CONFIRMED: J.J. Abrams to direct next ‘Star Wars’ for Disney | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

CONFIRMED: J.J. Abrams to direct next ‘Star Wars’ for Disney January 24, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Sci-Fi , trackback

Variety and other Hollywood news sources are reporting today that J.J. Abrams is directing the next Star Wars after all.  There aren’t any details other than the fact Disney is close to closing the deal with Abrams. So treat this with a degree of skepticism until we see something official from Disney and/or Bad Robot directly.

UPDATE 01/26/2013: Confirmed by Disney and J.J. Abrams

 

UPDATE: Confirmed!
This joint statement from Disney and J.J. Abrams was released Friday afternoon:

After a bevy of emails and phone calls, the formalities have been wrapped up, and at long last everyone can exhale and properly share the word with an excited Internet. Yes, J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars: Episode VII, the first of a new series of Star Wars films to come from Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy. Abrams will be directing and Academy Award-winning writer Michael Arndt will write the screenplay.

 ”It’s very exciting to have J.J. aboard leading the charge as we set off to make a new Star Wars movie,” said Kennedy. “J.J. is the perfect director to helm this. Beyond having such great instincts as a filmmaker, he has an intuitive understanding of this franchise. He understands the essence of the Star Wars experience, and will bring that talent to create an unforgettable motion picture.”

George Lucas went on to say “I’ve consistently been impressed with J.J. as a filmmaker and storyteller. He’s an ideal choice to direct the new Star Wars film and the legacy couldn’t be in better hands.”

“To be a part of the next chapter of the Star Wars saga, to collaborate with Kathy Kennedy and this remarkable group of people, is an absolute honor,” J.J. Abrams said. “I may be even more grateful to George Lucas now than I was as a kid.”

The LA Times has a new article up called “J.J. Abrams directing ‘Star Wars’: What happens to ‘Star Trek’?”

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.

Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”

“J.J. will continue to develop projects for us including a new ‘Mission: Impossible,’ and he is committed to produce another ‘Star Trek,’” Moore said Friday afternoon.

More from the LA Times

While it’s no secret J.J. was first and foremost a Star Wars fan before getting involved with Star Trek (2009) this goes against what TrekMovie had previously reported in December. Abrams told Empire Magazine that he passed on the other big ”Star” franchise out of respect for his work with the Star Trek franchise:

“There were the very early conversations and I quickly said that because of my loyalty to Star Trek, and also just being a fan, I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things. I declined any involvement very early on. I’d rather be in the audience not knowing what was coming, rather than being involved in the minutiae of making them.”

 

As always, keep checking TrekMovie for further developments.

Comments

1. Tobi - January 24, 2013

Wa wa wa what???

2. Plum - January 24, 2013

Did NOT see this coming!!! It’s true I hear. Kid was born with a spoon up his jeffries tube!

3. JP - January 24, 2013

Nerds everywhere are about to lose their *fill in bad word here*

4. PEB - January 24, 2013

Aaaaaaaand back to mediocrity. For a guy (JJ) who’s been such a vocal fan of what made Star Wars …well classic Star Wars. I’m not surprised or even mad at him or anything for taking the gig. If I were him, I wouldn’t have passed it up at all. But personally I’m just not happy about this inside. It might not be fair but I just feel kinda let down. Then again I dont think Trek needs to go back to the old movie formula after this. I mean unless you really want the franchise to take the big dirt nap. JJ needs to make a 3rd (NOT produce, but DIRECT IT) and then leave it alone and let it go back to television. And for the love of everything holy, tv Trek can steer clear from being anything like Voyager or Enterprise…or TNG for that matter because while TNG was great in its day Trek on tv today should be an awesome mix of TOS, DS9, and BSG.

5. Andrew - January 24, 2013

So he is a traitor by his own admission then. Ah well, he is clearly better suited to direct Star Wars than he is Trek, although I’m more a fan of Trek.

6. freezejeans - January 24, 2013

Anyone have any Saurian brandy? Here’s to ya, lads…

7. PEB - January 24, 2013

And for everyone saying they’re glad JJ is jumping ship- a. he hasnt said he wouldnt direct a 3rd movie and b. a change of director for the 3rd film probably wouldnt be so good for this cast who has really enjoyed working with JJ and has said they’ve basically loved the films because of what JJ brought to it. But hey, when a vocal minority is constantly ragging on you and your filmmaking abilities, why stick around when you’re not wanted?

8. Plum - January 24, 2013

Silver spoon. Silver. Proverbial, ya know… ;p

9. Mike Knox - January 24, 2013

Feels incredibly disloyal, I must say.

10. Phil - January 24, 2013

Lets not forget JJ has an exclusive deal with Paramount through 2015. Lets not ruch to judgement until we hear it from BR, Paramout, or Lucas/Disney….

11. the dogfaced boy - January 24, 2013

JJ’s a better fit for Star Wars.

How about Quintin Tarentino directing? Now he could remake The Wrath of Space Seed!

“Say “Beam me up, Scotty” again M%$# F$%#. Say it again.”

12. Plum - January 24, 2013

Jump ship??? Rubbish.

Giant GRATZ! to JJ and his team!

13. Tanner Waterbury - January 24, 2013

I thought he said he WASN’T going to direct the next Star Wars….. Red Herring? Is the S.C.O.S.T. going to be involved as well?

14. Jax Maxton - January 24, 2013

As a longtime Trek fan, I can’t say I’m disappointed. I have always looked ad Abrams’ version of Trek as being like “Star Trek: The RIde”. It’s not the smart, classic Trek that I grew up watching, but an amusement park ride; fun in its own way, but not really Star Trek. I would love to see someone return Trek to a smarter, more thought-provoking franchise with Trek 3, if indeed Abrams is off of it.

15. L4YERCAKE - January 24, 2013

Say it ain’t so, JJ… :(

16. Joe G. - January 24, 2013

Disloyal, no… It’s his career, he can choose whichever project he wants to do.

Also, he has done movies in between the last Trek and this one, what’s to say he can’t run both franchises? Rivalry?

Go get em’ JJ. Bring us some epic Science Fiction!!!

17. Lostrod - January 24, 2013

Any thoughts on how this will affect release of third Star Trek film?

Regards.

18. Jax Maxton - January 24, 2013

10. Phil

Hollywood studios are extremely competitive and see Star Trek and Star Wars as competing franchises. This would be like Christopher Nolan going to direct Spider-Man after the Dark Knight. There is little chance Paramount will want to bring Abrams back for a 3rd movie if he is directing a competing franchise.

19. NCC-73515 - January 24, 2013

How worthy of a Romulan! :p
Honestly, he maybe fits there better… ;)

20. Quark - January 24, 2013

Can’t wait to see the new Death Star built on the ground with lots of lens flares.

21. Jefferies Tuber - January 24, 2013

Since this isn’t a Star Wars website, the only relevance is whether JJ will do the right thing and step off Star Trek so that we don’t have to wait 4+y for the next Trek.

22. sonofspock1 - January 24, 2013

I think he’s a good fit for Wars, better than he was for Trek, anyway.

23. mhansen0207 - January 24, 2013

I think this is great news for J.J. and his team if it’s true, and I’m a big fan of what he’s done for the Star Trek franchise.

I just don’t understand why people have to label him as a turncoat or traitor. Why the hell can’t he do both if he wants to? Must we really continue some silly ass rivalry that began in the 70s and 80s?

I mean, it’s not as if the man abandoned ship in the middle of filming Into Darkness to take over Star Wars. THAT would be more of a turncoat thing to do.

I swear, I really think Trek fundamentalists look for any excuse to hate on Abrams after he did the franchise a favor.

