of people who like Star Trek or Star Wars but don’t participate in any board chatting, the number of people who know about ST and SW and might go to see the movies… you get my point?
And on these boards it’s usually the same few folks always battling wits over things like “marketing plan vs. marketing sucks,” “movie will do great vs. movie will bomb,” and so forth.
The point is I don’t think we (on this site) truly represent either the mass of audience that will show up and make Trek13 a success or the audience that will just stay home.
If I were a fly on the wall listening in on some Paramount executives debate I would come away feeling like I’d learned something about the inner workings of the studio. When I read some of the debates in here I come away feeling like my head is imploding.

332. gingerly - November 4, 2012


The simple answer is claims of a “rivalry” will help publicity for both or people will shrug and move on.

But yeah, if they roll out a trailer for STID too soon, we’ll be burned out for marketing by the time the film comes out.

I don’t remember The Avengers saturating the market, with commercials and ad for the film, but they did benefit from the individual films from team members.

In other words, it feels like less marketing this go round, because there’s nothing else big that’s Trek-related on TV (or in film or other mainstream media) right now.

333. This is going to be a long year - November 4, 2012

I’m guessing that the trailer will be attached to the Hobbit.

Since the Hobbit will be released in 3D this lets them put out a 3D Star Trek trailer.

They waited this long, I expect they are going to hit the audience with the best they’ve got.

334. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - November 4, 2012

Wow even I am being Doppleganged now, 271 is NOT me!!!!

Jesus I have not posted on this site in almost a month,though i still read the theads.
I have had this name since July 2011, inspired by the Harrison Ford/Chewbacca Jimmy Kimmel Live Sketch.

335. Treklife - November 4, 2012

@329. Man you are an idiot, the blueprints for the original 1701, which my uncle has had since they were first printed, show the restrooms clearly, including one right next to the viewscreen.

So far as the lack of mention of the use of these facilities, remember the movie Pleasantville, when people went into the bathroom it was an empty room. This is a comment on the nonsense that were the rules of broadcast TV back in the 50s and 60s, which includes never mentioning or showing anyone using the bathroom.

First show to break this pattern was All in the Family, where Archie usually announced his intention to use the can, and you often the flushing of a toilet. Before that the most anyone did in the bathroom on TV was the Fonz thinking about fixing his hair in front of the bathroom mirror on Happy Days.

It had nothing at all to do with Star Trek, and never ever will, it was just a part of TV back then, get over it.

336. MJ - November 4, 2012

@321 “Again; did we see Sir Alec running around, Jedi-jumping in a tight uniform in “A New Hope”? Of course not; because he was a 63 year old man, for chrissakes! Harrison Ford is 70. Hamill is 61. They can’t be the main action heroes anymore. And recasting everyone except Harrison Ford is just a bad move; any way you spin it, it’s just wrong (it’s either blatantly ageist or sexist, or a slap in the face to the integrity of the franchise; take your pick). You don’t just throw out people because they nearing retirement age. That’s an obsolete attitude that’s got to stop; John Glenn going into space at 77 should’ve put that one to bed….”

Sebastian, you are confusing the real-world with actors playing made fictional roles. If I take your point seriously, Shat, Takei, Nichols and Koenig should have filed an age discrimination lawsuit in 2009 when they were not offered their old roles in the new Star Trek movie. This is not about some moral or workplace advocacy issue, where Hamill and Fisher get an automatic invite to play their old roles. This is about casting fictional roles for a movie. And if they no longer look credible for their parts, then they should not be cast in the new movie. It’s that simple.

337. MJ - November 4, 2012

@335. Good to have you back, Daniel Craig!

338. Hugh Hoyland - November 4, 2012

IMO there’s no question Trek is gonna do fine. I watched ST09 again last night and still find it as cool and entertaining as I did back when (Its aged very well). Cant wait for May 2013. :]

And bring on Episode 7! I love Star Wars to.

339. AJ - November 4, 2012

Not sure if anyone posted this piece about George Lucas yet, but WOW.


340. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch. - November 4, 2012

MJ, I wont be posting on a regular basis just pointing out I didnt make that post attributed to my name.
I am quite happy with the conversations going on over at TrekCore.
Its sad that the site has become reduced to this.

341. Sebastian S. - November 4, 2012

# 336

No, it’s not confusion. It’s trying to give the new films a sense of legitimacy by having the original actors resume their roles. Few things in movies/TV shows suck harder than when some actors are recast and others are not; and everyone just pretends not to notice. That’s such a stupid, soap opera gimmick. Especially if done just for vanity reasons.

Besides, I’d love to see Hamill’s and Fisher’s take on their characters as the elder statesmen of the new Republic. And your comparison of ST09 is totally invalid; first off, elder Spock (at then 78 years old) WAS in the movie. Wrinkles and all. The reasons the other cast members were not cast in ST09 was because the rest of the movie took place 129 years in the past. Even Spock had a younger counterpart.

The new Star Wars movies are going to be set 30 years AFTER “Return of the Jedi,” so those actors will still FIT those aged versions of their roles. No reason to hand them pink slips because they’re not perfect physical specimens anymore. And presumably there will be younger action surrogates for their older characters to hone and train. I can see Hamill easily slipping into a wise, mentoring role akin to Obi-Wan’s in the first movie….

So, to clarify, I am not ‘confusing’ anything; I am making my point as plainly as I can without having to draw pictures. If you are still favoring recasting the roles? Then maybe I will agree to disagree, because I can’t make a case to who think that people are useless once they pack on a few pounds or get a few wrinkles (besides, ‘movie magic’ can do wonders these days… they even have dead actors do cameos).

342. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch. - November 4, 2012

321 John is my Great Uncle on my fathers side, It was a very proud moment for my family to watch him launch into space one last time over at the cape.

343. T'Cal - November 4, 2012

Trek has never been marketed as well as Star Wars. Never. With only 6 movies and one animated series, SW continues to reach out to children by way of books, toys, bedding, toys, clothes, toys, video games, toys, comic books, toys, etc. Walk into virtually any retail establishment from convenience stores, to food stores, to department stores, to toy stores, to electronic stores etc. and you’ll find some Star Wars items. In addition, it reaches out to adults by way of books, toys, clothes, toys, video games, toys, collectibles, toys, graphic novels, toys, etc. Trek OTOH markets some collectables and a few toys right before the next movie breaks. Paramount/CBS has missed an incredible opportunity by failing to market Trek to kids. And by the way things are going for the next film, we aren’t going to see an improvement any time soon. Pathetic.

344. Sebastian S. - November 4, 2012

# 342

It was for all of us children of the space age!
That is an awesome heritage, DC!! Wow….

And again, your great uncle (I mean great in both senses) is living proof that age is no barrier to doing what you know and feel you are still capable of; our own minds and our own vanities are usually the biggest inhibitors. Godspeed to your great uncle…. ;-)

Being a fan of Mark Hamill’s voice work in the “World War Z” audio book and in the animated Batman series, I would very much like to see the franchise come full circle with Luke (and the original actor) playing the Obi Wan mentor role to a new generation of Jedi. If Hamill weren’t doing it? It just wouldn’t feel legitimate to me (and many other SW fans). It’s not as if he’s 98 years old and 350 lbs. I saw him at Comic Con only a few years ago, and while his face has (naturally) matured, he’s in good shape.

345. MJ - November 4, 2012

” It’s trying to give the new films a sense of legitimacy…”

Excatly. We just have different ways of interpreting what this entails.

I did say that if they were small guiding parts designed for plus 60 actors, fine, bring them back. But my preference for the story, as I stated previously, is:

— I’m not really interested in seeing a new SW series where Luke, Leia and Solo are like 70 and get bit sage roles. That doesn’t excite me, and makes me worried that we are going to get something like the prequel crap with a bunch of teenage jedi’s again and overwhelming special effects instead of a good story. The SW I would get excited to see would have Luke and Leia in their mid-40′s, played by new actors (Mortenson and Moore would be outstanding), and Harrison Ford reprising his role as a mid-50′s Han Solo.—

This MY opinion of what I would like to see for the new trilogy. I want to see real active roles for these great characters.

“The new Star Wars movies are going to be set 30 years AFTER “Return of the Jedi,”

This is not confirmed. I am hoping that Kennedy will shitcan the Lucas idea for that and start with a fresh approach. Lucas’s stor approach failed miserably in the prequels, so the last thing I want to see is the new production crew build off his plans for the new trilogy.

“BesAnd your comparison of ST09 is totally invalid; first off, elder Spock (at then 78 years old) WAS in the movie.”

THIS BRINGS UP A GREAT POINT — Why wasn’t William Shatner in the movie as well alongside him Be honest now? (hint: he no longer looked like a credible Kirk in his near-obese condition)

“Few things in movies/TV shows suck harder than when some actors are recast and others are not; and everyone just pretends not to notice.”

I don’t really have an issue with that. Sometimes it workds brillianty, in fact, as with the Darrin Stevens character in Bewitched. In fact, I would be much more concerned about hearing all the snickers from people in the movie theater when a 200 pound Leia discusses the new Sith threat with a 250 pound Hamill. Ouch!

346. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 4, 2012

#328 Gary S – Without seeming to be “up myself”, the idea of Star Trek or its trailers running with/alongside the Hobbit movie has been MY IDEA, going as far back as a year or more perhaps, or whenever it was debated as to whether the Star Trek sequel should be released around the same time as the first Hobbit movie, ie December 2012.

Many people disagreed with that idea, believing that any Star Trek film would lose out box office wise to the Peter Jackson Hobbit film. Others did not see how the Star Trek movie could be properly finished in time for a December 2012 release. When Paramount insisted that JJ do a 3D conversion, it was clear that the December release date could not occur.

It also appears that Lizard Girl thought that she had read that the trailer would be precede the Hobbit movie screenings in cinemas, but I think that what she may have read was what I had previously suggested way back in late 2010/early 2011 because, as far as I can tell (correct me if I am wrong), I have been the first, and maybe the only, person to put forward such ideas, until now. Lizard Girl mentioned that Benedict Cumberbatch appears in both the Hobbit and STID and I wrote that this makes my more recent idea of having the STID trailer precede the Hobbit an even better one.

I hope that you, Bob and Bad Robot et al have been paying attention…

Please – I don’t want to sound rude, conceited, but this is not the first time here and elsewhere that other people have taken my original ideas and used them, without even so much acknowledgement, especially when a person repeating what I have already said gets the acknowledgment. Such acknowledgment would be nice sometimes. I don’t expect royalties or some such bs, just awareness and courtesy.

*Lizard Girl – this is in no way a slight against you. We were simply discussing an idea and I thank you for the discussion.

347. MJ - November 4, 2012

Keachick, I actually agre with you completely on this. STID would have done great if released on Christmas weeks — 2 weeks after The Hobbit.

Instead, we’ve now got to deal with Iron Man 3, which looks like it is going to be great. The Hobbit would have been more complementary to Star Trek, while Iron Man III is going to be directly competitive.

Another bad decision by JJ and the studio. Don’t get me wrong, they make great Trek movies, but they are habitial procrastinators who couldn’t successfullly market ice water to thristy people in the desert.

348. Khan was Framed! - November 4, 2012

#347 – MJ: You are dead wrong about that, The Hobbit would crush Star Trek at the box office.

How soon we forget the December released LOTR obliterating Nemesis.

The question of whether or not this announcement would hurt the sequel release or not hinges on the idea that there would or should be some type of progress in releasing press material for Star Trek happening right now.

Since we don’t even have a teaser to watch yet, my answer is no.

349. Khan was Framed! - November 4, 2012

The better question here is “Should Roddenberry have sold Star Trek to Disney?”

The answer of course is “yes”.

If he had Enterprise would have aired on ABC & would not have been cancelled.

We might have be able to line up for the Shuttlepod ride at Disneyland.

350. AJ - November 4, 2012



You’ve made the point that I have ranted several times about.

Case study: The Eastern Bloc of COMECON, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, etc. became independent of Soviet domination in and around 1989-1991. I had a job in Warsaw from 2003-2005, and went back to visit friends in 2010. The restaurant had a supervised ‘kids’ corner’ with a plasma TV. The TV was showing “X-Men” cartoons on Cartoon Network, and one of the kids had a stormtrooper helmet on.

So, in 21 years, Marvel and Star Wars hopped into those markets. The stores all have Marvel comics and Star Wars stuff in local languages, and they have brand equity with the second generation to grow up without communism. ‘Star Trek’ was never on TV in those markets, and it has ignored them.

In 2009, there was one cinema showing ST09 in Poland, and none of the shiny new cineplexes had the film. There was a poster here from Poland who had to use social media to find the theater. Paramount had neglected to actually find a distributor for the film in Poland. Add that to 21 years of lost multi-generational brand-building opportunities, and you see Star Trek now vs. what it could have been.

Paramount needs 2/3 of the gross to come from overseas markets. They need to seed ‘Star Trek’ enthusiasm to kids to guarantee the franchise has an audience in 10 years. Just how is the current “cone of secrecy” achieving that? JJ said on Conan that he ‘loves secrecy’ and ‘easter eggs.’ Truth is, 99% of people ignore things that don’t exist. JJ is not ‘savvy’ or ‘mysterious.’ Here in the US, he’s a good director who loves to annoy fans, and overseas he is nobody. How will that increase sales going forward?

The other problem is the swag. When “Trek” toys come out, whoa be it to a kid who wants one, as the adult nerd patrol sweeps every Walmart and Toys “R” Us with shopping carts so they can be posted on eBay at exorbitant prices. Add to that all the expensive collector’s edition $3000 replicas of the Enterprise and $200 phasers, and $150 CD sets and the hated lunatic fringe Trekkers who never open the boxes of their toys. Kids never even have a chance to play with them, let alone buy them. I gave all my Trek toys, accumulated over years, to my kids, and they ended up being smashed and bent. But, they know Trek exists, and they still prefer Yoda, R2 and Star Wars, because they are on TV, and have been since they were born.

351. touchstone35 - November 4, 2012

First of all … why would a Star Wars film set for a 2015 release effect a Trek film released next year ? Also from the beginning Trek has been sci-fi for adults . Star Wars has always been marketed heavily towards kids . It has just picked up adult fans because those kids grew up. I have little interest in seeing a Disney Star Wars film . Because the modern trilogy didn’t click with me. Phantom Menace was released when I was 29 years old … it didn’t click with me. Star Wars was released when I was 7 years old. Loved it. Get the picture.

352. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 4, 2012

I am tired, sooo tired….At the risk of repeating myself, this site has become about people forever repeating themselves and what’s more, over a movie that’s not even been officially “announced”. Duh! The ink on the paper is barely dry…

Re TrekWebMaster’s comments about those who are Trekkers as opposed to those who are Trekkies. Wow – really? As a matter of fact, I did not know until very recently, that I am supposed to be a Trekker or Trekkie or whoever or get labelled as one or the other, if you are a (longtime) fan of Star Trek, past and present iterations. What’s more, I couldn’t give a shit. Pardon the language, but honestly, this reeks of snotty, snobbish bs. For me, it just comes down to whether I prefer the look and sound of “trekker” or “trekkie” and right now, all I can do is YAWN.

No, MJ, the reason William Shatner could not be in the ST09 movie is because his particular prime universe character is dead. Nimoy’s Spock is part Vulcan, and because of that, can live much longer than even the oldest human. His father, Sarek (TNG episode – Sarek) was at least 202 years old.

If Shatner was prepared to play an older Kirk relative of the younger (Pine) James Kirk, then it may have worked. That applies to all the other TOS cast members as well! Shatner’s weight had little, if anything, to do with the decision. Once again, MJ is overly preoccupied with showing a certain disregard for people who weigh more than his recommended poundage.

353. MJ - November 4, 2012

Sorry Keachick, I’m not interested in havin this discussion again about Shat that we have covered dozens of times over the past several years. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and we are never going to agree on this.

354. MJ - November 4, 2012

“How soon we forget the December released LOTR obliterating Nemesis.”

Nemesis was a HORRIBLE movie. That’s why it got crushed. Bad movies suck at the box office, regardless of competition.

355. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 4, 2012

Except for, I recall, one person posting here who wrote that they liked Nemesis, everyone else has said they disliked or even hated Nemesis. Nemesis is seen as one of the worst, if not worst, of the Star Trek films, for so many reasons, and that would be why it did not do that well. It may have done a little better if it had not been released at the same time as one of the LOTR films, but I doubt it.

Hopefully, this present Star Trek movie still in post-production, is a lot better than Nemesis in every respect and so will receive much better critical and fan acclaim. Therefore, although it may suffer a little in box office takings if it were running alongside a movie like the Hobbit, it should not be that substantial.

I can only relate my own attitude to movie going – most of the time I cannot afford to go to see a movie, so I am quite choosey. However, if there are movies that I definitely want to see, then I make a big effort to get to see them both, even if they are running in cinemas at the same time, especially if they were Star Trek and Hobbit movies. Fortunately, for my bank account, the Hobbit starts its NZ Events cinema screen debut on 13 December 2012 and Star Trek does not come until next year, giving me enough time to recoup finances.

356. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 4, 2012

I have no wish to discuss this either, MJ. I was just noting that you are starting in on other actors as well, just because of some extra poundage they seem to be carrying. I guess the Shat should feel a bit relieved that he is not the only one being targeted. What’s with you and the constant mention of hundreds of poundage? Never mind…

I do agree with you on this – end of discussion. I will say no more. I guess the ball is in your court…

357. VulcanFilmCritic - November 4, 2012

I’m sure that “Star Trek Into Darkness” will do OK at the box office, but just OK. The novelty is gone, and this next film will be make or break for the franchise. Too bad Bad Robot was so consumed with making “Super 8″ because 2012 would have been the perfect summer to open. Not that much competition this year. “Prometheus” really sucked. It would have been an easier field to compete against than next summer.

Mistake number two: not having anything for the fan boys (and girls) at this year’s San Diego ComicCon. Criminal. A cardinal offense.

And this is why the new Star Wars franchise will blow Star Trek out of the water:
Because they did it before. The market for Star Wars licensed goods is 10 times that of Star Trek. Also, and this is a very big also, is that most of the major players from the original franchise (with the exception of Sir Alec Guiness) ARE STILL ALIVE. Our bench is getting a little thin, you know.
Much more longevity and interest in the media talking to Mark Hamill, et al.

It’s nice we had the participation of Leonard Nimoy and his friendship with Zachary Quinto is really touching but Shatner doesn’t want to participate and won’t even acknowledge Chris Pine. But sadly, our octagenarians heroes can’t even remember what happened yesterday much less what happened 50 years ago.

Also, the Star Wars franchise will be all shiny and new. The media and the fans will be breathless, even years before the movie gets made. And Disney isn’t going to drop the ball on any opportunity for marketing.
The old Star Wars crew will be happy to talk and the new crew will be excited.

As for Star Trek, I think the new crew will have a hard time mustering something close to enthusiasm when it comes to marketing this movie come next summer. They were kind of blase-blase the last time around.
Do any of them want to direct?

358. Peter Loader - November 4, 2012

Don’t want any more associations with the old crew. Their finished. Had their day. People need to get behind the new crew and revisit the old on DVD.

Star Wars will have little impact on the next Trek films success; that’s up to those willing to watch it.

JJ’s keeping everything on hold because if he proceeds to early he’s going to get too much negative feedback from the die-hards who will reject the plot, and the characters simply because they’ve been done before.

My take: Star Trek into Darkness will be another hit with the new wave of fans and a few die-hards that have been swayed into the realm of the most ambitious and entertaining version of Trek yet!

359. Gary S. - November 4, 2012

True that LOTR crushed Nemesis,
But the first film to defeat it ws Maid In Manhattan starring Jennifer Lopez .
Little known trivia .

360. VulcanFilmCritic - November 4, 2012

As others have said, maybe the presence of another sci-fi franchise is a good thing. The sudden appearance of the blockbuster Star Wars franchise in the 1980’s really goosed the powers-that-be at Paramount. Plans for the supposed return of Star Trek to TV got scrapped in favor of a Star Trek movie and the rest was history.
Now maybe it’s the other way around. The only way Star Trek can steal some of Star Wars fire is to return to TV.
I don’t really want to see TV shows about blackouts, lost submarines or body parts. I want Star Trek. On TV. Soon. I need that weekly “fix.”

361. Maltz - November 4, 2012


Star Wars Episode 9 is the intersection. No longer a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. This is the one where Star Wars meets our present-day Earth.

Or maybe it meets… the United Federation of Planets..?

362. Sebastian S. - November 4, 2012

# 345 MJ~

“THIS BRINGS UP A GREAT POINT — Why wasn’t William Shatner in the movie as well alongside him Be honest now? (hint: he no longer looked like a credible Kirk in his near-obese condition)”


No, that isn’t a ‘great point’, MJ.
Shatner didn’t appear because in Spock Prime’s timeline Kirk is DEAD.
I would’ve been OK with Kirk appearing if his role made sense, but after his character’s exit in Generations it didn’t. Hence, no Kirk.

But if the new SW movies take place 30 years after Jedi, then there is NO reason Hamill and even Fisher couldn’t have roles in them. Not action lead roles, but Obi-wan Kenobi mentor style roles; they don’t have to be ‘bit parts’ as you characterize; Alec Guinness’ role in Star Wars was hardly a ‘bit part’. It got him an Oscar nomination.

I think having the pupil become the master would bring the whole thing full circle. Especially since Hamill is about the age Guinness was when he first played Obi wan in 1977. The timing is almost perfect. BTW, I saw Fisher and Hamill at Comic con a few years ago, and they looked great in person. Older of course, but again; that would fit their characters naturally.

As for the new movies taking place 30 years after Jedi? No, it’s not confirmed; true. So far, all of the rumors so far are speculation but I’ve heard this in other sites, so we’ll just have to wait and see. But if it is true? I think having Hamill (and Fisher, and even Harrison Ford) would be wonderful….

363. Nick - November 4, 2012

I’m a fan of both, but can’t help feel Star Wars 7 is more a ‘want for more’ rather than a ‘need for more’ given the story of Anakin Skywalker / Vader has been completed.

Anyway, I’m not worried about either franchise in the face of the other .. they have co-existed & compliment each other depending on your tastes I suppose.

I do wonder if Star Trek has a sort of identity crisis, in that the movie format & the need to get maximum pay-off requires a more actiony storyline, rather than the more challenging though-provoking type story which worked well in TV serial form. A challenge for the producers for sure.

As far as marketing, well there is still much time, & a high-impact campaign per last time involved, among other things, was a very, very good trailer & continuous positive work-of-mouth. I think next year is when the real need for impetus begins.

364. Sebastian S. - November 4, 2012

# 363

That’s a very legitimate concern; especially considering the massive, needless influx of “Clone Wars” era cartoons/movies. The question of is this new trilogy born of need or want is very valid.

However, I’m reminded that as far back as 1980-something I’d been reading that there were originally nine total movies planned for the saga. I don’t know if this next trilogy will be extrapolated from that outline (I read that it was), but it would be encouraging if this were part of the plan all along (unlike the prequels, which felt like they strayed considerably from the original idea; they all felt needlessly ‘padded’ most of the time).

As for ST’s identity crisis? I think that’s been an argument made (with valid pros and cons to support either argument) since the first movie came out….

365. uzone - November 4, 2012

Admittedly I haven’t read all of these posts but at the risk of being redundant here are a few quick points.

Most fans of sci-fi are fans of both. Apologies in advance to the exceptions.

The Star Trek franchise has posed many more challenges to purist mentality than Star Wars has ever seen yet both are alive and well.

Anyone that has a problem with the handling of ST after Gene are remnants of a bygone era. TNG was brilliant and arguably boasts more fans than the original which I grew up on.

SW fans are about to get the same treatmment.

Every other Trek film sucked including the TNG entries but Trek lives on.
SW will be no different. A more relevant observation would have been that the Avengers and S are currently slated to compete head to head in the same year. Wonder wat Disney stockholders are thinking about that?

366. MJ - November 4, 2012

“Shatner didn’t appear because in Spock Prime’s timeline Kirk is DEAD.
I would’ve been OK with Kirk appearing if his role made sense, but after his character’s exit in Generations it didn’t. Hence, no Kirk.”

A great “connivance” that JJ and company used to not have to deal with a very overweight Shat, and all the other baggage that would have come with involving him. They could have found a way to work him in (and had a “message scene” in mind), but they choose not to seriously pursue it. And my conjecture here is that Shatner’s appearance played a role in that. Can I prove that…no. Can you prove it wasn’t a factor…no.

“But if the new SW movies take place 30 years after Jedi”

“IF”. Well, I’m hoping that is not the case. I don’t want another prequel type story with a bunch or teenage Jedi’s. I’d like to see a still credible Han, Luke and Leia in some action sequences, versus some lesser (even if still more than minor) “old sage” type roles.

367. MJ - November 4, 2012

“TNG was brilliant and arguably boasts more fans than the original which I grew up on.”

LOL. Yea, right. 50 years from now, TOS will still be inconic, and TNG will be a footnote. That is nothing against TNG, but is a simple fact. TOS pervades popular culture today, and TNG does not…another fact!

Talk to teenagers today and you will find that many are aware of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, but mention Riker and Picard and you will typically get blank stares. This illustrates the iconic nature to TOS as compared to TNG. And Trek 2009 has further cemented the status of TOS as the greatest scifi series in TV history.

368. T'Cal - November 4, 2012

“Gary S. – November 4, 2012

True that LOTR crushed Nemesis,
But the first film to defeat it was Maid In Manhattan starring Jennifer Lopez . Little known trivia .”

I do recall that that happened. It bugged the hell outta me. I can’t watch her on TV in anything because of that. More than anything, though, the reason I dislike (not hate) Nemesis is that it did so poorly that it’s likely that there will never be another TNG story told on any screen. While it had a weak story and poor directing, it did have a few moments in which the characters were actually written to be “in character.” It did move the story along, yet there were some gaping holes in the plot. It’s my hope that when a bit more time passes, Frakes and Burton will be given the reigns to produce a TNG/DS9/VOY era TV miniseries or show. They have the skill to do it and they have always been dedicated to great Trek. TNG style Trek belongs on the small screen to allow for character and relationship development.

369. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 4, 2012

Oh MJ! Stop pounding on about other people’s poundage.

#357 – “but Shatner doesn’t want to participate and won’t even acknowledge Chris Pine.”

What? So that’s why William Shatner included Chris Pine in his Captains’ documentary, so as not to acknowledge Chris Pine? Sorry, what you wrote does not make sense. Remember also the little arm-wrestling – definitely Kirk for the win scenario, proving that Kirk does not believe in a no-win scenario…:)

At first, I was a bit miffed that William Shatner was not there with the other alive TOS actors or family member (Nimoy, Nichols, Doohan, Koenig, Takei?) mentoring their younger successors playing the characters they originally played. However, I did read that Chris Pine told a reporter that he had received a nice note from William Shatner wishing him “All my best, Bill” on his playing the Kirk role. Chris said he had it on his fridge. (See what a little “cyber stalking” can throw up sometimes) Also, William Shatner commented when he was in Canada that he found Chris Pine to be “a lovely man…” as well as being talented… very good as Kirk, something to that effect.

Why can’t we talk about a movie that is about to be premiered, that has been completed, instead of going on about some movie that is only mooted at being made at this stage and about the actors who have aged, grown ugly or not, fat or not, or whatever or not?…UGH!!!!!

I suggest – Rise of the Guardians, animated, rated PG – good family movie for Christmas based on the story by William Joyce. The main character, Jack Frost, is voiced by Chris Pine (aka James Kirk). Tuesday, 6 November, makes it exactly seven weeks from Christmas…holy moly – that time again already. Time goes so fast and yet so slowly!

Just a thought…gotta go clean guinea pig housing using fresh newsprint with news of George Lucas, Star Wars and Disney. Waste not, want not – that’s what I say.

370. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 4, 2012

I think how popular TNG and its characters are may have something to do with where you live. In Britain, I get the impression that everybody knows who Patrick Stewart and Jean-Luc Picard are – captain of the starship Enterprise.

Sir Patrick Stewart has been on Top Gear (UK) at least twice, as far as I know, and he is always introduced as Captain of the Enterprise, amidst huge cheers!

371. P Technobabble - November 4, 2012

I think the fact is we need something completely new — not Star Trek or Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica or Aliens or Lost In Space or Dr Who or …. hmmmm, where the hell can this go?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of any of these, but is this the be all/ end all of our opportunities? Who will come up with the next BIG thing? And what could that possibly be?

William Goldman: “Nobody knows anything.”

372. zigzag1701 - November 4, 2012

I cant wait for Star Trek into Darkness and Star Wars Episode VII, but Episode IX will be released before we see Trek 13……

373. Stunkill - November 4, 2012

All, been messing with you again. I have been Andy Patterson, M.J., and Daniel Craig the past couple of days. Please forgive me, but this is so much fun!!!

374. Jonboc - November 4, 2012

#367. “Talk to teenagers today and you will find that many are aware of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, but mention Riker and Picard and you will typically get blank stares. This illustrates the iconic nature to TOS as compared to TNG. And Trek 2009 has further cemented the status of TOS as the greatest scifi series in TV history.”

MJ, I hope you’re sitting down! :) I agree completely, well said.

375. STN-TRP6 - November 4, 2012


376. M.J. - November 4, 2012

Really MJ then How do explain Transformers 2 and Pirates 2 doing so well?
Those movies were horribly bad, worse than Nemesis I would wager.

And for the record Stunkill you will never be, get a life you sad sad little man.

377. K-7 - November 4, 2012

M.J. / Stunkill, et. al.,

You fell into my little trap perfectly. I was trying to determine if you, Patterson and/or Daniel Craig were the real deal, and so I pretended to be Stunkill and bait you.

You took the bait, hook, line and sinker, when you said, ” for the record Stunkill you will never be.” The only way you could make this statement would be if you are the real Stunkill. CHA-CHING!

I have exposed you, you little reject, loser. Now go back into your pathetic little troll cave and try to come up with something better next time.

378. TreK_Fan - November 4, 2012

Visually Star Trek is no where near Star Wars. Abram’s Trek might be close in its visual style, but its still far far away from any of the Star Wars movies in special effects. The real question is will a new Star Wars film without Lucas be as visually stunning?

379. Red Shirt Diaries - November 4, 2012

K-7, thanks for doing us all a public service!

380. Sebastian S. - November 4, 2012

# 366

“A great “connivance” that JJ and company used to not have to deal with a very overweight Shat, and all the other baggage that would have come with involving him. They could have found a way to work him in (and had a “message scene” in mind), but they choose not to seriously pursue it. And my conjecture here is that Shatner’s appearance played a role in that. Can I prove that…no. Can you prove it wasn’t a factor…no.”

His character was DEAD, MJ!
What part of ‘dead’ are you not getting?
It wasn’t ‘baggage'; Shatner’s version of the Kirk character was killed off over a decade before work on ST09 was started. There is NO evidence (other than your conjecture) that Shatner’s appearance played a role in his non-involvement in ST09. I don’t have to prove anything….

If they really wanted Shatner, they could’ve used computers to slim him down. Not a problem. They made the late Ricardo Montalban walk in one of the Spy Kids movies. They got rid of Gary Sinise’s legs in Forrest Gump. I really don’t think shedding a few pounds off Shatner’s frame was a dealbreaker.

There was a scene written at the end, with Shatner appearing as a hologram in the original ST09 script. A holographic FX shot could’ve very easily slimmed him down. My guess is, the needs of the story came first, and the elder Kirk (who was already dead in prime Spock’s timeline anyway) just didn’t fit. Bob Orci’s already explained this before.

“I don’t want another prequel type story with a bunch or teenage Jedi’s ”

Why do you assume they will be (mulitple) teenagers?
I doubt they’ll have Hamill play “Kindergarten Cop.” One padawan, one Jedi; that’s they way it’s worked in all of the movies so far. The elder Luke will most likely have an apprentice, but who knows? Maybe it’ll be Luke’s own son.
Too early to tell…

381. Phil - November 4, 2012

Don’t know why the Shat message scene chatter started up again. Enough people are on record that Shatner was never interested in a cameo, he wanted a starring role – which is entirely consistant with all his whining and complaining that the last movie was going to crater without his involvement. That ship has sailed, and if Shatner wants to be the documentary maker now, it’s a good role for him.

382. Red Dead Ryan - November 4, 2012

Shatner was never offered the cameo. Bob Orci wanted to get Shatner to do the hologram scene, but J.J Abrams rejected it.

383. MJ - November 4, 2012

@382 “but J.J Abrams rejected it.”

Exactly. And we will never reallly know why. That is why I stand by my comment that Shat’s condition/appearance may have been a factor. I can’t prove that, but likewise, no one can disprove that. The only one who really knows is JJ.

@377. Thanks for exposing that “M.J.” dude as Stunkill. It was so creepy that way he acted like a new poster but kept making personal statements about my and RDR’s reputation (“I’ve heard about you guys,” etc.). Yuk! That was an uncomfortable series of exhanges.

384. MJ - November 4, 2012

@374 “MJ, I hope you’re sitting down! :) I agree completely, well said.”

Wow!!! A fat lady (not Carrie Fisher) is singing right now in a frozen over hell!

Cool dude!

385. Buzz Cagney - November 4, 2012

#367 spot on.

386. M.J. - November 4, 2012

Actually K-7 I was saying “you will never be ME stunkill” but the ME part was left off.
Look back a couple of threads when me and MJ were discussing using the same screen name since my initials are M and J.
I put my email address up and I will do so again archaeologistme@aol.com feel free to email me if you like, Just cause Ive been arguing with MJ doesnt mean I am that person. and the only responded is cause he mentioned that he had posted under me.