24. mike - January 24, 2013

Bryan Singer for Star Trek 3…please!!!

25. sonofspock1 - January 24, 2013

And as it was The Wrap that broke the news, I think you guys should credit them for it, rather than Variety. But w/e.

26. Aurore - January 24, 2013

“The Force is with JJ ?….”
______

Yes!

The force is with him!

That is why “some” are trying to FORCE his hand to direct a movie a few directors (including himself… until recently, apparently) did not want to direct…

My source?
Myself.

At any rate, no matter what happens next…take care Mr. Abrams.

:)

27. raddestnerd - January 24, 2013

ABRAAAMS!!! “Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.” Silver lining: time for Jonathan Frakes to direct ST3

28. sonofspock1 - January 24, 2013

And Brad Bird or Matt Reeves for Trek XIII, perhaps?

29. sonofspock1 - January 24, 2013

Or would Alex Kurtzman be willing to do it?

30. Mike Knox - January 24, 2013

“I just don’t understand why people have to label him as a turncoat or traitor. Why the hell can’t he do both if he wants to? Must we really continue some silly ass rivalry that began in the 70s and 80s?”

Mainly it has to do with division of talent and attention. If you have a great idea for a space opera and you’re already working on a space opera…..use the ideas on the one you’re on! It’d be one thing if in 5 years, he decided to give SW a shot after he’d said all he had to say in the Trek universe. But he hasn’t. There’s a new Trek on the horizon and it’ll feel like the public he’s moved on to what he really wanted to do in the first place….tell a Star Wars story.

PR-wise, make the deal and announce it after Trek 2 has run it’s course and you’ve passed it off to another producer/director. It’s a slap in the face. You don’t see Madonna announcing a similar album on another label while she’s busy promoting the one she hasn’t even come out with on the label she’s already on do you?

31. Kris Stewart - January 24, 2013

“Silver lining: time for Jonathan Frakes to direct ST3″

No. Ever forward, not backward.

32. the dogfaced boy - January 24, 2013

His loyalty to Trek sounds like a tactic to get more money from Disney.

Paramont, your move.

33. mhansen0207 - January 24, 2013

30.

Did he announce it though? No, not yet. This is all the Hollywood trade papers reporting it.

He’s not doing interview for Into Darkness right now and saying to the interviewer “Hey by the way, I’m doing Star Wars!”

Let’s not blow it out of proportion.

34. Bill - January 24, 2013

As long as Lucas does not, I’m in support.

35. dmduncan - January 24, 2013

They made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

36. Vultan - January 24, 2013

Brad Bird could make a great Trek movie, I think. The Iron Giant proves he knows what sci-fi is really about.

37. mercury - January 24, 2013

ohhh not sure what to think about this….i always thought i’d love to see Anton Yelchin as Luke though, but i think they are going to steer clear of Trek actors now :/

38. NCC-73515 - January 24, 2013

Bring back Nick Meyer!

39. PEB - January 24, 2013

@31 thank you for saying that

40. SoonerDave - January 24, 2013

Sounds to me like whatever “loyalty” he asserted a few weeks ago has withered. The other report I read indicated the projected date for SW was 2015, which tells me there’s almost no chance he’d be around for a third Trek movie. And I wonder if Paramount has released him from any further effort on their part, including a presumptive new Mission Impossible flick?

Hmmm…

41. dmduncan - January 24, 2013

Soon, Star Wars fans will be hating JJ for making Star Wars go all Star Trek.

42. NuFan - January 24, 2013

Happy news!!! Except that Star Trek 3 will now be pushed back to 2017, but a small price to be to have him in charge of both!!!

43. Star Wars Prequels fan - January 24, 2013

I told you all

star wars is just larger than life……

and no the Prequels don’t suck.

44. Plum - January 24, 2013

I’ve never bought the argument that JJ is more Star Wars, simply because he was a childhood fan. Watching him speak, and reading his influences I was pleased to see his love for the Twilight Zone. A lot of guys from that show ended up on Trek and brought a lot of the same sensibilities with them and made some of the best Trek eps ever.

I’m a fan of the mystery box. And I loved the film, old trekkie that I am. :)

45. PEB - January 24, 2013

the prequels totally suck :)

46. Jack - January 24, 2013

41. Lol. “Star Wars is explosions, not messages!”

47. Red Dead Ryan - January 24, 2013

Oh, great! Jeez, last time he turned “Star Trek” into “Star Wars”, and now he wants to reverse that by turning “Star Wars” into “Star Trek” ??!!

HOW DARE HE!!!!

(stomps off, leaves room)

SLAM!!!

BANG!!! SMASH!!! THUD!!! CRASH!!! SMASH!!!!

“WOOKIE MAMA!!!”

CCCCLLLLLLAAAAAYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAYYYYYYAAAAAAANNNNNGGG!!!

:-D

48. CJS - January 24, 2013

Traitorous son of a lens flare.

Well, at least maybe we’ll get a decent director for Star Trek 17.

49. Gary S. - January 24, 2013

I hope that he ends up doing both the next Star Wars and the next Trek.
Congratulations JJ!
“Traitor”
REALLY?
We are just talking abou movies here, not war

50. Jack - January 24, 2013

10. Uh, does he have an exclusive deal with Paramount? As in he can’t direct for anyone else, ever? Do those still exist?

51. DeflectorDishGuy - January 24, 2013

He’s not a traitor, but he is a hypocrit. He is no better than most college football coaches, or most politicians.

Frankly, good riddance. He basically turned Star Trek into some bastardized Star Wars cartoony nonsense anyway.

52. Jack - January 24, 2013

And I don’t understand the disloyalty/betrayal stuff here at all. It’s not like he’s becoming a Nazi.

53. Aurore - January 24, 2013

“They made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.”
______

:))

If confirmed, that is, indeed, the type of phrase I expect to hear .
A lot.

In other words, you betcha!

54. Jack - January 24, 2013

51. Why’s he a hypocrite? Because he changed his mind?

55. DeflectorDishGuy - January 24, 2013

@ 43

GET OUT OF HERE!

56. Josh - January 24, 2013

Good for JJ! Trek and SW are completely different concepts. He can direct both and still do a great job while doing it. Remember, he has a great production team behind him that are first and foremost Trek fans.

57. Klatch - January 24, 2013

So the new bad guy in “Into Darkness”, is from the dark side on Star Wars…

58. Plum - January 24, 2013

@50 Jack
No, one can be contracted for a few films, etc. but not exclusively like they used to do in the 40s.

59. jas_montreal - January 24, 2013

This seems like a bogus report. I don’t think it is happening.

60. Josh - January 24, 2013

And yes #43 the prequels do suck.

61. What is it with you? - January 24, 2013

BobOrci! I just know you’ll be writing Star Wars now! You’ll do great , just no medichlorians!!

62. Gary S. - January 24, 2013

Talking about movies not war,I meant .

63. DeflectorDishGuy - January 24, 2013

@54

“I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things. I declined any involvement very early on.”

Definition of hypocrisy.

64. LizardGirl - January 24, 2013

Well, good for him. I’m not sure what more can be done with Star Wars… but maybe JJ likes a challenge. I’m wouldn’t mind seeing a Star Wars movie directed by him at all. And it seems Disney is determined to have him anyway. Again, as TM says, nothing’s for certain.

But I’m happy he’s still doing Star Trek. And hopefully it’s a priority over SW (I’m biased that way). I hope whatever schedule is set for the 3rd movie stays pretty much the same.

65. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 24, 2013

Gosh… I have to say it again… I’m freaking out!!! ;-) :-)

66. MJ - January 24, 2013

Oh, yea, JJ will do a great job and I’ll see his SW movie(s) and probably like it/them a lot more than the prequel movies, but YOU DON’T CROSSOVER BETWEEN TREK AND SW…it is not right. It’ like Alabama and Auburn, Lions and Hyenas, Chist and Antichrist, Matter and Antimatter.

This is WRONG !!!!

67. Red Dead Ryan - January 24, 2013

If Abrams can’t do the third one, I wouldn’t mind seeing either Duncan Jones or the director of “District 9″ take a shot at it.

68. Old Geezer - January 24, 2013

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/star-trek-director-j-j-abrams-talks-call-221511526.html

69. drumvan - January 24, 2013

One word, “crossover”! Borg vs vader. Ooohhhhh!!!!! :)

70. CZN - January 24, 2013

I’ am so, so happy, happy, happy, finely my fav. director doing my favorite two space adventures hope the two galaxy’s meet on SW IIX and Trek 14, now here comes the insults, let them come, I got my light saber in one hand and my Bat’leth on the other.

71. Jax Maxton - January 24, 2013

50. Jack
58. Plum

Directors can have exclusivity deals with studios, but Abrams has become such a big name he probably negotiated an out in his contract. My guess is he will have to give up some money to Paramount to now jump to Disney, but it probably isn’t a lot in Hollywood terms. The fact is, he definitely had it in his contract to do films with other studios and Star Wars may be considered one of those films. However, Paramount won’t want to keep Abrams on if he’s now working on a competing franchise, so Into Darkness is probably the end of Abrams’ Trek.

72. Aurore - January 24, 2013

“In other words, you betcha!”
_______

They made him an offer he was not…allowed…to refuse.

:)

73. Scooter - January 24, 2013

How well will lens flares work with a light saber?

74. oliver - January 24, 2013

As long as he features Cumberbatch in the Star Wars film I’ll be happy.

75. Jack - January 24, 2013

63. I disagree. Hypocracy isn’t simply changing a position. He said he wouldn’t ‘t want to be involved. And then apparently changed his mind . That’s not hypocracy. It might be flakiness, but it ain’t hypocrasy. .

76. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 24, 2013

@boborci… about this subject on twitter:

“creo que si!”… “True!”

;-) :-)

77. Gary S. - January 24, 2013

It is very tellng that we have no quote from JJ yet .
They may indeed be talking to him, but ,I doubt he has signed anything at this point .

78. Jason - January 24, 2013

…after paramount put the whole franchise on hold to wait for him to do super 89

79. Jax Maxton - January 24, 2013

Abrams is being a hypocrite. But that’s status quo in Hollywood today. Deny deny deny. Fans have short-term memories about these sorts of things. (Although I still won’t watch SyFy since they cancelled “Eureka”)

80. David - January 24, 2013

maybe JJ is trying to make peace between star trek and star wars. By taking both of them on. Make you wanna be happy with both. Honestly, its his decision but if he can get star wars back on track then maybe there will be alot more sci fi in the works. Thought provoking good sci fi that has been absent for a long long time.

81. SoonerDave - January 24, 2013

@71

Agree completely. When Darkness Trek is done, Abrams is gone. And that leaves the Trek franchise just, well, hanging. Oh, well.

Like I said, there’s more at stake here than Trek. Abrams was working a deal for another Mission Impossible movie (which I, for one, was very much looking forward to), and I can’t fathom Paramount letting him out of an exclusivity deal without some substantial compensation/concessions on his part.

82. Trekker5 - January 24, 2013

Do I feel betrayed? Yes. I shouldn’t,I like J.J.,but now I don’t know if I should say Live Long and Prosper or May the Force be with you?

83. Mad Mann - January 24, 2013

Cool! I’m looking forward to a new director for the third new Star Trek film. It’s always good to bring in some fresh blood.

As for Star Wars, I was hoping for Brad Bird, but JJ is the next best thing. But now I’m anxious for the third JJ-Trek with a new director, and the 2nd one didn’t even come out yet!

84. Aurore - January 24, 2013

All I’m seeing here, in all seriousness, is that Mr. Abrams is a VERY busy man.

I wish him all the best.

85. dmduncan - January 24, 2013

Can’t wait for the crossover movie.

86. The Sinfonian - January 24, 2013

He previously said he didn’t want to *produce*/write/showrun Star Wars. If he’s just *directing* it that’s a slight “out” for him from what he’d said. He’d be directing someone else’s production and someone else’s script.

As long as K/O Paper Products and Damon Lindelof are doing the exec producing of Trek for the threequel, it’ll be fine.

87. Greg2600 - January 24, 2013

To have one person in charge of both franchises is a huge mistake. I am happy for JJ, who is a Star Wars fan at heart. He never should have done Star Trek, he put the franchise into a place it has no business being. A shallow, vapid universe Marvel Comic books occupy.

88. Aurore - January 24, 2013

Hi, Olivia!

It’s been a while!

89. Andy Patterson - January 24, 2013

Let ‘im go. Although I love Star Wars too. He’s an admitted star Wars boy at heart. Just hope he does it right.

90. dmduncan - January 24, 2013

I’m in a quandary. Should Star Wars cross over into the Star Trek universe? Or should Star Trek cross over into the Star Wars universe? I don’t know which is better.

91. Peter Loader - January 24, 2013

JJ can direct anything he wants… he’s not contractually bound to a particular franchise… he’ll do for Star Wars what he’s done for Trek and that’s good for everyone concerned. Those people who believe Trek will revert back to the original timeline or to 80′s style movies if JJ’s out of the way seriously have to get a grip on reality.

Good on him… for boldly taking Star Trek and now Star Wars to the next level of entertainment. Can’t wait to see what he does with it.

92. Jefferies Tuber - January 24, 2013

Before he noticed it, The knives were drawn and Keenser was surrounded.

93. Aurore - January 24, 2013

“Can’t wait for the crossover movie.”
_______

I wish Mr. Abrams all the best. Yes.

But, a…crossover…movie?

That’s provocation dmduncan!

:))

94. Cervantes - January 24, 2013

Still, look on tne bright side – if this is genuine, then at least we might get a director and writers that give us a Trek reboot with some actual exploring strange new worlds…rather than ‘revenge’ plots.

And no more ‘Keenser’, right?

95. mhansen0207 - January 24, 2013

#94

Here’s the problem I have. Everyone says “We should get the Trek movies back to exploring strange new worlds.”

Besides TMP, TFF, or Insurrection (all of which are not looked favorably upon) name me any Trek movie that had to do with exploring space or strange new worlds.

The ones that people REALLY love (TWOK, FC) have nothing to do with that. There are things that work on movies, and things that work on TV.

96. Jefferies Tuber - January 24, 2013

In the end, it was his old friend Montgomery Scott who took a fortifying swig of Saurian Brandy and calmly strangled the now-useless family-friendly sidekick.

97. Exverlobter - January 24, 2013

Bryan Singer??
Well he “betryayed” his franchise too. He left the X-Men films to make Superman Returns. The results are known.
Both movies sucked. Superman as well as X-MEn 3.

I’d love to see Manny Coto in charge again. Like JJ Abramns ts he was about to save Star Trek, but in contrast to JJ, Paramount pulled the trigger way earlier.

Would be cool to see him in charge again.

Nick Meyer would also be nice, but probably too much time has passed since his last film.

However i guess that not so much will change. JJ Abrams will still produce the film, and some fill-in -director will take control (Brad Bird?)

98. Hugh Hoyland - January 24, 2013

Its a (semi) free country, so I dont have a problem with him taking on Star Wars 7. I think his directorial style suits Star Wars quite well actually. Good on you JJ.