But believe what you like, I have better things to do with my time, then pretend to be anyone. If i have a beef with you I ll frackin come out and say it, I dont play little kindy care games.

hopefully the site will add a secure log in soon

387. M.J. - November 4, 2012

MJ, youll notice i am the only person to actually volunteer to give my email address. but hey think what you want.

As for posting about your reputation, several people on here in other threads in recent days also said you are known for acting like your the king of the road.

388. K-7 - November 5, 2012

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and shits like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Good night, Stunkill (M. J.)

389. M.J. - November 5, 2012

whatever you say MacGruff ,
well I will simply refrain from commenting on anything any of you three say. and stick to stating my opinon to the subject at hand, perhaps then you will see that I am not trying to be any one else.
but hey even if you dont then thats your problem not mine. Good night K-9

390. M.J. - November 5, 2012

Rose, just a FYI Chris didnt attend the premiere for Rise of The Gaurdians held in Hollywood today, (most likely cause of his filming schedule) But he does a pretty good job as Jack Frost, though Alec Baldwin as Santa, and ( speechless) Sandman steal the movie.

Though the episode 1-3’s Obi Wan Ewan Mcgreggor was at the L.A. premiere held this evening at the same theatre for his new movie which is called ,Impossible, which is an incredible movie. Ewan should definately be nominated for his performance Love the AFI film festiva and the free premiere tickets they give out via their websitel.

391. star trackie - November 5, 2012

Hey “M. J.”, your behavior and predilection for starting fights certainly is akin to Stunkill’s. Even your dumb jokes remind me of his humor.

If you are not Stunkill, then you are sure making enough of a horse’s ass out of yourself in your short time here to convince people otherwise.

392. M.J. - November 5, 2012

Star I didnt set out start fights, and last i checked I have no sense of humor.

Just because MJ or Red doesnt agree with anothers point of view however doesnt mean that mine or that other persons is any less valid.
Sometimes the reaction that a person is given causes an unintended backlash in response. (does that it excuse it no, but I will simply no longer interact with them, and that will be that)

like i mentioned above I am going to refrain from responding to MJ and Red and K-9 and simply keep a low profile.
whether others want to think thats for them.

and again I have given my email address publicly on here several times
what will it take to show i have nothing to hide an AIM video chat?

really wish the site mods would ad on a secure login.

393. M.J. - November 5, 2012

You know another thing if this site had a edit feature, words that get left out can be corrected. see yet again in my 392 post i lfet out another word when i wrote
“Star I didnt set out start fights” obvisously that should have read I didnt set out TO start fights.

ok ive spoke my mind, only thing out of me now relates to the thread topic. I PROMISE.

394. star trackie - November 5, 2012

OK, thanks for the explanation. But if you go back and look at some of your posts, you came across like you had all guns blazing and determined to put Red Dead Ryan and MJ in their places. You acted like you had history with them? At least, that was my impression.

Getting too late for me. Have a good week!

395. M.J. - November 5, 2012

Star I see your point, and its taken.
Have a good week as well.

396. Thisguy1313 - November 5, 2012

There is a very tantalizing possibility here, that everyone is missing… with Trek AND Wars back in active production, as well as crossover themed movies like the recent Avengers movie being welcomed to popular acclaim, there is now the possibility of a ST/SW movie!! As a scottsman, and scifi fan, I say that it is high time that we unite the clans….

397. Aurore - November 5, 2012

“….there is now the possibility of a ST/SW movie!! As a scottsman, and scifi fan, I say that it is high time that we unite the clans….”

As a French woman I say “No, thank you”.

…Still, who cares about what **I **want?

Look what happened with the (Star Trek) sequel title…..

…..Damn you, DamOoOoOoOoOnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!


398. Thor - November 5, 2012


399. Aurore - November 5, 2012

(Thank you for the link! Great stuff about the fans! )

“…It’s just too early to be talking…you know… specifically about that…that stuff. ‘Cause, I just feel like we’re still getting the movie together. But, when it’s done, I would love to talk to you about that (?), then…”


400. USSEXETER - November 5, 2012

So is JJ making the Star Trek movies while wishing he gets the directorial chair for Star Wars episode 7?

401. Kirk, James T. - November 5, 2012

@400 who the hell would want that job!?!?!?! Seriously, I mean ok it’s Star Wars, it’s huge but who would want to air out George Lucas’ dirty laundry – no JJ Abrams is probably looking forward to seeing it as a fan because lets face it, Lucas has already planned out the next three movies and any director of JJ Abrams talent would want to work on a clean slate with his own creative team coming up with their own story. Whoever directs the next Star Wars film will be either a relatively unknown or close friend to Lucas, Steven Spielberg. It would be like William Shatner writing or formulating a script/story and then JJ Abrams coming into direct. It’s never gonna happen. Star Trek offers Abrams and his team the opportunity to write and do whatever they want to do, Star Wars, much like Generations had, has a laundry list of things it has to include.

402. Kirk, James T. - November 5, 2012

Its the most exciting yet unappealing job in hollywood to directors like Abrams, Whedon, or Nolan I would think because although Lucas has stepped aside, the stories for all three are already being formulated and written by a writing staff – probably the same guys who wrote the prequels.

I bet the job falls to Spielberg.

403. juggalo - November 5, 2012

no i don’t believe it n would would hurt into darkness . i hope disney dose not buy rights to star trek next

404. crazydaystrom - November 5, 2012

Not sure if Spielberg would want the job or not but in any case I know he tends to have a pretty full schedule of work planned into the near future and beyond. With the the release for ep. VII already planned, I’d be surprised if SS COULD do it.
On the other hand he HAS been known to work on more than one project at a time. And has been known to rearrange his schedule as well. So I guess if it’s something he wanted to do badly enough… Does anyone know, has he ever expressed an interest in directing a SW film except, perhaps since the original trilogy? I WOULD like to see him do it (as long as JJ Binks is put into the refridgerator and the refridgerator is left out of the film entirely!

405. crazydaystrom - November 5, 2012

*except DURING the original trilogy*

406. Aurore - November 5, 2012

….Oh….”that stuff”, Mr. Abrams was referring to, won’t be Khan….

Let the speculation continue!

407. David S - November 5, 2012

W#hat marketing rollout?

408. Phil - November 5, 2012

This is very old news but the role Shatner wanted was very different from what was written…


409. Shaun - November 5, 2012

There is a new Star Trek movie coming out? :)

410. Phil - November 5, 2012

Yep. May 17th, 2013. The trailer is being released on May 10th…

411. MJ - November 5, 2012

@394 / star trackie: “But if you go back and look at some of your posts, you came across like you had all guns blazing and determined to put Red Dead Ryan and MJ in their places. You acted like you had history with them?”

Exactly! It’s prettty clear to me now that this is Stunkill. And his trickery is getting more complex now — pretending to have the initials MJ, and throwing us all a real email address to keep us off his scent.

My recomendation to all here would be to ingore this “M.J.” from now onw. We shouldn’t reward Stunkill’s troublemaking by responing to his posts.

412. Captain Ransom - November 5, 2012

why would this hurt start trek since trek XII is set for release in 2013 and star wars VII possibly for 2015. this is a non-story.

also considering how horribly bad the last 3 star wars films were, i don’t think there’s much to look forward to or worry about, especially in the hands of disney.

413. Daoud - November 5, 2012

RDR, Rose, Montreal Paul, and many others….
It’s been fun. But coming by and seeing that one’s posts have been removed, yet the posts of people sockpuppeting have been allowed to stay is really frustrating.
I think I’m going back over to Trek Today and Trek BBS. Bonnie (T’Bonz) has always been clear and present, and doesn’t allow for the kinds of junk that Anthony has allowed to happen here in his continued absence. It was fun getting to know you guys. Best wishes, always,

414. Thor - November 5, 2012

Lets get the hell out of here

TrekMovie has become too painful

I will not be back


415. Red Shirt Diaries - November 5, 2012

MJ said, “my recommendation to all here would be to ignore this “M.J.” from now on. We shouldn’t reward Stunkill’s troublemaking by responding to his posts.”

Will do!

416. Aurore - November 5, 2012

Here’s part of my theory regarding what’s been going on for some time, now.

The imposter has recently “sacrificed” one figure in their cast of characters…..I won’t say more since, as I said on another thread; “‘Can’t prove anything.”

What I can say, however, is that I’m sorry to see some fellow fans leaving, because of what has occurred, of late.

Hopefully, they will be back soon.

417. Disinvited - November 5, 2012

#412. Captain Ransom

Well, that Paramount will react to this news with regards to Trek is simply a matter of history: Paramount’s reaction to the first STAR WARS was how a TV reboot morphed into movie franchise.

Whether this will be good or bad for Trek has to do with Paramount’s sad track record of executive decisions since then. I don’t take that J.J.’s on record as mentioning tough budget negotiations for both his Trek movies as very encouraging in the nature of Paramount suits respecting STAR TREK any better than the utility bill/rent payer it was always pigeonholed as.

But the future isn’t written. In that regard, you may have a point, Paramount might look at DISNEY WARS as ripe for the squashing & decide to invest heavily in its own current product to ensure that Disney would have to go bankrupt to top Trek – but, personally, I wouldn’t bet the farm on that.

418. K-7 - November 5, 2012

Daoud, Thor,

Please stick around. We are able to self-police here, though I realized it is not an optimum solution. We figured out this M. J. nonsense that is Stunkill’s latest foil, and we will be vigilant for whatever he comes up with next.

419. rED - November 5, 2012

Last I checked Star Trek is coming out next year and Star Wars is “targeted” for 2015. I don’t understand how it could get “hurt ” at all…

420. M.J. - November 5, 2012

This guy thats something you wont ever see happen, both are owned by competeing studios and they are not in the same universes or even time frames one takes place in a very distant past while the other takes place in the future.

421. Disinvited - November 5, 2012

#419. rED

Obviously something that doesn’t exist yet is going to have a hard time hurting Trek, but people who keep pointing this out are misreading the article’s question. The question is will this “announcement” hurt Trek and as I have already pointed out: It can. Paramount can react to it in a historically typical boneheaded manner. If it does, then it will end up hurting movie Trek.

422. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 5, 2012

#390 M.J. – Thanks for that information about Rise of the Guardians. Did you go to the premier and see the movie?

Yes, Chris Pine is still in England or is that Jack Ryan in Moscow and elsewhere?…;) Apparently, the Rise of the Guardians UK premier in London won’t be until November 15, where he and Isla Fisher are expected to attend.

As for the rest, ie sockpuppeting and imposters and the repetitive, monotonous, repetitive moaning and bitching and moaning that has become of this thread, site even….lest I repeat myself – yawn, yawn…oh hell, why can’t I stop yawning?…;)

423. Treklife - November 5, 2012

@421. You guys are also missing the other way this can hurt Trek, which is Disney using their ownership of ILM as a lever to take ownership of a chunk of Trek, which would be completely in character for the Disney corporation. It would also be a horrifyingly bad thing to happen to Trek, bad as Paramount has been to Trek at times, Disney would make everything worse. Disney is one of the most unethical corporations in US history, always has been, always will be.

424. M.J. - November 5, 2012

402 I would not mind seeing a Star Wars movie directed by Speilberg, and he did want to direct one of the prequels but Lucas told him no.
allowing him only to direct and story board a sequence in ROTS.

But as much as i would love to see Episode VII directed by Spielberg at this point I think thats as likely to happen as ever getting to see him direct a Bond Film.

425. M.J. - November 5, 2012

404 yes its well documented that he wanted to direct one of the prequel movies but GL said no. as i mentioned above though he did story board and help with the animatics of a couple scenes, and ghost directed atleast part of one scene.

426. M.J. - November 5, 2012

Rose 422 yes I recieved one of the Free Tickets from AFI film fest.
I also went to Thursday nights opening of Hitchcock and will be going thursdays premiere of Lincoln.

this time of the year is always great causee AFI, distributes all the tickets to their premieres and screenings for free online or in person.

If you ever go to L.A. i would recommend first week of November cause you can go inside a different movie premiere every night.

427. M.J. - November 5, 2012

423 that would never happen first of all Disney has said they are not going to interfer in the day to day operations of ILM, secondly even if they did ILM is a gun for hire, they dont OWN anything they are hired to work on, they are hired by production companies to bring to life the effects that the directors and producers envision for their movie. ILM doesnt or its owners are not in a position to leverage anything in another studios movies

428. M.J. - November 5, 2012

423 can you show an example of where Disney has done what you are implying in the past?

429. K-7 - November 5, 2012

Whatever you say, Stunkill.

430. number6 - November 5, 2012

One is an apple.. The other an orange.. Plenty of room in the fruit basket.

431. Treklife - November 5, 2012

@428. A simple look over Disney’s corporate history will show literally dozens of unethical actions taken by the company, this aside from the known anti-semitism of their founder, and his possible pedophilia. It also does not matter if ILM actually owns anything, as the premier vfx company on the planet and the “go-to” company for Trek visual effects they make a one h-ll of a good lever for their owners to take a chunk of Trek, whether by buying out CBS ( thereby also eliminating Trek from Netflix, like the rest of Disney’s catalog) or by taking Paramount’s share.

Did you idiots all forget the FACT that Disney was filling their animated movies with sexually based subliminal messaging? Maybe you forgot that they make selling sex to children a regular part of their business practice, through the use of untalented “pretty boys” like the Jonas “brothers”?

Go ahead live in your fantasy world M.J., stunkill, or whoever the f-ck you are.

432. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 5, 2012

Thanks, M.J. I’ll remember that November is a good time for a movie goer to go to LA. However, my bank account is rarely ever kind to me and when it is, the money ends up going on house maintenance, getting cars fixed – you know, all that boring but necessary stuff…oh well…can’t complain…sigh…:)

So I take you enjoyed the movie, something I could take my family to see. That’s the impression I get from the trailers – an exciting, fun film, albeit a little dark in places.

It is curious, but I never think of movies in terms of whether they might be children’s movies or not, nor of late, whether they are animated or live action and allowing those factors alone to determine whether I might like to see such movies. The truth is that some movies whose intended audiences may be children between 8 and 12 or similar can be just as entertaining as any movie intended for adult audiences. It really depends on the story and the movie maker’s skills at presentation.
I have no idea whether this M.J. is an imposter and is really stunkill or whoever the moron imposter is here.

Perhaps M.J. could think of another pseudonym so that he is not confused with the other MJ who has been posting here since I came in June 2010.

To the imposter – how can I say this politely? PISS OFF!!!

433. MJ (the original) - November 5, 2012

OK, Keachick. My new name is here for you.

See, I really do listen to you once in awhile!

434. MJ (the original) - November 5, 2012

And to clarify, I am the “MJ” who has been posting here since 2009…not the “M.J.” who we think is Stunkill.

435. MJ (the original) - November 5, 2012

or since 2008 actually.

436. Basement Blogger - November 5, 2012

The problem I see is the lack of any promotion for the Star Trek franchise from Bad Robot. Okay, I can buy the silence on Star Trek Into Darkness. But the only person I see running around promoting Star Trek is Bob Orci. There are things that the Supreme Court can do. Perhaps host an online Star Trek episode showing, say on Star Trek’s official website. Contact Stephen Hawking who is a Trekker and have him do a video on Star Trek science. DC Comics commissioned Neil deGrasse Tyson to look for the planet Krypton. Link. That’s publicity that doesn’t mess with J.J.’s desire for secrecy. I would like to add they could shoot down rumors. How does that mess with the secrecy of the movie?. Come out and say it’s not Khan or something like that.

Tyson finds Krypton for DC Comics.

437. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 5, 2012

#431 – Really? Subliminal sexual messages in movies like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Fantasia, Sleeping Beauty and many other Grimm fairy stories, minus the horror? Disney misunderstood the meaning and purpose of fairy tales in leaving out the negative, horror elements, but that’s another issue.

Selling sex to children by using the Jonas Brothers? Children, especially girls around about the age of 11 onwards, do become aware of the opposite sex of their own accord and if they find the Jonas Brothers or any other band, actor, whoever attractive, that is because of their development physically and emotionally, which naturally, of course, includes the sexual element. What in blazes do you think puberty is?

Hell – I might as well as say that Paramount/Bad Robot is selling sex to adults because they use Chris Pine in the Star Trek movie series because I personally find him sexy, even though he has never done anything sexually explicit in any film. It’s bollocks!

Treklife – this is about you projecting onto movies and bands like the Jonas Bros your own sexual interest and hangups.

438. Treklife - November 5, 2012

@437. Disney was CHARGED and CONVICTED with placing subliminal sexual messages into their animated films 2 decades ago, this is public f-cking knowledge, look it up.

439. Phil - November 5, 2012

Okay, the folks who hate Disney and suggesting they sell sex to kids are probably the same people who have their undies in a knot because of Gay Days at Disney parks. Get over yourself, if Disney is that big of an influence over your kids thats more then likely because you have been absentee parents then because Disney has some hidden agenda to rule the youth of the world…..

440. MJ (the original) - November 5, 2012

Treklife, the Romney deal tomorrow is not going to work out very well for you I’m afraid. :-)

441. Treklife - November 5, 2012

@439, 440, CHARGED AND CONVICTED, no doubts, no speculation, no uncertainty, Disney does this sh-t all the time, they do have an agenda.

As for some idiot’s speculation that “my anger at Disney is because I am an absentee parent” it is totally false. I am a single father raising a daughter all alone, and Disney is not allowed in my home, neither is Spongebob, or any other material I find detrimental to the intelligence and mental well being of my child, there are lots of other much better alternatives.

442. MJ (the original) - November 5, 2012

Spongebob was the beginning of the downfall of Western Civilization for sure. You could see the signs coming though when The Lion King was released. Spongebob was the just the last domino to fall.

443. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 5, 2012

#441 – OMG Spongebob Squarepants? Seriously? You are either trolling or you have a few problems, matey…

444. dmduncan - November 5, 2012

Oh man, this place is like Staten Island after hurricane Sandy.

Poor, poor Trekmovie. I remember you when you were great…

445. Aurore - November 5, 2012

…To some extent, this (thread) reminds me of the time when I was waiting for THE “announcement”…..

The good news finally came…. late in the thread…..
Those were the days…..


446. dmduncan - November 5, 2012

To stay, or not to stay — that is the question.
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind
To suffer the slings and arrows of Trekmovie trolls,
Or to take up arms against a sea of real world troubles…

447. boomer13 - November 5, 2012

I am caring less and less about the new Star Trek movie. Yes, ofcourse I will probably see it.
Just that a few frames of the movie and no publicity at all, kind of just of just makes me think they are laughing at us. Here’s some carrots you Trek nerds. We speculated enough. Time for some meat.
Anyways, it’s not the core Trek fans they are after. It’s the casual fan, core fans are going to see it anyways. But they should all remember Nemesis, Insurrection, Enterprise. We don’t always fall for fluff. Make us happy and we will come out in droves. Right now, the Trek franchise in general is just a big ol shrug. I’ll take meat to carrots.

448. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 5, 2012

I think the first thing Anthony should do when he gets back is implement a login system here like they have on other sites. This will get rid of stunkill and other fakes in here.

449. M.J. - November 5, 2012

Keachick yes I really enjoyed the movies that ive seen as part of the film fest so far.

450. K-7 - November 5, 2012

“Go ahead live in your fantasy world M.J., stunkill, or whoever the f-ck you are.”

Well there is one thing that ole Treklife got right! LOL

451. LizardGirl - November 5, 2012

@346 Keachick

Lol, I’m not slighted in the least! I knew someone said mentioned those ideas but couldn’t remember who and I didn’t want to toss some random name out there! You did talk about Ben C. maybe cross promoting right? Well, I agree with YOU! It’s an awesome idea. It also makes sense to attach the STID trailer to LOTR: The Hobbit, without competing with that time slot.

452. Gary Makin - November 5, 2012

Into Darkness will be a blockbuster (ST09 was a big hit rather than a blockbuster) if it’s good and is promoted properly (especially internationally). Star Wars will have no effect.

453. dmduncan - November 5, 2012

Posts that annoyingly disappear. What a pain.

I actually responded to Aurore, pointing out how when AP stopped caring about sockpuppets and wouldn’t ban them anymore, and when he stopped policing the fake boborcis — which he used to do diligently — it was a sign that the site was moving down an incline.

Bob did give us newsbits and of course any interviews he did here all depended for their credibility on “boborci” being the REAL boborci, so when fake boborcis started popping up and nobody intervened with moderation to ban them, this site’s credibility also started sliding.

Trekmovie was a good thing, but uh, you do have to work to keep it that way.

454. dmduncan - November 5, 2012

The Lion King was total BS. “Circle of life” my ass. Just take the beginning. All the animals showing up and paying their respects to a newborn lion. Er, yeah — that’s the animal that will eventually CHASE down and EAT all the other animals.

If I was writing that story, I’d make it a conspiracy between the gazelles, the water buffalo, and the giraffes to kill that little somnabitch before he gets too big.

455. dmduncan - November 5, 2012

Actually 441 is at least partly right. The classic example of a hidden message is in The Lion King where the breath of Simba on the cliff edge turns into the letters S – E – X for a second.

I remember that. I don’t know if there was successful legal action, but that is clearly visible if you freeze the frame, which makes it subliminal.

456. MJ (the original) - November 5, 2012

@455. I heard about that. There was a rumor that the special effects guys at Disney’s story is that they deliverately inserted the letters S-F-X in there, not S-E-X. Whether the middle letter is an F or is an E is open to interpretation, and indeed the supposed bottom part of the E looks more like a strand going down then the line across to me, so I’m inclined to side with the “S-F-X” story.

457. Hugh Hoyland - November 5, 2012

Does anyone have any knowledge as to where Anthony is? Or whats actually been going on with this site?

Usually if something big is coming down the pike theres a little blurb about it like “stay tuned! something bigs on the way” or something. But unless I missed it I havent seen anything like that.

I really like this site and have enjoyed coming here for years now. Would hate to see it go away.

458. Hugh Hoyland - November 5, 2012

I saw that to. Not sure why they would deliberatly put that in there (if thats actually what it says, it did look like S-E-X IMO).

What would be the purpose I wonder.

459. LizardGirl - November 5, 2012

About Disney Inc.

To be frank, Disney (the corporation) is kind of a monster. Albeit one that has plenty of musicals and cartoons. But really, the Disney machine eats kid actors for breakfast, not including the few that made a clean break: Shia LeBouf, Miley Cyrus(?), Hilary Duff, Justin Timberlake.

I like many of the Disney animated movies (i.e. Madagascar Trilogy), but I will not watch those random variety shows with the “flavor of the week” kid actors. They make me cringe.

I love Cartoon Network, Toonami and Adult Swim though. See ridiculously long list below for examples:

Adventure Time!, The Regular Show, Mad, Thundercats, even the Lego Ninja series, Let’s not forget DBZ, Powerpuff Girls, Cowboy Bebop, or just about every Mobile Gundam Suit series/variation created. And they play all of the classic Tom and Jerry, Looney Tunes cartoons that I love. I’ll take CN over Disney any day of the week!

Hmm, Nickelodeon used to be the bomb when I was watching it (Rugrats, Doug, All That), but I’m not really familiar with what’s on now so I don’t know about them.

460. Nano - November 5, 2012

Disney + Scifi = John Carter

461. K-7 - November 5, 2012

“Shia LeBouf, Miley Cyrus(?), Hilary Duff, Justin Timberlake.”

Yea, Disney was just horrible for their careers. LOL

462. LizardGirl - November 5, 2012

I will….grudgingly tip my hat to Disney for John Carter ( I actually enjoyed this movie) as well as Tron Legacy and a handful of the live action movies. That’s it!

463. K-7 - November 5, 2012

#462 — You’ve got to be kidding me? Up, Finding Nemo, Toy Story (all three), Mary Poppins, Snow White, Peter Pan, Cinderella, Wall-E, Bambi, Pirates of the Carribean, 101 Dalmations, Ratatouille, Brave, The Jungle Book, The Incedibles, Fantasia, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Swiss Family Robinson, Remember the Titans, Old Yeller, Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, Cars, Eight Below, White Fang…..TO NAME A FEW.

464. sean - November 5, 2012

Most of this Disney stuff is conspiracy theory nonsense. They’ve never been ‘convicted’ of putting sexual content in their animation. There was a naked woman spliced into the background of The Rescuers DVD in 1999, but the company voluntarily recalled it despite the fact that you could only see it if you paused the movie. And Walt Disney wasn’t a pedophile, that was suggested by one guy who wrote one of those Hollywood Babylon books that never even knew the man. It’s also far from proven that he was anti-Semitic.

He did appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee and name suspected Communists, which was a pretty dick move since it was all supposition and none of the men he named were proven communists. He also thought all unions were communist conspiracies. So not the nicest guy, admittedly.

465. MJ (the original) - November 5, 2012

All, seeing as how no one on this sties reports much anymore, I am going to break this story here myself then:

“The Producers Guild of America (PGA) announced today that award-winning television and film producer and director J.J. Abrams will be honored with the 2013 Norman Lear Achievement Award in Television. The award will be presented to Abrams at the 24th Annual Producers Guild Awards ceremony on Saturday, January 26 at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles. “J.J. Abrams has produced some of the most iconic and highest-rated television shows of the past decade and longer, series that have changed the landscape of television,” said Producers Guild Awards Chair Michael DeLuca. “His talent is astonishing, and through his commitment to ingenious storytelling, compelling characters and television programming of the highest quality, he truly lives up to this award’s namesake. We are so pleased to honor J.J. this year with the Norman Lear Achievement Award in Television.” “It is an incredible honor to be asked to accept »

466. dmduncan - November 5, 2012

464: “There was a naked woman spliced into the background of The Rescuers DVD in 1999, but the company voluntarily recalled it despite the fact that you could only see it if you paused the movie.”

No, you “see” it whether you pause the movie or not. You are consciously aware of it only if you pause the movie. Two different things. In other words, it was subliminal.

That it was there at all is interesting.

467. K-7 - November 5, 2012

Perhaps Monsanto is to blame for the Disney mischief?

468. Tim - November 5, 2012

General comment:

As Star Wars has become dinner conversation again, it absolutely stole Star Trek XII’s thunder. This announcement came to the worst possible time for JJA and friends. With no information whatsoever on Star Trek because of JJA’s secrecy (which under normal circumstance I am okay with) and the growing excitement and rumors for the Episode 7, I hope JJA has called in a meeting and is reacting accordingly.

I will watch both movies anyway as I am a huge fan of both and so will almost every sci-fi fan. But my excitement clearly shifted because of the handling strategies from Disney and Paramount. (Lucas and JJA)

469. Aurore - November 6, 2012

“…..and when he stopped policing the fake boborcis — which he used to do diligently — it was a sign that the site was moving down an incline.

Bob did give us newsbits and of course any interviews he did here all depended for their credibility on ‘boborci’ being the REAL boborci, so when fake boborcis started popping up and nobody intervened with moderation to ban them, this site’s credibility also started sliding.”

There have been comments on this site’s moderation efforts, or lack thereof, before. I remember a few of them from the thread I linked to a few posts ago.

Recently, a poster even left due to what he considered bad moderation, his leaving had nothing to do with the imposter’s cast of characters nor was it related to the presence of faux Orcis (who might be part of the imposter’s arsenal, as well).

Of course, there are also those who leave without notice, as it were.

As far as banning imposters is concerned, from what I understand it is not such an easy thing to do….for now. While following a discussion here, I learned that “…. the e-mail addresses can be just as fake as the poster’s name… All they have to do is route their comments through one of the hundreds of free proxy services. The only way to stop this….is to institute a login in feature.”

I think moderators are doing what they can, where, as grown-ups, we should all be able to behave. Besides, I have personally always view the fact that the vast majority of readers of the site did not visit the comments section as one of the main reasons why things were (still)…the way they were…

But, who knows what might happen, soon?

One fan said that he was waiting for the announcement that the site owner “would be running the official Trek Into Darkness board, and had been busy with preparations on that.”

He was joking, evidently, still….


470. Gary S. - November 6, 2012

Surprised the site didnt cover this ,
Tonights Episode of Castle was directed by Jonathan Frakes,
the story features Murder at a sci fi convention.
Frakes made a cameo
Nathan Fillion did some funny Shatner and Stewart impressions
And Shatners music was used in a funny bit at the end .

471. M.J. - November 6, 2012


Nice to see that Harrison is actually open to returning as Han Solo for Episode 7.

472. Aurore - November 6, 2012

Correction. 469.

….I have personally always viewed….

473. dscott - November 6, 2012

I personally have no issue with Star Wars, will see the movie(s) myself. If I were head of Paramount/CBS, I’d go to red alert and start some buzz right now – all the “normal” people are already turning their heads away at just the thought of more Star Wars.

474. Tim - November 6, 2012

473. absolutely my opinion

475. Aurore - November 6, 2012

“…. It also does not matter if ILM actually owns anything, as the premier vfx company on the planet and the ‘go-to’ company for Trek visual effects they make a one h-ll of a good lever for their owners to take a chunk of Trek, whether by buying out CBS ( thereby also eliminating Trek from Netflix, like the rest of Disney’s catalog) or by taking Paramount’s share.”


First and only argument to intrigue me, so far, regarding the deal….

476. EM - November 6, 2012

Again, I have to say that Star Wars buzz will not have a negative impact on Star Trek. Outside of this site, there is no buzz about Star Trek. On this site, the Star Wars news has increased Star Trek buzz expontentially! It’s all good!

477. Aurore - November 6, 2012

…And, I only said “intrigue” not to type “scare”.

478. Kirk, James T. - November 6, 2012

I’ve been browsing the internet today, mainstream media sites, youtube and star wars fan sites and no where have I seen people get really excited about this.

The news of Disney buying Lucasfilm is huge and very surprising but I don’t think it relates into excitement, if anything I think people are less excited and more worried about what may happen or even just completely uninterested thinking that really Star Wars was only ever good back when the original trilogy was current.

Most fans think that this will be a disaster. The trouble is, is that Star Wars is now 100% owned by Disney whereas Marvel still own the intellectual rights to it’s characters because various characters are with different studios, one being Paramount, Lucasfilm does not, he sold it all out…

The rest of the world I don’t think cares about either Trek or Wars. I think when JJ Abrams does begin to market the Star Trek Into Darkness movie media and mainstream audiences will get excited by it, the cast is exceptionally good, Benedict Cumberbach is highly popular at the moment, Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana and really when there is any news relating to the new movie, people are interested in it and it gets picked up by the mainstream geek sites like io9, sfx, empire etc.. but I don’t think there’s any rush to go market Star Trek especially as the news of Disney buying Star Wars is very recent. Trek has to hold it’s own, its fans need to get out of this crisis of confidence because I’m sure Abrams and Paramount are highly confident that their Star Trek movie will be huge. The right time to market it will be Christmas and I’d hope that to reach a large enough audience Paramount get the trailer for it attached to The Hobbit (since Cumberbach is in that too, it kind of makes sense).

I personally think after reading articles and comments about Star Wars is that the future of Star Trek is far more promising than the future of Star Wars. I just have this feeling that Star Wars to most after Episodes 1 – 3 is an empty toy-producing machine, I don’t think Disney are the right company creatively to drive the next chapter in Star Wars.

479. sean - November 6, 2012


That’s debatable. It comprises about 1/30th of the total frame. As amazing a thing as the human eye is, it’s questionable whether even the subconscious mind would know what it was looking at. Subliminal stimulus needs to have a point to be effective, and even then the general scientific consensus is that it’s effectiveness is extremely limited. There’s little-to-no chance that naked woman imprinted on anyone watching the film. Even if by some chance she did, there’s no accompanying message to make that appearance significant. So we end up in the same boat either way.

The simplest and most reasonable answer is either an animator or post-production worker thought it would be funny and doubted anyone would ever see it.

480. MJ (the original) - November 6, 2012

#471. Stunkill, you and Sebastian were saying a couple of days back how Star Wars takes place 30 years after the Jedi, and therefor old and fat Hammil and Fisher should still play the parts. Well, this article that you yourself has provided actually actually confirms MY VIEW that the sequels will take place ONLY 20 YEARS after ROTJ.

Therefore, this pretty much validates my approach that the three main Star Wars characters will need to have fairly major action-type roles, and this supports a very fit Ford being brought back to play a mid-50’s Sola, and Hammil and Fisher being recast since they will need actors who can credibly play a mid-40’s Luke and Leia.

I am extremely excite now that we are going to get a movie that really involves the big there again. It would be outstanding to have VIggo Mortenson as Luke and Julian Moore as Leia – I hope they are considered for these iconic roles.

481. Dee - lvs moon' surface - November 6, 2012

Mr. Shatner was last month at ” Destination Star Trek London”, he said:

“The subject of Star Trek (2009) came up and Shatner wasn’t without comment. On Chris Pine as Kirk: “He’s a wonderful leading man,” Shatner stated. “He has the looks, body, the talent. He makes a wonderful Kirk; I’m so happy he got the job.” How about Nimoy’s appearance? “You know you’re old when you go back in time and… you’re still old.” How about Shatner in a J.J. Abrams Trek adventure? “I would love to be in a movie with J.J.,” he responded. “He has given us a ride. He has made Star Trek commercial.  But those big movies for an actor are really boring (due to FX demands)… and they take forever.  I don’t know that I can afford the time.”



482. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 6, 2012

It surely depends on what the naked woman was doing, something that would not be known or gleaned by anyone watching the Rescuers DVD because of how quick the image appeared and disappeared.

What saddens me is people seem to constantly equate nudity with sex. They are NOT THE SAME. Nudity is nudity and sex is sex and what may surprise, no doubt even shock some, is that more often than not, they do not go together. Being naked is NOT a requirement in order to be able to engage in sexual relations.