But…I wonder what this means for a potential next Star Trek movie. Star Wars 7 is scheduled to open in 2015 if Im right. JJ’s going to have to get busy on this asap. And I honestly cant see another 3 or 4 year gap in between Star Trek movies happening again. So who takes over the reigns? Maybe Bob or Alex can man the helm for the next one?

99. Trekker5 - January 24, 2013

@88,Hello Aurore! :)

It has been awhile! How are you and your lovely France?

100. Red Dead Ryan - January 24, 2013

#90.

“I’m in a quandary. Should Star Wars cross over into the Star Trek universe? Or should Star Trek cross over into the Star Wars universe? I don’t know which is better.”

Maybe both universes could converge into one nerdgasmic super-universe? Or would that be too much? Or would that result in mutual destruction of both beloved realms?

101. Aurore - January 24, 2013

I’m fine, Olivia. Thanks.
I’m happy to “see” you after all this time!

I hope everything is alright inTennessee !

:)

102. Douglas - January 24, 2013

Shock and awe! I’m still processing it. I think it will make Star Wars films better and not sure how it will effect Trek. However, it does seem official now that JJ Abrams is the number 1 most sought after director in Hollywood.

103. EJD1984 - January 24, 2013

WTF – After all of the recent official denials. I have lost all respect for the man.
*Though part of me isn’t surprised. I always had the feeling that Abrams quietly has seen Star Trek as a “stepping stone” to Star Wars

104. Trekker5 - January 24, 2013

Everything is fine here thank you,if it only it weren’t so cold! :)

105. dmduncan - January 24, 2013

93. Aurore – January 24, 2013

That’s provocation dmduncan!

***

Indubitably!

106. Phil - January 24, 2013

It will be interesting to see how SW7 does under the cone of silence. The younger audience for SW is even less patient then Trek fans…

107. Exverlobter - January 24, 2013

BTW until now, now director made more than two Trek-films.
There were Nimoy, Meyer and Frakes who made two films. But thats normally it.

108. martin - January 24, 2013

Well, it seems very unlikely that JJ will be doing the third movie due to compressed timeline that Disney wants to do the third trilogy.

On the plus side, hopefully Orci and Kurtzman will be onboard for the 3rd movie with JJ remaining producer under Bad Robot. Further, it becomes more likely that we will get a 3 year gap so that the next movie can coincide with the 50th anniversary.

As another plus – the SW trilogy might actually be good.

And the last plus – bye bye lensflares.

109. Jonboc - January 24, 2013

Wowza. Star Wars is going to get great again! I love this…but what a double edge sword….he brought Trek back to greatness (with the help of many including our resident producer Bob)…but he’s the guiding energy behind it all….but he is also only one man. He can’t do them both all the time, movie-making is a long process. Something has to give or he’ll burn out on sci-fi. It scares and saddens the hell out of me….but I suspect, after the 3rd Trek movie, JJ will move on.

I hope I’m wrong, it will be a great loss for the franchise…but if it takes 4 years to make a Trek film now, ha, just wait till he gets Star Wars on his plate! Still, congrats to the man, he’ll do an amazing job.

110. intruder - January 24, 2013

That’s the wrong choice if you ask me. Star Trek is a TV soup opera, it makes all the sense to call JJ to direct it. While Star Wars is meant to be Epic… It is not JJ’s TV style. Zack Synder should be the choice to make it Kurosawa epic that Star Wars deserves. Instead Disney wants exactly what he made over Star Trek.

Also picking JJ will make Star Wars and Star Trek to have the same flavor. They will have the same photographer, the same editor, etc, all the staff that made Star Trek at Bad Robot will do Star Wars. Both will lose identity. I find it so risky.

111. Exverlobter - January 24, 2013

“WTF – After all of the recent official denials. I have lost all respect for the man.
*Though part of me isn’t surprised. I always had the feeling that Abrams quietly has seen Star Trek as a “stepping stone” to Star Wars”

@EJD1984

I dont think so. Until a few weeks ago, nobody could even know that there would be new Star WArs films in the first place.
For years George Lucas said, that there would be no more films (at least under his rule).
I think that JJ Abrams was indeed with full commitment loyal to Trek, but recently saw this new chance of a lifetime and jumped at it.

112. Jason - January 24, 2013

This could be the best Star Trek news in a while! JJ-Trek sucks!

113. Exverlobter - January 24, 2013

“And the last plus – bye bye lensflares.”

I love lensflares. I would actually appreciate them in Star Wars!

114. Exverlobter - January 24, 2013

BTW concerning this franchise-swap:
does this mean that George Lucas will direct the next Star Trek-movie, lol.

115. Richard Daystrom - January 24, 2013

I honestly feel the man had no more vision for the true feel of Star Trek than than the last group. Maybe Paramount will wake up and let someone that understands what Trek is run the show. No disrespect to them but I just don’t think they get it. He may well be better off doing Star Wars.

116. crazydaystrom - January 24, 2013

Just found out about this and I must say I’m stunned. Wow! Just wow! Who was it that once said “Expect the unexpected.”

Wow! I mean DAMN!

Wow! Need the digest this for a bit.

117. BulletInTheFace - January 24, 2013

And now the next brand of fan stupidity begins: calling Abrams a traitor. Of all the idiotic things. One CAN direct both Star Trek and Star Wars, folks. They’re both just movies. Those saying “traitor” need a dose of perspective. I, for one, am happy about this.

118. WillH85 - January 24, 2013

So much fail.

119. Dave B - January 24, 2013

Gold Pressed Latinum talks….

120. Schiefy - January 24, 2013

Interesting mix of comments.

I do think that both “Star”s can co-exist since I attended a Trek Con in NYC the fall of 1977, dressed as a Klingon (lot easier without the ridges in those days) and walked down the street with a Sandperson to see the 1st Star Wars at a nearby theater.

So yeah, as long as they keep making decent Trek and Wars I can live with J.J. doing whatever he wants!!

121. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 24, 2013

Funny. JJ still does not strike me as a Sci-fi guy.

Pace your self JJ. Save all your love for Trek.

122. Richard Daystrom - January 24, 2013

No Dave B. it’s ego….

123. Corinthian7 - January 24, 2013

Good news for Star Wars, Great News for Trek. I really enjoyed JJ’s Star Trek but let’s be honest it felt more like Star Wars. Nevertheless Abrams has put Star Trek really back on the map and this latest news may help raise the profile of Into Darkness. Hopefully for the third film we can have a director whose enthusiasm for Trek matches JJ’s love of Star Wars. I’d be happy to see Bob Orci and Damon Lindelof continue their involvement but maybe have someone like Bryan Singer direct.

124. BulletInTheFace - January 24, 2013

By the way, you folks need to look up the term “hypocrisy,” as it doesn’t apply in this case. The term “hypocrisy” mainly refers to professing high morals or beliefs that one does not practice, such as preaching against alcohol but being caught drinking, or claiming to be pious and religious but then having an extramarital affair. Think “Catholic priests” or “Republican senators.” Changing your mind or taking a job you said you weren’t going to take does not qualify as hypocrisy. Had he said, “I look down on anyone who directs Star Wars films,” he WOULD be a hypocrite. But saying “I don’t want to direct a Star Wars film” and then doing so is not hypocrisy.

125. Jonboc - January 24, 2013

#110. “Also picking JJ will make Star Wars and Star Trek to have the same flavor. They will have the same photographer, the same editor, etc, all the staff that made Star Trek at Bad Robot will do Star Wars. Both will lose identity. I find it so risky.”

While I agree this could happen, I think JJ would go predominantly “Lucas” style in his direction, just as he delivered a very Spielberg-like direction to Super 8, and not put his “stamp” on it, so to speak, as he was able to do with Trek.

126. KevinJones - January 24, 2013

Well, he was trying to make Star Trek into Star Wars anyway.

127. Ahmed - January 24, 2013

@ 123. Corinthian7 – January 24, 2013

“Good news for Star Wars, Great News for Trek. I really enjoyed JJ’s Star Trek but let’s be honest it felt more like Star Wars. Nevertheless Abrams has put Star Trek really back on the map and this latest news may help raise the profile of Into Darkness. Hopefully for the third film we can have a director whose enthusiasm for Trek matches JJ’s love of Star Wars. I’d be happy to see Bob Orci and Damon Lindelof continue their involvement but maybe have someone like Bryan Singer direct.”

Agreed, it is such a good news for Star Wars fans. JJ was always a Star Wars guy. I can’t wait to see what he will bring to Star Wars.

As for Star Trek 3, I hope they will find someone who is a Star Trek fan as well as great storyteller.

128. Wes - January 24, 2013

I’m not very happy. This will hurt Star Trek Into Darkness’ box office receipts. Way to hurt the franchise, J.J. But this may just be a rumor. But I’m not very happy with him right now. Thanks for nothing, J.J.

129. Exverlobter - January 24, 2013

“I’m not very happy. This will hurt Star Trek Into Darkness’ box office receipts.”

Why should this hurt the Trek box office?
That does not have anything in common with this matter.

130. PEB - January 24, 2013

I’m so sick of this ‘get Trek back to what it was’ talk. If you’re talking television shows, then I’m right there with you but maybe you have short term memory loss if you’re talking about movies. All of the films that were about exploring and were basically 2 hour tv episodes sucked and sane Trek fans understand this. Maybe you just took issue with the glossy SFX that looked like someone actually put money behind them but again, when you go down the line the best Trek films were not about exploring. That’s best left to a television show where you can explore character relationships and the unknown over weekly hour long episodic adventures. Why is this so hard for Trek fans of all fans to understand? We’re supposed to be the smart ones!

131. mhansen0207 - January 24, 2013

128.

Run it through for me bit by bit, detail by detail exactly how this is gonna hurt the returns on Into Darkness.

Melodramatic much?

Also too, I hope JJ stays involved in Trek’s creative process. I don’t know why the #1 qualifying rule for directing a Star Trek movie is you MUST be a fan of Star Trek. Nicolas Meyer and Harve Bennett sure as hell weren’t, and look what happened there.

And before someone mentions Stuart Baird, there’s a difference. Abrams, like Meyer and Bennett, may not have been a hardcore fan, but they all appreciated what Trek was about and held a respect for its longevity. Baird didn’t give ANY sort of damn about Trek and just did what he wanted to do without any consideration as to what came before.

132. PEB - January 24, 2013

@128 this would actually help ticket sales. More people will want to see what JJ has to offer in a scifi epic if they didnt see Trek09

133. Shat-a-tat-tat - January 24, 2013

I like it… He’s been about as true to Trek as you can. If you consider he has to please more than die hard trekkers and doesn’t have the original actors to use, you really couldn’t ask for better. There are lots of writers and directors that would screw this franchise up so bad. There are actors that would screw these iconic characters up. So many things can go lame with the wrong team at the helm. Instead of disliking what JJ “screwed up” (which I do not), think about how many things he got right. What the writers got right. What the actors got right.

Maybe its me, but Trek is better off than its been since First Contact. Everything after wasn’t jumping the shark, it was landing it.

JJ has earned my trust as a Trekker & movie-goer.

134. RoadSiren - January 24, 2013

my initial reaction to this was:

WHHAAAATT??!!?!?!

But I’d rather wait for any announcement from Bad Robot or Disney. But if this will happen, a crossover between the two franchises wouldn’t be so hard to do anymore..

135. Marcus - January 24, 2013

Twenty bucks says Paramount/CBS will not let it stand. JJ will be forced to choose.

136. Jax Maxton - January 24, 2013

Can Paramount finally back up a dump truck of money and let Ronald D. Moore be in charge of the Trek franchise now? I’m not saying write or direct or anything like that, but run the franchise. The dude knows how to run a TV show, and he totally understands the world of Trek, both its great parts and its flaws. He would push for a TV show, without a doubt, and would make sure the movies told a good story with deep characters. This is a real opportunity to put Trek in the right hands after Abrams brought some of the mojo back.

137. Anonymous Coward - January 24, 2013

Good, let’s see how the Star Wars fans like when JJ f*cks that up , too.

131- But Meyer and Bennett has the good sense to watch every ep TOS to find out what made ST run, and where to hang a story. This is something Baird and Abrams specifically did not do.
No, you don’t have to be a raging fanboy to direct a ST or SW movie, but you better have a handle on what makes the franchise run and what the fans like about it in the first place.
There is far too much of movie and TV evidence out there to show what happens when you have no idea what makes a franchise that particular franchise.

138. Marcus - January 24, 2013

“Run it through for me bit by bit, detail by detail exactly how this is gonna hurt the returns on Into Darkness.” ~ 128

Conflict of interest. When I worked as a toy package designer, my boss decided to do some freelance for the competition. He ended up being let go due to a conflict of interest. Paramount/CBS has always been in competition with George Lucas. I have a funny feeling J.J. will have to make a choice.

139. James Brady - January 24, 2013

well good for JJ. truly all the loyalty of a Romulan. much like Judas it depends on how much silver was waived under his nose

140. Darmok - January 24, 2013

Here’s conjecture but logical: Disney wants JJ bad. They know they have the money but want to pay as little as possible. JJ wants Star Wars bad (which he says he was always bigger fan of as opposed to ST) Talks between teams happen. Offers are made and turned down. Disney claims to be looking elsewhere and will engage other directors but they’re secretly holding out for JJ. JJ’s team plays the game and claims lack of interest in doing it, other projects etc. Counter offer made. More of the back/forth game. Blah blah blah deal signed.

Personally, I support JJ’s decision. I trust what the guy does. I think he’s going to do part 3 of ST and then stop. If SWE7 does well, he’ll probably be on for a Ep 8&9. The question is ‘do we really have to wait until 2016 for JJST3?’ Will Episode 7 have to be completed before moving onto JJST3? WIll work begin on JJST3 before 2015?

You all must answer my questions or Darmok and Jalaad at Tanagra

141. mhansen0207 - January 24, 2013

137.

Meyer didn’t watch every episode….Bennett did. The smart thing Meyer did is exactly what Abrams did, he collaborated with other people who DO know Trek.

And honestly, if you think JJ f*cked up Trek when it was already dead….if you think that him breathing new life into the franchise (which he did) is the most horrible thing in the world, then there really is no sense in having a debate about it with you.

142. Ahmed - January 24, 2013

It is hard to imagine how a new director without any idea or knowledge of Star Trek, will be able to direct a Trek movie. You need to have some sense of that fictional universe & what make it tick with fans.

@136. 136. Jax Maxton, Ron Moore is the best writer/producer out there who should be allowed to run Star Trek, I hope that Paramount will bring him back in some capacity.

143. Christopher - January 24, 2013

I am sure the new Star Wars will be epic because Abrams made Star Trek epic, but this feels like a betrayal. It took them 4 years to get around to Into Darkness, what’s it going to be now, 10 years? I just hope Star Trek doesn’t take a back seat and suffer from it.

144. mhansen0207 - January 24, 2013

138.

That’s a very vague and presumptuous conjecture.

And exactly how would that hurt Into Darkness? People are still anticipating that movie regardless of that news. Hell, if this were true, people would be MORE interested in Into Darkness I’d think.

145. Marcus - January 24, 2013

“And exactly how would that hurt Into Darkness? People are still anticipating that movie regardless of that news. Hell, if this were true, people would be MORE interested in Into Darkness I’d think.” ~ 144.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I apologize.