I recall two popular sitcoms of the 90’s make an issue over this equating nudity with sex (or the desire for it) and make it the central theme of the episodes. The same situations were presented in the Nanny and Home Improvement. In the Nanny, Fran, by accident, saw her boss Charles in the shower and in Home Improvement, Tim, by accident, saw his sister-in-law in the shower. The so-called comedy had to do with the embarrassment and sexual innuendo made in the episodes. Although, admittedly, some of it was quite funny, they were also the most puerile and immature in television. I was irritated most of the time. These people are supposed to be adults and clearly know about the “birds and the bees” and are aware of the relationships they have and what is appropriate and real, and yet…

Such television sets a bad example for children, in that it denigrates the human body, when it is seen in its natural state of undress, by equating such a state with just sex and sexual desire. It’s a disgrace!

If indeed some SFX tech guy did include a quick glance of a naked woman in that DVD for a joke or whatever, it would be because he comes from a culture that finds any kind of nakedness sexual in nature and ripe for silly tittering etc. If there was any subliminal message of a sexual nature, it is because the entire culture (and that includes the NZ culture as well, but to a slighter less extent – for MJ – t.o.) has sensitized people to react in a puerile, and even ignorant and insensitive, manner to our genuine humanness.

483. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 6, 2012

Thanks, Dee. I had also read what Shatner said most recently. I also remember seeing him say good things about Chris when he was interviewed in Canada for whatever, some time back, especially the words, “… he (Chris) is a lovely *man…”

The word that stood out was “lovely”. I can’t recall whether he said “man”, “guy”, or “person” though.

484. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 6, 2012

#454 – “The Lion King was total BS. “Circle of life” my ass.”

No actually. It is not bs at all. It appears that either you have not watched the entire film or you did not understand the explanation.

It is now known, from an ecological standpoint, that it is possible to gauge the health of a particular ecology by the success or otherwise of the apex predators such as sharks, tigers and lions. In other words, if those animals are in trouble, then the entire ecology is in a bad way. So yes, lions and others are very much part of and essential to the “circle of life”. FACT!

They got it right!

485. Dee - lvs moon' surface - November 6, 2012

Chris Pine is “Jack Frost”… so CUTE! ;-) :-)


486. dmduncan - November 6, 2012

479: “That’s debatable.”

Not very.

And I’m not sure what you are talking about by “1/30th” of a “frame.”

Whether it was 24fps or 30fps, the image appears in at least ONE frame, not a fraction of a frame, and every fame is in fact — not opinion, but fact — seen by the eyes and registered by the brain. It is also a fact that far more occurs below the threshold of awareness than we are conscious of.

And as to the point? What’s the point of Bratz toys? Or of little girls in beauty pageants dressing as sexualized adults?

If it was intentional then it fits within a larger societal context of targeting innocence by sexualizing kids at a time when they should be occupied with kid things, not twisted adult obsessions. And no, I don’t think that’s cool or funny.

482: And no, it does not matter what the woman was “doing.” It was out of context where it was. That’s all that matters. You don’t put subliminal images of naked people in a children’s film and say it doesn’t matter because she’s not “doing” something while naked.

Nudity is a completely different issue, that is best dealt with intelligently on a conscious level.

Just about anything people try to get into your head subliminally should make any reasonably self aware person pay attention.

487. dmduncan - November 6, 2012

And whether it was part of a wider scheme or just some jerk doing it on his own — I don’t know, but I’m not inclined to err on the side of some jerk when I do know children are in fact being targeted with sexualization imagery.

488. dmduncan - November 6, 2012

I mean, when I was a kid, I knew adults were unhealthily obsessed with sex, but at least I was spared the constant bombardment of commercials for pathetic old farts who can’t keep a hard on.

I feel for today’s kids.

489. K-7 - November 6, 2012

DM Duncan, you make some good points (Monsanto = evil) about the powers of subliminal messaging (Monsanto = evil) here. Thanks for (Monsanto = evil) providing this!

490. M.J. - November 6, 2012

I am pretty sure we will see John Williams back for Episode 7, since Lucas is creatvie consultant. But I really hope that he doesnt pull away after that. Williams has stayed with the star wars franchise longer than any other film series in his career, but some part of me is scared that we are approaching a time where someone other than williams is composing star wars. I think i am ok with someone else taking over for him following episode 9 with the stand alone films.
But for the sequel trilogy really hope we get williams for those films.

491. PEB - November 6, 2012

It wont be a problem. Trek will be out NEXT YEAR not this year. You’re just seeing a marketing push for the Lincoln film and for a few other films that will be out before the end of this year. You’re not seeing much of a marketing push for any films that will be out next May. If anything, I think the issue is just the fans wanting to see something. I’m not concerned about a successful marketing push as of yet, there’s more than enough time. I just want to see footage because I’m an impatient fan who cant wait to see the next enstallment of the series. Personally, I think that’s a good sign for Abrams and Star Trek in general.

492. VulcanFilmCritic - November 6, 2012

Everybody needs to read “Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World” by Carl Hiaasen.

493. LizardGirl - November 6, 2012

My god…I like most of those!

494. M.J. - November 6, 2012

Ill just say this in regards to star treks marketing. We are allready seeing photos and posters for other tent pole summer 2013 movies such as The Wolverine,Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, Monsters University, Despicable Me 2, The Lone Ranger.
A nmber of those movies come out in june and july 2013, AFTER Trek into darkness
Just sayin

495. M.J. - November 6, 2012

And the only way I would accept recasting of Solo, Leia and skywalker, is after the sequel trilogy Disney decided to produce a stand alone movie adaptation of Shadows of the Empire. which allready has a score, (which while not john williams good) Joel Mcneely did a pretty decent job on

496. star trackie - November 6, 2012

M.J. (Stunkill?), I think we should all be more open to the idea of recasting Luke, Leia and Han. A lot of people were up in arms over recasting the Trek cast for Trek 2009, but it worked out great in the end. You’ve already provided one exception where you would accept a recasting approach, so whose to says a great writing team can’t come up with a story even better than the “Shadows of the Empire” story you reference?

497. sean - November 6, 2012


Here is the image in question (NSFW): http://www.snopes.com/disney/info/rescue1.htm

That is what I mean by 1/30th of a frame. It is not a full image. It does not take up 100% of the frame. Just because the eye sees something does not mean the image is meaningful to the brain, even on a subconscious level. That is my point. It’s ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that it’s an attempt by Disney to sexualize children because even if it was it wouldn’t work. That’s not how the very limited effects of subliminal influence work.

498. Matias47 - November 6, 2012

There are so many astute comments here that said what I was going to, that I had to stop reading and jump to the end to make this comment about the lack of marketing for STID. This take just a second: I was talking to my brother frequently this past week (I’m in California, he’s in Jersey) so after being assured of everyone’s safety we got on to other, lighter, discussion. Now, my brother has his own business so he doesn’t follow movies except to see what’s playing this weekend. Because I’m in the business, (I’m transitioning from practical creature effects to digital) he usually asks me what’s up. Got it so far? Good. That said, he knows about Man of Steel, Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, The Hobbit, etc. But, when I mentioned STID, his response was, “There’s another Star Trek movie?”

PS. I’m at lunch and on my phone, please forgive any typos.

499. Disinvited - November 6, 2012

One thing’s for certian:


it’s definitely having an effect on the people responsible for creating the next Trek installment.

500. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 6, 2012

My post has been deleted – one where I discussed the issue of nudity and sexuality. I am NOT being obscene. Far from it – in fact, it is the attitudes that get most often expressed about human nakedness, sexuality and ideas on what children should or should not see is what I find most obscene! Stop censoring the truth. I am expressing my truth and I am not alone in my perceptions of what is happening in society – not that it is anything new.

And what I said about the billion dollar fashion industry is also more likely to be true than it is false!

The fact that in some US states, women can be charged with obscene behaviour for breastfeeding their infant child in a public place is actually the ultimate OBSCENITY and a violation of the most fundamental of human rights!

Grow up, people, and once again become the pure and holy beings you are meant to be!

501. M.J. - November 6, 2012

Star didnt we address that the other night? I ve done exactly what i said i was going to do and havent responded to the 3 posters. And I have stuck to just posting about the subject at hand. But i guess that doesnt matter.

Anyways in regards to the new trilogy,GL even said in Time Magazine no less back in 83 that the plan was for 7,8 and 9 to feature Hamil, Ford and Fisher when they are in their 60s and 70s. the precident was set right there 29 years ago. even though since then he claims he never said that star wars was a 9 part story, he in his own words set in motion the idea that 7,8 and 9 will feature to a lesser degree them and at the ages they are currently at no less.

502. M.J. - November 6, 2012

continued once that trilogy is done, if the STAND ALONE films are set in periods where the main 3 characters are younger than yes recasting is a given.

But if the sequel trilogy follows what GL implied back in 83 then I will not accept anyone other than those 3 actors in those roles. because recasting a 60 year old Luke and Leia,and a 70s year old Han with new actors is just wrong

503. db - November 6, 2012

What is Star Wars doin on a Trek site anyway?

504. M.J. - November 6, 2012

And just for the record I am one of the few people who actually would not have minded seeing a younger late teens Han Solo pop up in ROTS
Or a younger Lando Calresian.

Just as i was ok from the start with Ewan as a younger Kenobi.

so its not that i am against recasting roles, I am just against recasting roles that were allready talked about decades ago as being in their 60s and 70s when the movies would eventually get made..

505. M.J. - November 6, 2012

db its a trek site but the article is about star wars and trek

506. T'Cal - November 6, 2012

Meh. One won’t affect the other.

507. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 6, 2012

Here’s some news that is way better than any Star Wars news…

Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome trailer!! Can’t wait to watch this show… supposed to start Friday on SyFy… hopefully SPACE in Canada picks it up! Looks good!


508. M.J. - November 6, 2012

(the real) Montreal_ Paul, Ive never been a Battlestar fan, (though Edward James is a stand up guy) But exciting for the Battlestar fans out there ope Space picks up for you guys and gals up there.

509. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 6, 2012

I’ve never been a Star Wars fan – I have seen all the movies but only once. I don’t even own them. Trek has always been number one in my books. And I would take Galactica over Star Wars any day. Even the original series.

510. dmduncan - November 6, 2012


“That is what I mean by 1/30th of a frame. It is not a full image. It does not take up 100% of the frame.”

Yeah, so what? Neither does any other element of that or even most single frames of a movie. The heads of the two mouse characters do not take up the entire frame, yet those are meaningful parts of the imagery. They are sitting in a sardine can which does not take up the entire frame. The mice are both wearing hats which do not take up the entire frame while being clearly identifiable as hats.

And the woman in the window is naked, and clearly identifiable as such even on the small box of my browser window.

So you’re observation makes no relevant point.

“Just because the eye sees something does not mean the image is meaningful to the brain, even on a subconscious level. That is my point.”

Well “just because” the eye sees a jumble of colors maybe, but that’s not what we are talking about. If the thing which it sees is of something it already has an established pattern of recognizing, like the human form, then the burden of proof is on you if you somehow wish to continue arguing that the mind would not notice the pattern of the human form when the mind is clearly structured to notice such patterns, which is why we have the phenomenon of pareidolia.

And if yuo look at the S-E-X “vapor” in The Lion King yu’ll find that the letf leg of the “X” is missing. But you don’t really NEED it to see the word SEX because the mind fills it in looking for patterns.

MJs explanation that it was SFX (for special effects) doesn’t really matter unless you KNOW that’s what it means, because the mind will find meaningful patterns regardless of original intent, so if it looks like SEX, that is what the mind will read. Now, to make the point even more, did you notice that I misspelled “you,” “you’ll,” and “left” in the above paragraph? I did that on purpose because I knew you’d understand it anyway because you will superimpose the correct pattern on the wrong one to find meaning and understand the misspelled words.

“It’s ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that it’s an attempt by Disney to sexualize children because even if it was it wouldn’t work. That’s not how the very limited effects of subliminal influence work.”

I don’t jump to that conclusion but you haven’t made your point that it’s innocent. It could be an intentional test to see what they could get away with, or it just might be individual animators and technicians screwing around.

I don’t know. And when I don’t know I log the data as a curiosity in the event that it connects with something else later on; I hardly ever dismiss data, because I am rarely in a rush to pretend I know something for sure.

511. K-7 - November 6, 2012

@510 “Yeah, so what? Neither does any other element of that or even most single frames of a movie. The heads of the two mouse characters do not take up the entire frame, yet those are meaningful parts of the imagery. They are sitting in a sardine can which does not take up the entire frame. The mice are both wearing hats which do not take up the entire frame while being clearly identifiable as hats.”

Well no one here is an nueroscientist I believe (unless you are?), but it strains credibility to think that even the all powerful human brain could unconsiously take in 1/30 of that single frame and then process a hard-on or some pro-sexual message from that. And BTW, the other parts you mention in the frame — the mouse hat for example — is also in all the frames continuous to that scene, so that makes that specific point of yours meaningless.

512. Xplodin_Nacelle - November 6, 2012

Idk about the marketing issue, but that Luke, & Leia picture is disturburbingly too close for comfort

513. K-7 - November 6, 2012

@501. “Star didnt we address that the other night? I ve done exactly what i said i was going to do and havent responded to the 3 posters. And I have stuck to just posting about the subject at hand. But i guess that doesnt matter.”

People who are 90+% convinced that you are Stunkill are probably going to call you that. It is what it is, Stunkill.

514. DonDonP1 - November 6, 2012

@101 20th Century Fox will forever keep the rights to “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” in 2020 in addition to handing over the five remaining films to Disney. That is unless 20th and Disney would reach a partnership agreement.

515. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 6, 2012

What I said about the fashion industry applies even more so to the p*rn industry. It preys/feeds on this misplaced guilt and shame about our own natural, “naked” state and the sight of organs that have, among other things, a sexual function. Somehow we are meant to feel bad about our ability as humans to be sexually loving and procreative.

Giving children these kinds of messages jeopardizes their genuine innocence and love and affirmation of the life experience.

I know that most of us have been brought up hearing Judeo-Christian biblical readings and had the meaning interpreted for you. Even if we say we have thrown most, if not all, of it off, they are still part of much of our (subconscious) conditioning. You may proclaim atheism/agnoticism or whatever else all you like, but it is still there affecting your attitudes and understanding. No bs about it!

In the New Testament, there are a number of references to clothing the naked as in “You clothed me when I was naked…”. I think this can be interpreted in two ways – correctly. First is literal, as in a person has nothing to wear (or clothes are falling of *him) and the person needs to be covered in order to protect *himself from the harsher, more inclement environmental elements, ie too hot, too cold etc. Some parts of the body may feel more vulnerable than others so the need for cover is more necessary.

The other meaning is more spiritual in nature and has little or nothing to do with whether the physical body is attired or not. I think that it has to do with being “clothed in goodness”, which is far more important than any piece of *cloth.

In the same place, we read “…you fed me when I was hungry…” This can also be correctly interpreted in two ways. First is the obvious literal meaning – the person is physically hungry and *he is given food to eat. In the famous prayer, food is also mentioned, as in “Give us our daily bread…” not only to be taken in the literal, material sense but also in the spiritual sense as well. Just as the body needs food, so too does the soul, the spirit, need food also. This is what the Eucharist or Holy Communion is about – giving the soul of a human its spiritual food and drink.

The human body needs food more than it necessarily needs to be clothed or covered always. Fact – given that, even today, many **primitive peoples wear little or no clothing, but still need to eat and drink!

“How was Jesus Crucified naked or with clothes?
Yes, Jesus was hung on the cross naked. Crucifixion was the highest form of torture and humiliation”
Note that crucifixion is the cause of torture and HUMILIATION, not necessarily just being naked per se.

I would sincerely love to see what Father Robert Lyons may say on this…

* he/him may of course, also refer to she/her

** primitive? maybe, but in other ways, often more in tune with their environment and less destructive towards it… they are people who are self-sustaining and have successfully done so for many millennia.

516. dmduncan - November 6, 2012


The importance of paying attention should never be underestimated.

Processing a “hard on” or some “pro sexual message” is not what I claimed. The person who experiments with subliminal tricks may think that’s what he’s doing, and that may be why he’s trying it whether it actually works or not — and that intent may fit in with absolutely clear attempts to sexualize kids.

However, I am making no claims about whether when that happens in a Disney film it has some concrete sexualization effect on kids. It may, it may not. I simply do not know, and neither do you, because nobody — not me, or any number of scientists — can be there studying what happens in the subconscious minds of every one of the millions of kids who have been exposed to that little experiment, or prank, as it may be, during the times they were exposed.

So I don’t know what the effect really is, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was interested in the attempt more than the effect anyway.

Finally, you are quite wrong about my point being meaningless.

The point was the meaning of the component parts of the imagery, not the relative screen real estate each component occupies which is irrelevant with regard to understanding that component so long as it sufficiently sized to be understandable, which that naked lady was even in my browser. Increasing the size of a clearly identifiable apple on screen does not make it more meaningfully an apple. It has the same meaning as an apple whether it fills the screen or is just a prop on the table.

Nor was the point whether the naked lady was in an equal number of frames as the hats and sardine cans. How could it be when we were discussing subliminal imagery which obviously requires FEWER frames than the non-subliminal imagery was in?

So the truth is — your point was meaningless. You were comparing liminal imagery to subliminal imagery, while in that specific example I was comparing components which occupied little screen real estate without losing their meaning.

Apples to oranges.

517. sean - November 6, 2012


It’s interesting you mention pareidolia as it’s a type of apophenia, which is seeing patterns where none exist. I’d say that’s definitely relevant here, but not in the way you probably think.

518. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 6, 2012

#485 – Yep. I wonder if Chris ever got put on the naughty list?…:)

519. dmduncan - November 6, 2012


Oh, you’re going to have to work much harder than that to catch me doing something so clueless.

I don’t hastily dismiss data…because I’m comfortable not being sure if it fits a pattern or does not, whereas others try to appear more knowledgeable than they are, and more confident in their conclusions than there is solid evidence for being.

520. K-7 - November 6, 2012

“Nor was the point whether the naked lady was in an equal number of frames as the hats and sardine cans. How could it be when we were discussing subliminal imagery which obviously requires FEWER frames than the non-subliminal imagery was in?”

Well that is the point. You were the one who compared apples and oranges when you unfairly compared the small object of the hat, which is seem in multiple continuous frames, to the naked lady, which is seen in only one frame:

“The mice are both wearing hats which do not take up the entire frame while being clearly identifiable as hats.”

That is an unfair comparison, since the hats are seen in multiple frames, — thus, that is what makes them “clearly identifiable.” If the small hats were show on one single frame only, then they would be at the same resolution-to-human-brain-perception difficulty as the very small picture of the naked lady. But they are not — they are shown in multiple frames.

521. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 6, 2012

Sexualization of children is also what is being debated here. Children are born with their sexual organs. Girls already have all the ova they will have or need by the time they are born. Boys in utero have to be flooded with male hormones, mainly testosterone, in the beginning of the second trimester, in order for them to develop properly into boys, as opposed to remaining the default female.

It is believed that, in rare cases, something goes awry with this process, which is why some males feel as if they have been born with the wrong body and so go through the long, painful sex change procedure in order to be the female they always felt they were meant to be. This is also a life long sense, feeling, belief on their part. It is much less common among females.

Children are (sub) consciously aware of their sexuality, but it is not fully formed – it can’t be until puberty. However, it should be apparent, especially when one looks at studies done over a long time period, that children become aware of who they are attracted to and who they are not. This is borne out by gay men who say they have always, from an early age, been more attracted to males than to females. Why would that be? The majority of these males, I doubt, were subjected to any sexual molestation by either male or female, and yet they state they were always aware of certain tendencies, attraction, even if they had no real understanding of what it might mean.

I suspect the same applies to children who grow into heterosexual adults.

I always knew, from the age of 4 or thereabouts, that I wanted to be a mother. My reasoning even then was – if I wasn’t meant to have children, I wouldn’t be a girl. It was a plain as day – simple. I can also remember always been more interested, curious about boys than girls and William Shatner’s Captain Kirk was my first “love”, infatuation, call it what you will. I didn’t know much about anything – all I knew what I was somehow attracted to him, liked him… I was about eight.

I am not sure that little girls’ beauty contests necessarily sexualize the girls. Why should they? How would they? If, indeed, some of these girls are getting “sexualized”, look at who are doing it – their own mothers!
Children have always imitated adults – that is one of the best ways to learn and what’s more, adults have always dressed their children similar to how they dress themselves as adults. Look through history.

A little while ago, I saw a video made by his parents when Chris Pine was about three years old. There the little boy was sitting in a big toy car dressed just like his dad, wearing shirt and tie. Now that Chris is an adult, he is seen wearing a suit and tie and many people have remarked, among other things, as to how sexy he looks in a suit…

I think what is happening is that parents are not so much sexualizing their children as genderizing their children, as in a little girl dressed in pretty clothes with make up and hair done just like Mummy (or how their mums wished they could do and look) and a little boy wearing shirt and tie just like Daddy.

As we have seen with Chris Pine, notions of sexiness come much later…

522. dmduncan - November 6, 2012


Uh, no. I didn’t think this was rocket science, but for some it apparently is.

It was sean who made the irrelevant point that the naked lady took up a fraction of the frame, which my “hat” example demonstrated made absolutely no difference with respect to the meaningfulness of the object perceived — as long as the objects concerned are big enough to be identifiable as what they are, which the naked lady clearly is within the single frame that we were both referencing in the link he provided. On screen or even a full screen TV it would be much larger.

You are conflating meaningfulness of those objects with regard to frames per second, with the real estate the various objects occupy on screen, and that is a separate issue that properly falls under the question whether subliminal imagery has an effect on us at all — and we know that it can.

I observed the still frame in the link he provided and made a comparison between the meaningfulness of the objects within that still frame based on the amount of screen real estate they occupied, which was a direct response to the claim made by sean citing “frame” fractions (i.e., screen real estate) that the naked lady picture filled as a reason why it wasn’t meaningful, which was and still is irrelevant with respect to whether it is subliminally meaningful in motion as part of the movie.

So, in this particular example, it is a frame REAL ESTATE question which I am answering, and which you are mistakenly trying to turn into a frame RATE issue. It’s a red herring not bearing on my response to him on this very focused detail.

So the point that the image can have meaning occupying the space it does is a true statement. It can. That has been settled.

Now if you wish to say that it can’t have meaning because it’s in just one frame, well then you are just wrong. All that shows is that you don’t understand either meaning or how subliminal images are known to affect us below the threshold of conscious awareness.

523. K-7 - November 6, 2012

OK, well I do understand where you are coming from now. Thanks

524. dmduncan - November 6, 2012


I actually appreciate opportunities to sharpen my responses, but focusing more on election than here tonight.

525. Red Dead Ryan - November 6, 2012

We live in a culture where women and girls are sexualized to the Nth degree. By men, who can’t seperate sex from nudity. We’re hardwired to connect nudity with sex. Women are biologically prohibited from doing that. You show a woman a photo of a naked man, she turns away in disgust. Women don’t like to see men naked. They don’t think that way. You show a man a picture of a naked young, attractive woman, he gets horny. Unless he’s gay, of course, in which he’ll be turned on by naked men.

Go watch anything on TLC. Chances are, you’ll be seeing little girls being dressed up in sexually provocative clothing. This is done because our societies demand that females be “hot”, and “sexy”. Doesn’t matter the age anymore. The lines of between decency and indecency have been erased. And our societies are suffering because of it. In many ways, women are worse off today then they were before the so-called “sexual revolution”.

The folks at TLC are sick-minded freaks who have found a like-minded demographic to exploit by exploiting innocent young girls. Keachick must not get that channel in New Zealand. We get it in North America, and what is shown on the channel needs to be considered child p_rn.

526. Red Dead Ryan - November 6, 2012

Also, the SFX/SEX controversy in “The Lion King” never bothered me. I first watched that movie when I was 13. I never really noticed it until I read about it. Even after that, I don’t go looking for it because I’m too absorbed in the movie. It’s irrelevent to me. There’s so much more important things to be concerned about, rather than some probable prank done by an animator for fun.

527. MJ (the original) - November 6, 2012

“The folks at TLC are sick-minded freaks who have found a like-minded demographic to exploit by exploiting innocent young girls. Keachick must not get that channel in New Zealand. We get it in North America, and what is shown on the channel needs to be considered child p_rn.”

Having been to NZ twice, I can state the women dress much more conservatively over there — which is a good thing compare to the out of control attire for girls and women in North America.

528. Red Dead Ryan - November 6, 2012

I don’t mind women showing a little bit of skin, or dressing a little bit sexy, but it can, and often does, go too far.

And girls shouldn’t be scantily dressed under any circumstances.

529. Red Dead Ryan - November 6, 2012

Anyway, this conversation is depressing. Let’s change the subject.

I think I’m going to see “Skyfall” on the weekend. I’ve heard nothing but great things about it. Some are considering it one of the best in the series, certainly at least as good as “Casino Royale”.

Also, my local theatre is playing “Lawrence Of Arabia”, and I plan to see that one too. I have never seen the movie, and the big screen seems like the perfect place to do so.

530. K-7 - November 6, 2012

RED Dead Ryan

M dies she gets shot in the stoumach by one of Silvas henchmen and bleeds to death

531. K-7 - November 6, 2012

Mallory becomes M at the end of themovie

532. K-7 - November 6, 2012


EVE is Moneypenny at the end of the film as well.

533. K-7 - November 6, 2012

I hope you and MJ think warm and fuzzy thoughts about how when your watching the movie that you allready know the big surprises of SKY FALL.

Oh And SKYFALL is BONDS ancestrial home


534. K-7 - November 6, 2012

You will know from the opening scene in istanbul when EVE shoots bond, that EVE is in fact Moneypenny.

You will know as you watch Bond and M interact that in the last reel M will bite the bullet when that henchman accidentally shoots her.

When you first see Mallory on screen you will allready know that at the end of the film that he is the new M

and his office will look just like M’s office in Dr. No

Enjoy that while your sipping on your super sized coke and stuffing your mouth with popcorn.

535. K-7 - November 6, 2012


Posts #530 to #534 are by an imposter — these are not my posts.

I noticed that M.J./Stunkill has not posted tonight, so draw your own conclusions from that.

536. K-7 - November 6, 2012


Posts #530 to #534 are by an imposter — these are my posts.

I noticed that M.J./Stunkill has not posted tonight, so draw your own conclusions from that.

537. K-7 - November 6, 2012


Posts #530 to #534 are by an imposter — these are my posts.

I noticed that M.J./Stunkill has not posted tonight, so draw your own conclusions from that.

538. K-7 - November 6, 2012


Posts #530 to #534 are by an imposter — these are my posts.

I noticed that M.J./Stunkill has not posted tonight, so draw your own conclusions from that..

539. K-7 - November 6, 2012


Posts #530 to #534 are by an imposter — these are posts.

I noticed that M.J./Stunkill has not posted tonight, so draw your own conclusions from that.

540. K-7 - November 6, 2012

The Threat has been the school year would be cut by 3 weeks if Prop 30 didnt pass. It didnt pass thoughts anyone?

what will we do instad?

541. K-7 - November 6, 2012


Once again I masquarading as you proves you are in fact “Stunkill”, and by doing it in that manner it highlights the fact that it goes both ways.
I can play that game just as well as you.

You really need to do a better job of fooling all of us here, Stunkill. LOL

542. Red Dead Ryan - November 6, 2012



543. K-7 - November 6, 2012


Posts 538 to 541 are not mine.

544. K-7 - November 6, 2012


Just to be clear, I am calling it a night, so if you see any further posts from me over the next 12 hours or so, they are not mine. Stunkill / M. J. is trying to completely hijack my identity — what a moron!

545. Red Dead Ryan - November 6, 2012


I understand what you’re trying to do. But I don’t think you can beat Stunkill at his own game. He’s a loser, and there’s no sense in you stooping all the way down to his level.

546. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 6, 2012

It’s sad that one of our regular posters has to stoop to masqurading as Stunkill and his cast of characters, to fish him out.

perhaps if we just ignore Stunkill he will go away, stop giving him attention.
Its easy to spot his posts cause he is always so abusive and mean.

But i thank you for your efforts K-7, you should definately be asked to join the ranks of moderating.

547. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 6, 2012

I see from the world news, that my friends in the states have re-elected cuteness in chief Obama.
Good Job, of course the only person more qualified than him would be my sweetness Chris Pine. I think our earstwhile Capt Kirk would make a supreme president.

Speaking of Actors as presidents,there seems to be a few voters who are a few logs short of a barbie! Rosanne Barr actually got more than 2300 votes!

548. Razorburn - November 6, 2012

So the conference call makes a point of saying that Lucas is going to be creative consultant on the new movie.
What does that mean exactly in terms of his involvement with Episode 7, Cause he is actually now one of the single largest disney stock holders as part of the sale.(much like Hitchcock was the 3rd largest Universal stock holder after selling his movies to MCA) or will Alan Horn treat him like Eisner Treated Roddenberry back in the 80s.

Eisner- “That sounds like a great idea Gene, we will get on that!”
Roddenberry- “Thanks Michael, I will return with further notes tomorrow”
(Roddenberry leaves)
Eisner- “Yeah just forget everything he said, Crazy Ol gene he sure is good for a laugh”

Hopefully they will be more respectful than Eisner was at Paramount to Mr Roddenberry

549. K-7 - November 6, 2012

Post 543- 544 are not mine. This imposter has no life.

550. K-7 - November 6, 2012

Try to block the spoilers while watching the movie, dont give him the satisfaction.
Go enjoy the movie, thats what i plan on doing.

551. Ra's Al Ghul - November 6, 2012

Ladies and Gentlemen
The poster known as M.J. was merely a pawn whom i used for my amusement, to show what you thought you know you didnt know.
I was not he, I merely took advantage of your distrust of someone new.
It allowed me to manipulate the shadows to my advantage.
For the shadows are my friend.
From now on if he ever posts again you will not trust that he is who he says he is, you will think he is not who he claims just like the others who you think are not who they say.

K-7 thanks to your deception you to will soon be not to be believed, you dont know the shadows like I do, your deception has now shown your true colors as well.
The League of Shadows has now begun its Star TREK INTO DARKNESS

552. MJ (the original) - November 6, 2012

@551. Hey loser, tell us something we don’t know.

553. MJ (the original) - November 7, 2012

@545. No way you are Red Dean Ryan. Nice try again, loser.

554. Treklife - November 7, 2012

Well, I will try this again as I have been inexplicably deleted.

This is a video, on youtube, covering many of the extremely questionable things Disney has put into their animated films.


This is an essay from Bowling Green State University on the matter.


I made a few other points, but I don’t feel like re-writing all of it now.

555. Treklife - November 7, 2012

And now the previous post has reappeared *sigh*, sorry folks.

556. MJ (the original) - November 7, 2012

553 is not my post.

We need registered login NOW!

557. Romulus - November 7, 2012

Pretty sure Treklife is also Stunkill/AndyRooney/M.J./Ra’s Al Ghul as well.
either that or he is just a Disney nut job conspiracy theorist.

558. Cory - November 7, 2012

Remarkable issues here. I am very happy to peer your post.
Thanks a lot and I’m having a look ahead to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?

559. Spockchick - November 7, 2012

Who is buying Hobbit 3D tickets when they go on sale in 9 hours?
I am getting mine for 48fps HFR 3D with Dolby Atomos sound for the midnight show on the 14th of December.

560. Spockchick - November 7, 2012

As well as my tickets for the December 7th Lord of the Rings Extended Trilogy Marathon.

561. Treklife - November 7, 2012

@557. No I am not that stunkill f-ck, never have been, never will be, and if some jack-sses can go on for days about bullsh-t 9/11 conspiracies I can talk about actual documented facts all I f-cking want. Now take your baseless accusations and shove them up your rectum.

562. Treklife - November 7, 2012

@525. Glad to know someone else thinks those piles of excrement at TLC need to be put into a supermax prison for the cons to play with.

563. Treklife - November 7, 2012

Now for something completely different, STID will be released in Dolby Atmos, check it.


Last post of the night from me folks.

564. K-7 - November 7, 2012

Treklife/M.J. / Stunkill, et. al.,

You fell into my little trap perfectly. I was trying to determine if you, were the real deal or simply another in the Stunkill cast o’ characters/

You took the bait, hook, line and sinker, when you took to defensive use of explitives, something that M.J./Stun Kill is known for doing

I have exposed you, you little reject, loser. Now once more go back into your pathetic little troll cave and try to come up with something better next time.

565. Oliver (as in Disney's Oliver & Company) - November 7, 2012

Are the Damon Lindeloff rumors about him scripting Episode 7 true.
If so, I am excited cause that means Trek and Wars will have a unique connection.

566. Aurore - November 7, 2012


On a certain subject, If what I read is true, “some people” probably knew the “surprise” deal was coming, a long time ago……

(And, no, I’m not referring to some of the *rumours* about “1952”……)

“All the world’s a stage…..”


567. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 7, 2012

Zach is into O’s win.


Too bad the stock market is’nt.


America Into Darkness…

Film at ?

568. Mad Man - November 7, 2012


Star Trek belongs on television.

Star Wars belongs in theatres.

The two should not switch around.

569. Gary S. - November 7, 2012

Whats wrong with a Star Wars TV series?
I would be TOTALLY down with that!

570. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 7, 2012

Apparently no one watched (Clone Wars).

Bring Trek back on the TVs.

571. Azrael is living the Treklife - November 7, 2012

I am not Stunkill you little troll, I don’t care what you think about it, I use explitives because I enjoy doing so, and because I can under the right of free speech. I am someone who has been here before, and I was hoping that adopting a new moniker would help me stay out of arguments, guess not. You know K-7 (if that is actually you) you are just as bad as Stunkill, I come here to express my honest beliefs and concerns, but apparently disagreeing with the sheeple majority is enough for stupid a–hats to claim that I am a meaningless sockpuppet, well congratulations f-ckhole I won’t be back.