Here is what I meant by my statement: CBS/Paramount and ABC/LucasArts are competitors. If J.J. decides to jump over to “Star Wars: EP IV”, CBS/Paramount will force him to choose. Since J.J. has always wanted to work on “Star Wars”, the potential for another one of his version of “Star Trek” will have dwindled. CBS/Paramount will not allow him to do both. Its like Pepsi vrs. Coke.

146. EJD1984 - January 24, 2013

There is one potential positive to this. Hopefully the NEW director of the next Trek film will give us a proper Engineering set.

147. DeShonn Steinblatt - January 24, 2013

Abrams is producing Star Trek 3. Let’s save the lying for another day.

148. broskizzz - January 24, 2013

if this is true we wont see another trek for at least 5 years. he’ll do star wars then probably an original film, then be approached with more projects that would be difficult to turn down. and we finally started to get good movies outa the trek universe too =’[

149. Exverlobter - January 24, 2013

@143?
Why is this a betrayal? He can still produce the next Trek- film the same way he produced Mission Impossible 4 where he also did not return into the directors chair.

150. Hat Rick - January 24, 2013

Well, I’m feeling ambivalent because I was one of those who praised JJ for sticking with ST over SW. I reserve further comment.

If JJ hadn’t said that he believed in loyalty to ST, it would be different. But according to this site, he did, and to me this casts a different light on the matter.

I still think JJ has been good for Trek, but if he goes over to the competing franchise, I’m not sure where Trek is going to go from here on out.

151. mhansen0207 - January 24, 2013

145.

I could understand that happening at some point if he’s forced into that ultimatum. But still, I don’t know how that would hurt Into Darkness. It may leave Star Trek 3 in a creative spot, but I don’t see that’d hurt the movie coming out in May.

Besides, I think Paramount is not gonna give up J.J. or Bad Robot all together, especially if Into Darkness is a critical and financial success.

152. Ahmed - January 24, 2013

Why people think that we have to wait for Abrams to come back after finishing Star Wars to do Star Trek 3 !!

Paramount should move on & pick another director for Star Trek 3

153. somejackball - January 24, 2013

i still say let David Lynch give Star Wars a go, it could be as epic as Dune was!

154. Marcus - January 24, 2013

“Abrams is producing Star Trek 3. Let’s save the lying for another day.” ~ DeShonn

Who is lying? If you have been following the “Star Trek” franchise, you would have know that Paramount doesn’t like “Star Wars”. Lol… They have been saying it for years. Paramount wants to beat “Star Wars”.

155. Michael - January 24, 2013

#136

That would be fantastic. It’s about the only thing that would rekindle my interest in the franchise, as well.

#137

That’s a little unfair. JJ didn’t really set out to make a Star Trek movie. He made a Star Wars movie with Star Trek nouns, and he was very successful. He’ll no doubt be great for SW, not that anything could be worse than the prequels. Personally, while I didn’t much care for ST 2009, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking it was still a better movie than most or all of the TNG films, even if it isn’t really (imo) in the spirit of ST. Even First Contact, the supposed “good one”, was basically action schlock that ruined the franchises greatest antagonist, with a plot that didn’t make any sense and characterization that was greatly at odds with the series.

156. cd - January 24, 2013

Crap. and I was cautiously optimistic about the new Star Wars. Not now.

157. Ted C - January 24, 2013

Sometimes I am ashamed to call myself a Trek fan because I dont want to be lumped in with all you nuts. A bunch of you are calling him traitor. How utterly ridiculous. He’s a director, that’s all. His job is to direct movies. Good grief people…It’s just a TV show!

158. Bob Gratton - January 24, 2013

So is JJ under contract for 3 Treks? Can’t see him doing both Trek and Wars

159. Spuhura Addict - January 24, 2013

Noooo!!!!!
It’s a conflict of interest, isn’t it?
Technically ST is set in the future and SW is set in the past, but both are sci-fis which represent a particular fandom of the genre. Oh heck, why not
Give him Galactica as well. Just rename all sci-fi as “Abrahms-fiction.” If true, he will master the two greatest contributions to the sci-fi genre. Can we say monopoly? Is it possible to helm the command of
Both franchises, one in which you are a clear fan, while maintaining the integrity and spirit of the other? I am nervous. Oh well…Trek will survive.

160. Capt.Crash - January 24, 2013

Wow – a lot of people are actually surprised and disappointed that JJ is directing Star Wars now? Seriously, a lot of you really did not see this coming? My god people – he has been saying since before ST09 that he was never a Trek fan and did not know a lot about this universe…..OK, so be it. He is a Star Wars fan…. he draws a lot of his inspiration from Spielberg and Lucas (to name a couple)…….

JJ brought life back to Trek…..we should be thankful for this, because Trek was literally dying on both the small and large screens. Now there is hope for a new long prosperous life for Star Trek.

Now, the same can be said for the Star Wars franchise……Lucas pretty much twisted this all up, his own obsession was his demise for those last three films – and literally I believe he has lost his “niche” for telling the stories and making quality films…and I think he finally realized it too – which is why Lucas is handing the baton off to Disney and Kathleen Kennedy….to preserve any dignity that is left in that franchise. So, how does one save another one of the biggest Sci-Fi franchises in our history? Bring on board the same guy to saved the other biggest Sci-Fi franchises…JJ Abrams.

Its a smart move… and a plus for LucasFilms Ltd and Disney because JJ has a deeper appreciation for Star Wars than he did/does for Star Trek. Does that make him a traitor – no. I personally think its a stepping stone…Trek was a good learning tool for him to gain inspiration and motivation to bring back life into the Star Wars franchise.

However, we can all pretty much know and agree that Disney/LucasFilm is not going to let Abrams work in both franchises…. Star Trek and Star Wars are too much of a competition towards each other. So, what would be interesting is that who is brought on board to carry on the torch the sequel to ST:ID, and will he/she continue what JJ Abrams has originally envisioned?

Only time will tell………

161. Phil - January 24, 2013

Star Wars Ep. VII. Lost: In Space….

Naw, it will be okay. Maybe JJ can make movies for both franchises…

162. Marcus - January 24, 2013

If this story comes out as true, J.J. would have gone to the competitor. Even though both franchises fit into a science-fiction category, they are owned by two direct competitors. ABC/LucasArts (Disney) versus CBS/Paramount is similar to Pepsi versus Coke. Once someone works for two direct competitors, the question becomes, “Is there a conflict of interest?”. CBS/Paramount has always wanted to beat “Star Trek”; therefore, they will most likely make him choose. Even though there may be a third movie contract, both parties could walk away as a mutual agreement. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

While I do think this is a good move for JJ, I think “Star Trek” will be looking for a new director, witter, and producer. We will have to wait and see.

163. L4YERCAKE - January 24, 2013

The only reason I’m taking this rumor seriously at all is the fact that neither Abrams or Disney have made a statement denying it. Still having a hard time swallowing it, just seems implausible that he’d go back on his previously well reasoned comments on why he’d turn it down.

Seems the only way they could sway Abrams into reversing his emphatic initial denial is that they shoved an incredible script in front of him.

164. Adolescent Nightmare - January 24, 2013

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!!! JJ has conquered all of space!

165. Keith Blankenship - January 24, 2013

JJ was seduced by the dark side. Maybe they offered him cookies.

166. gorewhoreaust - January 24, 2013

I do think this is a blow to the future of Trek films. I also think that Mr. Abrams somethings confuses secrecy for out right lying. On the plus side, I’d image that this decision places the music of the Star Wars universe into the VERY capable hands of Michael Giacchino who in my opinion is the closest composer modern cinema has to the magic of John Williams. Mixed emotions indeed.