572. Oliver (As in Disney's Olvier & Company) - November 7, 2012

I watch Star Wars The Clone Wars all the time its a great show.

573. a - November 7, 2012

Since when is Star Wars a “science fiction”?

574. Aurore - November 7, 2012

Some, apparently, did not know the deal was coming, however:

So you met with George this past summer and he told you about his plans to make another trilogy?
Yeah, last August, he asked Carrie and I to have lunch with him and we did. I thought he was going to talk about either his retirement or the Star Wars TV series that I’ve heard about — which I don’t think we were going to be involved in anyway, because that takes place between the prequels and the ones we were in and, if Luke were in them, he’d be anywhere from a toddler to a teenager so they’d get an age-appropriate actor — or the 3-D releases. So when he said, “We decided we’re going to do Episodes VII, VIII, and IX,” I was just gobsmacked.


( my apologies if this has already been posted)

575. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 7, 2012

W T F !!!! This is ridiculous! I really hope those things written about Bond are not true… I hate this B S !!

Anthony needs a registered login system right away. This imposter crap is what is killing this site. And the imposter thing is what is going to push people away from this site.

576. Gary S. - November 7, 2012

I believe that A live action Star Wars seies would do very well.

577. Gilberto - November 7, 2012

You’re a SANE man! I totally agree. Good tevevision is what Star Trek is about. Very few of the movies were satisfactory. And never a unanimity. Abrams is Ok. Good ideas, in fact a good REuse of ideas. Clever and agile. Just that. Hugs and kisses from brazilian trekkies here!!

578. Gilberto - November 7, 2012

I mean, #568… oops…

579. Gary S. - November 7, 2012

I#577 gotta disagree with that.
The movies have helped to keep Trek alive .
And they led to TNG and all the other spinoffs.

580. Shilliam Watner (Click Name for Trek Poster) - November 7, 2012

Interesting how two different people here who claim to not be the same person both misspell “expletives” in the same way. Not to mention the similar syntax and grammar.

Not that I really want to get involved in this bizarre monkey circus that used to be Trekmovie.com. It HAS been entertaining, seeing chaos take over each comment section. All because of one person, who is no doubt quite gratified by all the attention he is receiving, and the trouble he has caused. Hey, whatever, I detached myself emotionally from this place long ago. Without a login function and/or monitors, this site has just become a joke.

And I like jokes, but I don’t take them seriously. So I bid you farewell! This is the last thing I’ll post under this “discussion” so if anybody uses my name, I guarantee it isn’t me.

I think this pretty much sums up the situation:


581. Red Dead Ryan - November 7, 2012

#545 is me. I thought K-7 was trying to get back at Stunkill. But it appears that it was Stunkill pretending to be K-7 going after Stunkill.

I think. :-(

In the words of C-3PO, “I am so confused!”

582. U.S.S. Manila NCC-99232 - November 8, 2012

Even if I like both franchises, I hope Disney won’t ruin Star Wars….

583. P Technobabble - November 8, 2012

Very surprised this thread hasn’t been turned into a massive political debate following the elections. Not that I want it to, but it has pretty much become a free-for-all.

Meanwhile, can’t wait to see Skyfall. The trailer looks great, the reviews are pretty unanimous.

Even if it is the best Bond film ever I’m sure someone out there will say it sucked.
See, I learn a lot in here.

584. Phil - November 8, 2012

@583. I happen to like On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, though the film is usually ignored in Bond discussions. Won’t say it’s the best one, but it’s not bad.

585. Gilberto - November 8, 2012

Ok, I respect that. You’re right. But don’t forget that the number of viewers across the word of even ONE episode of Star Trek on TV is far greater than the number of viewers of all the motion pictures (at theaters) put together. Of course I’m also sure the movies helped, yeah. But ask people from across the globe (non-trekkies), and some won’t even know movies were made. I’ve been with people from Brazil (where I live), Germany, France, Argentina, Portugal, Spain, Italy… in the past few years, and whenever I mentioned the last Motion Picture, most people didn’t know about it. It was very pooly publicized in non-English speaking countries.But the Original Series is still shown on prime time TV here in Brazil (now in HD!), for instance. Regards.

586. Gilberto - November 8, 2012

STTOS on TV in Brazil: Sunday 8:30, channel 6, Rio de Janeiro. Sao Paulo, and on all RedeTV associates. In HD, remastered version. Dubbed into Portuguese, and in original English SAP.

587. The Solution... - November 8, 2012

The solution, folks.. is to STOP POSTING COMMENTS. Stop visiting the site! The clicks will go down, and whoever owns this site will have no ad dollars coming in, and they will be forced to either provide the type of content that they did in the past, or the site will simply dry up.

588. Gilberto - November 8, 2012

Or better, let’s post comments here as WE DID before. Some guys here are loosing it, I’m afraid. But this site is suffering from Abram’s own excessive secrecy and bad commercial management. Paramount thinks only about English-speaking countries and forget that real Trek is free of flags, just like the Federation. The very same process that happened in the US happened all over the world. In Brazil, as a kid in the 70’s, I discovered Star Trek, and thought I was alone in the world. When I found out I wasn’t, I saw I wasn’t so crazy after all. That’s Trek. In English. In Portuguese. In German. It doesn’t matter.

589. K-7 - November 9, 2012

Read Dead Ryan,

I am so upset from “M.J/Stunill” posting literally dozens of posts here in revenge for me outing him, that am in the process of taking a self-imposed several day break from this site.

I am stating here for all to see that I won’t be posting again, besides this single post, until Monday night next week. SO ANY POSTS SIGNED BY “K-7″ between now and MONDAY NIGHT, you can pretty much assume that those are made up posts from the M.J./Stunkill moron.

590. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 9, 2012

Awesome if that post above is true than atleast I have a weekend of being able to talk without being told i am someone other tan who i am.
or having acusations flung at me

I am excited that the story treatment is being sent to Spielberg Its well known in the past he wanted to direct one, and i think he would be a grea choice for episode 7, I also think Brad Bird would do a great job as well

“We’re told that Arndt’s 40-something page treatment will soon be crossing the desks of top directors, including Brad Bird, Steven Spielberg (the former producing partner of Lucasfilm co-chair Kathleen Kennedy), and J.J. Abrams. Whether they’d be interested is unknown (Star Wars is a lot of baggage for an established director), but Disney wants to make sure they’ve at least tried the biggest names.”


and further more the article clearly says Disney execs wanna bring back much older Skywalker, Leia, and Solo

“Sources also tell Vulture that the studio’s brass want to bring back the three central characters of the original Star Wars: a much older Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, and Han Solo. No deals are in place with any of the original actors, though our source did say it had high ambitions to sign up Mark Hamill, and EW recently reported that Harrison Ford was open to the idea of returning”

591. MJ (the original) - November 9, 2012

@590. Dude, if that realy is your real name, then given I have been on this site for nearly five years as “MJ,” why did you have to be so rude as to use “MJ” (and then minorly adjust to “M.J.”) as your name hear when you just as easily used “MT” which fits your name, and thus avoided both confusing people and frankly, disrpecting me?

The entire way you joined this site, using “MJ” and with oral “guns blazing at RDR and I” with a lot of your posts (e.g. “I’ve heard how bad a reputation you guys have here”) as I think someone referred to it, really cast a lot of unnecessary negativity towards you.

Anyhow, I am ready to bury that hatchet with you on move on for the good of the site, but I wanted to get this off my chest.


592. MJ (The Original) - November 9, 2012

***** All, @556 was someone pretending to be me *****

@553 was me.

Imposter, dude, whoever you are, come on — can you please drop this for bit and give us all some peace of mind. Seriously — THANKS!.

593. Trekboi - November 9, 2012

Call me paranoid but JJ is a Star Wars fan & he knows George Lucas – looks like he delayed the Star Trek sequel long enough for it to be overshadowed by the new Star Wars films.

594. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 9, 2012

#593 Thank you, I will – call you paranoid. That has got to be the nuttiest thing I have read in a while. Why would JJ Abrams want to have his own Star Trek movie overshadowed by the prospect (and it is only a prospect at this stage) by a Star Wars movie, or any other movie for that matter?

JJ Abrams surely knows (somehow I suspect he is of reasonably good intelligence and sensibility) that it would give him far more kudos, status, mana if he were to become a successful and worthy producer/director of two celebrated sci-fi film franchises, rather than be known for sabotaging one franchise in favour of another. That would the ultimate in DUMBNESS!

595. chrisfawkes.com - November 9, 2012

I think that most of us will see both but the wider audience will see one or the other and i think Star Wars seems to win for the average viewer.

However i think that is because Star Wars is dumbed down, you don’t have to be a geek for details to enjoy it. Abrams has smartly done similar with the new Trek.

Personally i think that is a good thing. Most of us die hard fans have enough background to fill the gaps.

What i think Trek would need to compete with Star Wars is a Darth Vader level character as the main villain. Something that would connect with a larger audience.

The new movie may do that but i’m not thinking it will with the villain being so human.

Sure Vader was human but the costume required for him to survive made him larger.

So i think Star Wars has the advantage but i think Star Trek does have the potential to turn that around.

596. ann yard - November 9, 2012

I love StarTrek, but couldn’t care less about any mutated abortion created by JJAbrams – who brutally and maliciously destroyed the entire StarTrek cannon in his attempt to steal the franchise. Whether others react this way after the first JJA StarTrek abortion remains to be seen.

The fact is, the original StarTrek and StarWars franchises have great ideas, great heart, and great lessons at their core (too often mixed with incompatible elements).

JJA destroyed the StarTrek franchise by literally destroying the StarTrek timeline (thereby rendering everything StarTrek as “never happened”).

Disney is likely to destroy StarWars too. Let’s at least hope they’re not thinking of calling in JJA to oversee the next trilogy, but I wouldn’t put it past them (JJA still being a hot commodity).

597. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 9, 2012


Wow sucks spielberg is not intersted anymore, says its not his Genre :(
Tarentino also not interested.

Please god anyone but JJ, I dont want to see him ruin,and make his version of a super secretive star wars movie, that wil leave more questions than answers. And he would probably latch himself onto the entire Trilogy the way he appears to be doing with Trek.

And star wars.com has now offficially confirmed that Michael Arndt is officially writing the screen play
Its nice to see that Lucas and Kathleen kenedy are being so open about the process as well with their on going videos about Star wars future.

JJ could learn a thing or two.

598. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 9, 2012

My name is Mark James, Tucker is my last name.
And I am known to by friends and family as M.J.
I have been known as M.J. since I was a child.

You dont hold the trademark on the name, I never passed myself off as you. I said from day one that I was not you. posted my contact email and every thing.
I truly think it would be best if we just refrain about talking to each other cause its obvious you dont think much of me,and I dont want to resort to arguing every day to a person hiding behind a computer monitor. Nothing personal But Its for the best.

599. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 9, 2012

MJ, sorry I didnt get to the end of your post, where you offered to bury the Hatchet. I accept your offer please ignore my post above.

600. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 9, 2012

And MJ and Red Dead please accept my apologies for basing my judgement on you based on Posts implied by others who have been here longer than I. I was reading through a number of the stories on this site other those early days, after i first stumpled upon the site while trying to track down the Paramount contact line to replace the season 1 bluray discs./

Consider the hatchet burried.

601. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 9, 2012

Ann Yard, while I am no fan of JJ Trek, I do disagree with your statement that he destroyed cannon.
In fact I would say quite the opposite, and yes I am going to give praise to JJ , and his band of misfits. The genius of having Nimoy return as a post Star Trek nemesis timeline spock, is that it preserved everything that we had seen on the screen as cannon over the preceeding 40 years.

That was the one big thing to me that they got right.
By making his movies a seperate timeline, created by spock and Nero traveling back to the past it means everything that came before still happened as spock prime carries a number of those memories as expereinces.

602. Phil - November 10, 2012

I get up this morning, and what’s all over the news feeds – Disney has a writer for Episode 7, and suprise, he’s already got an outline ready. I know JJ has had some success with his ‘it’s a secret’ style of promotion, but Trek is in some serious danger of being swamped by the SW juggernaught if it doesn’t take some additional steps to increase visibility.

Oh, and canon is overrated. Trek voilated canon on a regular basis during it’s TV run, so taking a few liberties with the moves ruins nothing.

603. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 10, 2012

602. Phil

Yeah, he spewed out the 50 page treatment in a day. Wonder how good that would be… no wonder all the big name Directors are passing on it already.

604. Phil - November 10, 2012

@603. Well, Michael Arndt has some credentials, and I’d expect story and script development to iron out problems. Lets not forget that Trek XII’s script and story had it’s fits and starts, too. Lucasfilm isn’t going to have any problems finding a director. The point, though, is that Lucasfilm prior to Disneys ownership was content to repackage existing material (3D rereleases of 1-6), now they are actively creating content again. CBS is repackaging the TV shows, and Paramounts handling of new Trek movies was content to let JJ slide one in around his other projects. I don’t believe that Disneys purhase of Lucasfilm will allow that to continue.

605. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 10, 2012

604. Phil

The last 2 Star Wars movies were really sub-par. The first two were the best of the bunch. And Lucas constantly tinkering with the films with each new DVD or Bluray release really mucked it up. I just think that Star Wars’ “top of the throne” years has gone. It will never recapture the allure it did when it was first released. It has become a market for the toys now more than ever. Speilberg, Del Toro and a few other big name Directors have already turned down a chance to Direct it. I have no doubt they will find a Director for it but not the caliber they were hoping for. And with Disney in charge, they are bound to muck it up like they did with the Tron sequel and with John Carter.

And Trek and Star Wars are not even in the same family. It is better to compare Star Wars to LOTR instead. Star Wars is more of a fantasy film than Science Fiction. I have no worries about it “stealing” Trek’s thunder.

I will say this though… both own it to each other for their existence. Lucas has said many times that Trek inspires him to create Star Wars. If it wasn’t for Trek… there would be no Star Wars. And if it wasn’t for Star Wars… there would have been no Trek movies.

606. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 10, 2012

If only people who go on about JJ Abrams destroying cannon would understand that I doubt JJ has even been near a big gun and it would take more than him to destroy it.

JJ Abrams has not destroyed Star Trek canon either.

607. Phil - November 10, 2012

@605. I don’t disagree, except that based on the franchise value, it’s a bit early to be writing Star Wars obiturary. Tron and John Carter aside, Disney’s owership of Pixar and Marvel seems to be working out okay. Also, JJ is really going to need two or three successful Trek outings before you could really say the franchise has been successfully rebooted.

Here are some interesting numbers on Star Wars. Noteworthy that the box office numbers are only about a quarter of the franchise value.


608. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 10, 2012

602 It was announced several days ago,
603, The treatment wasnt spit out in a day, the treatment has been done for a while.

609. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 10, 2012

Montreal Paul, would you say Ardnt’s script for Toy Story 3 for which he as nominated for a Oscar, was sub par?
What about Little Miss Sunshine? I can tell you neither were, he is a talented writer and it will be great to see what he has in store.

Just thank god that DIMdelof, Orci, or Kurtzman arent getting there paws on this otherwise you would have a script that cares more about leaving unanswered questions, and over complicated for no reason plot twists and probably see R2 or see 3PO peeing on someone(ala what Orci and Kurtzman did with Bumblebee in transformers)

610. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 10, 2012

Arndt* sorry phone predective text misspelled and i didnt see till it posted

611. Disinvited - November 10, 2012

#606. Rose (as in Keachick) – November 10, 2012

I, for one, think the idea of introducing phaser cannons into Trek, is worthy of thorough and utter destruction.

612. Jackson Roykirk - November 10, 2012

I can’t imagine any negative effects from the Star Wars: Episode VII announcement on the next Trek film. They are scheduled for 2015 and 2013, respectively. The question is whether or not the third Abrams-era Trek film will have to contend with Episode VIII or not.

So let’s look at the first two Abrams-era Trek movie release dates: 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating, we could expect the third movie to be released in 2017, if and when there is a third Abrams-era Trek movie, and if there is another 4 year gap between the 2nd and 3rd movies.

Looking at the Star Wars trilogies, they have all been on a 3-year schedule. ’77, ’80, ’83, then ’99, ’02, and ’05. It’s unlikely that Disney would try to compress the releases into a 2-year cycle. The movies will no doubt be full of complex CGI, which takes years to get right. And, depending on the ages of the actors, there may not be all that much urgency to get the films into the can before the actors get visibly older and/or grow taller. 3 years is enough time to get the writing, principal photography, CGI, editing, and music all done. (Not to mention milking every last dollar out of the existing film before releasing the sequel.)

So if Paramount sticks to their 4-year Trek movie cycle, we could expect to see the third Abrams-era Trek movie in 2017. And if Disney makes their 2015 schedule for Episode VII (and if it’s successful), and if they stick to the traditional 3-year Star Wars movie cycle, we could expect a sequel in 2018.

Perfect. IMHO it’s vitally important to both franchises, from a monetary standpoint, to not release their movies in the same year. Looks like that could be avoided.

And I seem to recall that Abrams only wanted to direct and/or produce three Trek movies. So the ostensible 2017 Trek movie could be the last of the current series. I’m desperately hoping that the film won’t end with a massive cliffhanger. Would be pretty painful to have to wait up to 4 years for the resolution. But with a title like “Star Trek Into Darkness,” it certainly sounds like the middle act of a 3-act story. You know, the second act where the protagonists get into deep trouble. Not to be resolved until the third act.

613. Jackson Roykirk - November 10, 2012

(Clarification: I’m hoping that Star Trek Into Darkness won’t be a “second act” movie in which there is a huge cliffhanger, but it certainly sounds like it will be.)

614. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 10, 2012

608. M.J. (Mark James Tucker)

Yes the treatment for episode 7 was spewed out in a day. There was an interview with him where he stated he was able to write the treatment in a day.

As for his scripts for Toy Story and Little Miss Sunshine… never said anything about them. I was saying that the last 2 Star Wars movies were sub par. Read before you pick apart what I wrote please.

611. Disinvited

They had phaser cannons in Star Trek: Enterprise

615. Disinvited - November 10, 2012

#614. (the real) Montreal_Paul – November 10, 2012

In some circles, an even stronger reason for taking my puns literally.

616. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 10, 2012

609. M.J. (Mark James Tucker)

Hmmm… what would you call Jar Jar? Not C-3PO peeing on someone… but just as stupid and annoying. Even the whole Ewok thing was enough to make my eyes roll. I rest my case.

617. Red Dead Ryan - November 10, 2012

#611 and #614.

The Defiant from “Deep Space Nine” was the first to have phaser canons.

618. MJ (the original) - November 10, 2012

@616. Montreal Paul. Yes, its hypocrtial to hear a Star Ways fan who admittingly dislikes JJ Trek picking on the Transformers effort when the latest Star Wars trilogy gave us the horrid Jar Jar Binks. Give me a peeing transformer any day versus forcing me to watch Jar Jar Binks. LOL

619. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - - November 10, 2012

616 I would call him him comedic relief for kids to relate to.
No where in the same league as Bumblebee giving a person a golden shower.

620. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - - November 10, 2012

MJ now now I didnt say i 100 percent disliked JJ Trek, there were a number of things that he did get right unfortunately there were a number of things greater that he messed up with.

As for Jar Jar, that was an original character brought to life first in George Lucases mind. Bumblebee was an established and beloved character for more than 25 years, Kurtzman and Orci, wrote something that totally went against Bumblebees charcter with that golden shower scene.

Let me ask you something and be totally honest here, did you like Prometheus? Did you like DIMdelofs murky complext script that left more questions than answers for that film? again speak honestly

Prometheus to me is a great example as to why i dont want to see Dimdelof anywhere near star wars.

621. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - - November 10, 2012

Montreal please provide a link and quote where it shows that he wrote the treatment in a day?

Everything I have read says A DAY AFTER the hollywood reporter reported that Arndt wrote the story treatment for episodes 7-9 it was confirmed by lucasfilm.

that doesnt imply he wrote the treatment in a day lol

622. MJ (the original) - November 10, 2012

@619 @620.

No, Jar Jar Binks is a lot more offensive for me to watch. And your using the pourn term, “Golden Shower”, is unnecessarily stretching the negativity of that admittedly dumb Transformers scene. But to me that was just a throwaway dumbass scene, whereas Jar Jar single handily ruined The Phantom Menace, and was a major distraction in the other two films.

623. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - - November 11, 2012

MJ I have to disagree about being a major distraction in 2 and 3 he has barely 2 mins of screentime between both those films.
Lucas took note that fans were annoyed by him.

Yes he was annoying but a distraction and offensive, I disagree

Oh by the way MJ you can go back to just being MJ if you like, I am going to keep my full name in parenthesis next to my nickname .

624. boborci - November 11, 2012


if you are gonna blame anyone fro ruining the Trek franchise, please blame me and Alex. We wrote the damn thing. As JJ himself has said, he had no intention of directing until he read our script. So lay off JJ and destroying canon, please.

625. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 11, 2012

Boborci, while there are things I do not like about Star Trek XI, one thing that you guys definately did not do was Destroy Canon, by having Nimoy as Spock, you established that all the 40 previous years of Trek Stories were NOT erased, the alternate time line was a great way to go because, in the future perhaps the decision can be made to jump back over to the prime universe at some point and continue on with stories in that time line.

SO I disagree with people saying you all destroyed canon when if anything you preserved it.

Now Keenser thats another story, please say that we see him get sucked out into space or transported into oblivion in star trek into darkness. and there are a number of other things i have objections to in Trek XI but again canon destruction is NOT one of them.

626. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 11, 2012

To me Keenser is 100 times worse than Jar Jar Binks. Heck i would not have minded seeing Lt. Arex over seeing Keenser

627. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 11, 2012

626. M.J. (Mark James Tucker)

Not even close. I would take Keenser any day. He barely said anything and was barely in the movie. Jar Jar on the other hand, ruined the movies for me. Made them barely watchable. Jar Jar and the miscasting in Episodes 1-3 was enough to turn me off of Star Wars… not that I was ever a fan, but it will prevent me from seeing any future episodes. As for a link on where I read the article about spewing out a treatment in a day… have no idea… read it on an RSS feed on my phone last week. But he hasn’t been working on a treatment for months. It was just announced that there was going to be an episode 7.

622. MJ (the original)
Agreed! Completely.

628. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 11, 2012

If you are the real Bob Orci – I pray that you are – I am going to say that I find nothing wrong with Keenser.

It is a HUGE universe out there and so too maybe there be a fantastic array of many different lifeforms and some race like Keenser may well exist. What if such beings do exist? Are we to treat them with such intolerance and disdain or have them be the butt of our inane jokes?

There is an old saying that often gets repeated, possibly because of its verity

I have never had any problem with the Ewoks either. I say – bring on the beings like Keenser!

The only creature I cannot relate to is the large creature which chased Kirk into the cave. Biologically, it was all *wrong*, even for an alien… I have similar objections to Jar Jar Binks. Keenser is not fundamentally *wrong*, just different.

After all, Gautama the Buddha did say that at least 84,000 different kinds of beings existed in the universe. Nobody has any reason to believe him, NOR does anyone have any reason not to believe him. Given how many different life forms have existed and still do exist on earth today, I would venture that the Buddha may have been a little conservative in his estimation.

629. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 11, 2012

If you are the real Bob Orci, have you any idea as to why people are quoting dialogue from the battle scene in Star Trek VI (where Spock and McCoy load up a torpedo) on the STID IMDb message board?

Just wondering…;)

630. boborci - November 11, 2012

I am the real one, and no I have no idea.

631. Phil - November 11, 2012

Well, I’d suggest that 385 million in ticket sales worldwide suggests the franchise was saved, not destroyed. Kudos for stepping up and taking care of business.

Also, why the venom for Keenser now? The character had a few minutes of screen time, maybe the same amount as a number of other minor characters. Nit picky….

632. boborci - November 11, 2012

631. cuz there is so little to bitch about, u gotta pick somethung;)!

633. Admiral_Bumblebee - November 11, 2012

My feelings about the last Star Trek-movie ist that it is indeed different.
Aside from some of the more drastic changes like blowing up Vulcan (which I still don’t understand the neccessity for until today) and some of the strange decisions like a cadet becoming captain of the flagship of the Federation without doing that much (aside from provocating and fighting a superior officer) – the thing that bothered me most about the last movie was that it ditched the philosophical elements and the character-moments for action. This made it feel less like a Star Trek movie.
The thing that bothers me even more is that many people don’t seem to care, instead they liked it which brings me to the assumption that we seem to have more and more moviegoers who prefer to have less “thinking” and “emotional-elements” in a movie but instead want to see things blowing up. But that wasn’t what Gene Roddenberry intended Star Trek to be.

If you all say Trek needed this “injection of new blood” to keep up with modern times then have we really developed into a society that prefers action over philosophical elements in a story? Would this not be a degeneration instead of an evolution?

Mr Orci, regarding the new Star Wars movie: if you had been the one chosen to write the script, what would your story have been about?

634. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 11, 2012

Real Montreal you cant find the link cause you misread the article plain and simple every article has said the Day AFTER THR or the day AFTER The Hollywood reporter announced.

searching on google would bring it up pronto if it ever exsited.
And I never said he wrote it months ago. so thanks for putting words in my mouth. Basicly since you cant back up what you said about him SPEWING it out in a day, you choose to change what i said.

And i have news for you that Live action tv series was a smokescreen for pre production on tthe sequel trilogy until it was ready to be announced.

635. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 11, 2012

Phil & Boborci, my dislike of Keenser is nothing new, I have disliked the character for quite sometime.
Ironicly enough though Deep Roy the actor who plays him, I have known for a number of years, and I really like as a person. like the person hate the character go figure but it is what it is.

Now why is it if someone says they dont like something or a particular element, that a number of posters jump on your case.
Have any of you ever heard of PERSONAL OPINON. I am sure there are plenty of things I like that you dislike.

As I said a number of things worked in the movie, and I really believed that they went out of their way to respect the original 40 plus years of Canon. But yet my disliking the character of keenser is bitching cause there is nothing else to complain about?

636. Disinvited - November 12, 2012

#614. (the real) Montreal_Paul – November 10, 2012

And on the Dune Buggy in NEMESIS. But again, in some circles…

637. Disinvited - November 12, 2012

#617. Red Dead Ryan – November 10, 2012

I’m probably just being and old guy (Because I am.) chasing the kiddies off my lawn with my continuous stream garden hose, but I cotton more to the concept of phasers as continuous beam weapons. Never really took with me, the idea of pulsing them so that they could be cannonized (sic). That seemed more like something to be done with the original depiction of photon torpedoes as globs of energy. Photon cannons, if you will.

Now granted, the movies and series that followed have set that fox lose and chased it all over the country-side – but that doesn’t mean I find the concept any more appealing.

638. AJ - November 12, 2012

Keenser vs. Jar-Jar? Really?

Jar-Jar is a racist stereotype, as are the Gungans, the “Trade Federation” Asians, and the big-nosed Jewish Watto, even down to the Brooklyn/Hebrew accent. George Lucas favors creamy white people.

Keenser was just a bit of comic relief.

639. Phil - November 12, 2012

@635. No issues on opinions, though I would expect them to make sense. Keenser had a few minutes of film time in the movie, and grunted a few times. A background character, at best. Jar Jar was an intergral part of TPM, and came to embody everything that was wrong with poorly thought out animated characters that were brought to life with attributes of racial stereotyping that were at best, annoying. Suggesting that Keenser is 100 times worse then Jar Jar makes no sense, because other then your distaste for the character, there is little on screen to compare the two.

640. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 12, 2012

I find the notion that this new iteration of Star Trek had few, if any, philosophical elements actually rather amusing.

It was not written in the manner of a sermon. It just showed people behaving in various ways and believe me, much has been written about that by people all over the internet and often with great moral fervour.

All the movie did (even if the writers did not intend it) was to stimulate us to question the actions of various characters, as in were they correct, logical, moral or otherwise. Therein lies the thought provoking elements when it comes to us ordinary people understanding philosophy, personal motivations, morality etc.

An example – the young Kirk in the bar scene being punched several times in the face. The response to this scene by many people on the internet since that movie’s release has been (to me) quite frankly, shocking. Many said that Kirk deserved all he got because he was rude etc. And people then wonder why there is so much teen suicide, especially among gay teens. Really?

641. Read Dead RYANNE - November 12, 2012

Rose please stop with the holyier(sp) than now- Know it all posts.
Your not as Smart as you think you are.
In fact I would say quite the opposite-
Oh and M is killed accidentally by Silvas henchman by being shot in the stoumach and bleeding to death.

Mallory’s M office at the end of the film is very close the Admiral Massery’s M offfice in Dr No

642. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 12, 2012

634. M.J. (Mark James Tucker)

No, I did not read it wrong. I read it correctly. He was quoted with saying that he was able to write the treatment within a day of getting the go ahead. It did not take months for him to write a treatment when it was just announced that Disney plans on making episode 7. Perhaps YOU misread. As for a link, like I said, I read the story on an RSS feed on my phone. If I had a link to it, I would give you one.

643. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 12, 2012

Oh ye gods – the imposter with the bad grammar and spelling is back…holy crap!

644. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 12, 2012

I didnt misread, and again you can provide no link to any such artlcle where he said that. Again had he said that just doing a google search of the quote alone would bring it up. Just admit it you were wrong, no shame in admiting you misread the article.


A day after THR reported news of the ‘Toy Story 3′ writer’s treatment, confirmation of an in-progress screenplay is posted on StarWars.com.

“one day after it was rumored that Arndt had written treatments for all the sequel trilogy films”

Read more at ONTD: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/73387778.html#ixzz2C55hKYzu
A day after THR reported that Michael Arndt has been working with Lucasfilm for several months on a treatment for the new Star Wars movie, Lucasfilm has confirmed that the Toy Story 3 scribe will write the screenplay for Episode VII.

Do I really need to continue to prove my point, SEVERAL MONTHS is not ONE DAY.

I dont know whether to laugh at you or feel sad for ya man.
Oh well I am done talking to you, dont expect any further responses from me, I provided quotes and links and you you have provided nothing but an excuse “ummm uh it was unn uhh a RSS feed on my phone” guess what RSS feeds are viewable online to, just admit you MISREAD IT.

645. M.J. (Mark James Tucker) - November 12, 2012

Its official Peter Wellers characters name is
Hookman in Orci and Kurtzmans remake of ……………………………………………………………


HAWAII 5-0’s emmy award winning episode entitled HOOKMAN

646. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 13, 2012

“Rose please stop with the holyier(sp) than now- Know it all posts.”

This comment just proves that you are not as knowledgeable as you would like to believe. Oh, btw – “holyier” is spelled “holier” – glad to be of help.

647. Red Dead RYANNE - November 13, 2012

Yes dear I know i misspelled it thats why i put the (sp) after words.
what would i ever do with out you, oh love of my life princess Rose.

648. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 14, 2012

644. M.J. (Mark James Tucker)

Listen dude… what’s your problem? Let me spell it out for you so that you will understand me a little better. NO, I DID NOT MISREAD IT. He stated that once he was given the go ahead, he was able to write the treatment in LESS THAN A DAY.

And yes, I know RSS feeds are available online. Like I said… I READ IT ON MY PHONE. I have no idea what feed it was from. It was on an entertainment feed on one of the many, many, many feeds I subscribe to.

I really, really don’t care what you think or what you post… I read what I read. You can choose to live in your own little world and belive what you want to believe. I am just telling you what I read (not misread) on my phone. Got it? I’m done.

649. Disinvited - November 14, 2012

FWIW the vulture.com does say that Arndt is a STAR WARS “expert”. He’s probably been writing and rewriting STAR WARS’ treatments his entire literate life; so it’s not too inconceivable that he could’ve knocked one off in less than a day.

650. dmduncan - November 15, 2012

Re the earlier subliminal information argument, here’s a new yahoo story.

“The Unconscious Brain Can Do Math, Read.”


651. Da - November 17, 2012


652. dswynne - November 23, 2012

Everybody here is forgetting how the next trilogy has to overcome the fall-out of the prequels. Secondly, as mentioned many times here, Ep. 7 won’t come out until 2015. But I will add that Ep. 7 will be competing with at least Avengers 2 and Justice League as summer block busters. And quite frankly, the competition between SW and ST will be good. Just take a wait-and-see approach before declaring doom and gloom for the ST franchise.

653. Daniel - November 24, 2012

I guess what`s the problem with some Trekkies disliking Abrams`approach in the new TREK movies. I, as a STAR WARS fan, has always heard Trekkies`dissing STAR WARS for being just “flashy action”, and nothing more(William Shatner himself says so), and that STAR TREK is “serious” Sci-Fi, since it deals with social issues, exploration, and scientific especulation. To resume, the type of stuff that Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke would love. STAR WARS it`s actually a Space Opera(actually closer to the Fantasy epic genre like THE LORD OF THE RINGS rather than sci-fi), however, if we go back to the so called “Golden Age” of science-fiction, we will notice that MANY Space themed stories were actually adventure stories; From Burroughs`JOHN CARTER OF MARS, to those FLASH GORDON and BUCK ROGERS comics. Space Operas are nothing but the continuation of the traditional adventure stories, dealing more on a hero facing many odds, rather than especulation. Now you can see what I am trying to say?! Some Trekkies, not All, but I could say the “old guard”, and their children, didn`t like the new STARK TREK, because it actually fell into the cathegory of Space Opera(aka, “Bad science-fiction”, according to their criteria). Now, I personally think that the STAR TREK reboot does very good balance between the scientific especulation, and the swashbuckling action-adventure

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