167. Platitude - January 24, 2013

I’m so excited about this. I could only be more excited if Joss Whedon was announced to be doing it, so I’m pretty damn excited.

168. Allen Williams - January 24, 2013

May the ridiculous and unnecessary lens flares be with you…always

169. SirBroiler - January 24, 2013

Since when have Star Wars and Star Trek been in competition? Both coexist as tremendously successful sci-fi franchises with sensibilities that couldn’t be more divergent.

I think the number of people who appreciate both Star Wars and Star Trek far outweigh the number of dorks who fantasize about some nonexistent competition.

170. Buzz Cagney - January 24, 2013

Good news. JJ can shuffle himself off to Star Wars and then they can get Meyer in to get the writers up to speed on a decent script and direct the 3rd movie. We may yet get something that feels like Trek from Bad Reboot. Sorry, Bad Robot.

171. Spuhura Addict - January 24, 2013

What did we do, JJ?
*sobs*
Why??????????

172. Christopher - January 24, 2013

@149
Either you’re all in or not. This is not MI 4, this is Star Trek. A Star Trek which he revitalized and brought new vision to, I want the man responsible for this directing not producing. And he said out of respect to Trek that he would not be interested in directing Wars, obviously he lied to the fan base. It’s whatever, because I’m sure Wars 7 will be visually fantastic. Hopefully Trek still gets the respectful attention it deserves and doesn’t fall back into mediocrity. I’d like to see Trek 3 before we hit 2020. My question is: is he now considered the “keeper” of Star Wars too? Or is it a one and done thing with the Wars movies in terms of directing? Hopefully the new movies are better than the garbage prequels that Lucas gave us.

173. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - January 24, 2013

Is there a reason my posts are being blocked and or deleted?

174. DonDonP1 - January 24, 2013

Cool! Now that J.J. Abrams is set direct Disney’s “Star Wars Episode VII,” Someone else may direct Paramount’s “Star Trek XIII.” Hope Bryan Singer would direct “Trek XIII.” Either him or TNG’s Jonathan Frakes, who directed 1996′s “First Contact” and 1998′s “Insurrection.” Live long, prosper, and May the Force be with you all! LOL!

175. Clinton - January 24, 2013

Very happy to hear this news. JJ did a great job with the Trek reboot. And I think the Star Wars restart will need as much care. JJ “gets”the material. And he now has experience dealing with rabid fans. All these skills will be needed. We had JJ for 2 films. Maybe we’ll get him again. But he does need to move on to other big challenges. And this is abut as big as they get — for the second time!

176. Michael - January 24, 2013

Traitor! Just kidding. I know Trekkies like to think of them as competing franchises, but definitely nobody else does. One is about a hundred times bigger than the other.

177. Oktoberfest - January 24, 2013

Congratulations to JJ and the Supreme Court! This is great news and practically guarantees that SW7 will be worth seeing. I’m Trekker at the core, but there is room in the Verse for more than one franchise. I do hope that we greet this news with optimism for the future of both ST and SW and with gratitude to his team for keeping Trek in the conversation economically and creatively for the past several years.

178. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - January 24, 2013

DISLOYAL??? I wasn’t aware that Star Trek and Star Wars were at war. What a silly notion.

179. miketen - January 24, 2013

I think Mr. Abrams will make a great Star Wars movie, better than the George Lucas prequels. If only he could redo the Star Wars prequels and fix some of the crazy dialog and poor acting.

As for Trek if the trailer is any indication the second movie will be better than the first and should have been the first movie, not the time travel/alternate universe/ Nero as Khan retread.

180. Wes - January 24, 2013

Wow, I can’t believe all the negativity surrounding this announcement! I don’t mean specifically on this site, but just in general. As excited as I am about this news, it seems clear that Disney has their work cut out for them in convincing the fan base that this is a good thing.

I’m all for it, though…bring on both Trek and SW! Great time to be a nerd. :)

181. Orion Slave Chick with big boobs - January 24, 2013

I think its cool. I am happy for him. Well Star Trek 3 will have a brand new director. He will be jumping ship from the franchise. There is no way he is doing both. He has done his bit for king and country. I am sure Orci and Kurtzman will write the third installment and I am sure they will find someone suitable to take over.

All these morons whining about him being a traitor and all that blah blah. He will more than likely produce the third film. As long as he keeps Joel Schumacher. Frank Miller, and Bret Ratner the Hell away from Trek, I will be cool.

This is the opportunity of a lifetime and he should embrace it. I am sure they will find a suitable director for the next Trek. Calm down Nerds.

I love Star Wars and I think JJ is going to be good. He will be doing his own trilogy. You can bank on that.

182. Magic_Al - January 24, 2013

One person directing Star Trek and Star Wars seems like something antitrust regulators should have to approve.

183. Jax Maxton - January 24, 2013

178.

How you not be aware of the great Wars/Trek wars of the 80s?!? Millions died, and in the aftermath we were left with Voyager and the Prequels. Obviously, everyone lost.

184. Bender Bending Rodriguez - January 24, 2013

This is very exciting. Loved the Star Trek reboot, and looking forward the Star Wars VII! I hope they choose to show us what has happened since the revolution. Think of the comic book prequel for THAT story line. I want to see Luke rebuild the Jedi order, and what happens to Leia and Han. What happened to Lando? Will Ewan McGregor appear as Obi Wan?

Stay tuned!

Congratulations, Mr. Abrams!

185. porthoses bitch - January 24, 2013

My take….there must be some hot buzz on STID in the industry cause Disney wouldnt be touchin JJ if not.

186. Daniel - January 24, 2013

Luke Skywalker: “you killed my director

JJ: NO Luke I AM YOUR DIRECTOR

Luke: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I hope his decision wont interfere with a third Star Trek movie

187. Efren - January 24, 2013

This is the Biggest news since Lucas stepping down. I find it awesome that one of the biggest tv/film director will be doing Star wars “Hopefully no lens flares” jk. He is a fan of star wars as you can see in his Star Trek Rebbot. We are Safe Geek Squad! Live long and Prosper and May the Force Be with you.

188. Efren - January 24, 2013

Bob Orci- your thoughts?/

189. Martin Anderson - January 24, 2013

For all we know JJ will only be on board for Episode 7 – leaving him free after to do a final Star Trek film. I guess it depends on the shooting schedules and how much of the pre/post production he is needed for. I doubt he will be like Lucas and be as involved with the sculpture work and the other minutia.

190. Jason - January 24, 2013

This could be good news for Trek. No doubt Abrams and his crew will be involved, in terms of producing, writing, etc. Maybe he’ll do what he did on Mission and bring in Brad Bird to do his own thing (hint: Brad Bird NEEDS to direct the third Trek).

191. VOODOO - January 24, 2013

All you people who are calling Abrams a “traitor” and being generally negative really need to get a life…The man was just given the keys to the Holy Grail of modern cinema, a direct sequel to Return of the Jedi…Who among you wouldn’t jump at the oppritunity to bring back the legendary Han Solo and Luke Skywalker (portrayed by the original actors) to the big screen and right the wrongs of the prequles in what will surely be the most anticipated film of all time? Its the oppritunity of a lifetime.

Besides, who says Abrams is done with ST? At the very least Abrams will be the executive producer of ST 3 with the rest of the creative team intact.

I for one wish him the best of luck in heading up the worlds two greatest franchises.

P.S? Don’t kill off Han or Luke under any circumstances.

192. Disinvited - January 24, 2013

J.J. Abrams quoting himself said that he said, “Because of my loyalty to STAR TREK…I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things (STAR WARS movies).”

J.J. is the one who brought the high-minded concept of “loyalty to STAR TREK” to the table.

If the SW directing reporting turns out to be true, how is one not to come to the conclusion that J.J. DID want to be involved? And by his own logic that this is because of his DISloyalty to STAR TREK?

193. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - January 24, 2013

K I am a bit grumpy here. The main reason being he said he was loyal to Trek. So basic a whole wad of cash changed his mind in favor of Disney “I wanna rule to universe” Corporation. Great. It makes JJ a hypocrite if he takes it and steals Star Treks best director ever. I will be leading the anti-disney wars movement if this is the case. The only thing that would mildly repair it is if Joss Whedon did the next Trek after Darkness… But who has him??? Oh yeah… Disney who owns Marvel now as well and with it Avengers and Joss.

Disney… Communists.

194. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

Home is where the heart is. If you love someone set them free. He never liked us anyway. Star Was kids are cooler.

195. MC1 Doug - January 24, 2013

Oh goodie! As much as JJ has kept we TREK fans in the dark for so long, just imagine that same treatment with the WARS fans. They’ll go crazy!!!

196. Kevin - January 24, 2013

Terrible news for Star Trek, but great news for Star Wars fans. Paramount will likely cut the relationship with JJ and the Bad Robot team to move in a new direction.. This is entertainment business. He can’t do both.

JJ made Star Trek that I’ve enjoyed for 30+ years cool to the general public and I’m thankful for it. But he jumped to a bigger franchise and it’s hard to blame him for taking an amazing opportunity. Still, this is a major setback because he helped the popularity of Star Trek explode.

Later this year after STID Paramount will find a new producer team and director for ST3. Hopefully they get someone as talented as JJ. .

197. MJ - January 24, 2013

“Good news. JJ can shuffle himself off to Star Wars and then they can get Meyer in to get the writers up to speed on a decent script and direct the 3rd movie. We may yet get something that feels like Trek from Bad Reboot. Sorry, Bad Robot.”

LOL. Meyer is nearly 80 now, dude.

198. CanOpener1256 - January 24, 2013

Hey guys .. They’re making sci-fi movies. For years to come. Let’s be happy! The worse JJ produced movie is light-years beyond the last Lucas produced movies. Fresh blood is needed! All hail Bad Robot!

199. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - January 24, 2013

183. Jax Maxton – Not many people make me laugh. Thank you. I hadn’t thought of Voyager and Enterprise being the collateral damage from the war. I think it’s safe to say that neither Star Wars nor Star Trek was at their best toward the end of their lives. I guess that goes for all of us, really.

I can’t fathom the anger. I just can’t. This news has less impact on me than my morning bowel movement. Then again, I’m not a Star Wars fan at all. I think they’re lost with ANY director if they don’t have a good script, and Star Wars has never had that in my opinion. Much of it has been fun, and the visuals have always been incredible for their time, but the writing never lived up to the possibilities. In some cases it was downright embarrassingly bad.

Frankly, I’m more interested in seeing what Abrams does with Star Wars than I am with Star Trek. Maybe I’ll like it for the first time.

200. theevolved1 - January 24, 2013

I feel like JJ is taking his talents to south beach… Got Lebron’d again :-(

201. Pointing Out The Obvious - January 24, 2013

Star Trek Fans are some of the best fan-bases in all of Sci-Fi, but I can say with a fair amount of authority as a trekkie myself, that a great many of them are self-entitled wind-bag whiners who cry when they don’t like what they get.

JJ Abrams is a Good director. He’s light-years beyond anything that George Lucas could ever be.

Quit your griping, seriously.

202. Dennis C - January 24, 2013

Well, that’s a wrap for JJ and Star Trek. If they’re looking at a 2015 release date there will be no time for Star Trek.

I’m just happy that his usual team of writers won’t be attached to the thing. Here’s hoping we won’t have to see that damned Bad Robot vanity card before a Star Wars movie.

Oh, and Aaron at #193, Star Trek’s best director was Nicholas Meyer. The man can direct and is able to tell a strong and compelling story.

And he didn’t have a thing for lens flares.

203. Phil - January 24, 2013

@185. Good point…

204. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - January 24, 2013

@202 – I say best director in the fact that he did more for the franchise than any other even Meyer. And an argument can be made that JJ is better but I won’t.

205. Emotionally Logical - January 24, 2013

So I just saw this being mentioned as fact on Conan (for whatever that’s worth)

206. Serpico Jones - January 24, 2013

Bob Orci just confirmed the news on his twitter.

207. Serpico Jones - January 24, 2013

And by the way there will obviously be no crossover between Star Wars and Star Trek. They’re both owned by separate and competing studios. I also think this signals the end of Abrams Trek.

208. Dr. Cheis - January 24, 2013

I see no reason why he can’t make both franchises and make them well.

209. boborci - January 24, 2013

188. Efren

Too soon to understand what this all means.

210. Exverlobter - January 24, 2013

“LOL. Meyer is nearly 80 now, dude.”

@MJ

Nick Meyer is just 1 year older than Steven SPielberg. He still can make movies.

211. Serpico Jones - January 24, 2013

Dr. Cheis:

Paramount will have to wait a number of years for Abrams to finish Star Wars. They can just hire Matt Reeves to do the third film.

212. CoffeeProf - January 24, 2013

201

Best post ever on this site!

213. Disinvited - January 24, 2013

#207. Serpico Jones

Unless, of course, the offer of which dmduncan referred was to welcome Bad Robot back to its Disney roots?

I mean a crossover would kill two birds with one stone (PI)? He’d be doing both a SW and a ST at the same time.

214. sean - January 24, 2013

#197

Hold on there, Meyer is only 67. Let’s not prematurely age the guy.

215. sean - January 24, 2013

If true, I doubt Abrams will direct more than one SW film. The general consensus seems to be they want a different director for each planned film.

216. Emotionally Logical - January 24, 2013

So if Disney took JJ away from Paramount for Star Wars, think Paramount can steal Joss Whedon away from Avengers/Disney for the next Trek?? lol

217. It's a trap! - January 24, 2013

Thank You JJ for anouncing this!!! Now we can stop talking about Khan and start talking about Boba Fett as the new SW villian!

218. sean - January 24, 2013

#216

Joss can work with any studio he wants, he’s not tied to Disney beyond the Avengers stuff.

219. Adam C - January 24, 2013

does this mean he’ll loosen his claws with the TV series and finally give Michael Dorn a chance THIS IS MY DREAM!!!!

220. Serpico Jones - January 24, 2013

Marvel is very strict with their contracts. Joss Whedon is under contract with them until 2016.

221. Emotionally Logical - January 24, 2013

@218

Good to know. But between Avengers, the Sheild TV show, and prob creative input in the next iron man, cap, and thor movies that’s quite a handful!

222. Serpico Jones - January 24, 2013

#213: Don’t be ridiculous.

223. Mr. ATOZ - January 24, 2013

Idiots… he’s capable of doing both. I do believe the actors were signed on for one more movie.

224. VulcanFilmCritic - January 24, 2013

Well, if JJ Abrams is going to get busy directing “Star Wars” the powers that be at Paramount had better start shopping around for a new director for our baby. I don’t want anyone’s sloppy seconds for this franchise.
You know, Nicholas Meyer isn’t dead yet. He was very young when he tackled “STII:TWOK.” So, let’s see if he’s learned anything over the years and can adapt to this new Trek universe.

225. Serpico Jones - January 24, 2013

#223: It’s not that simple.

226. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

Star Wars Episode VII: The Lens Flare Strikes Back.

I don’t care if he leaves Trek for Lucas’ sandbox, but it is a shame that more up and coming directors aren’t getting a crack at some of these gigs. Hollywood is becoming a very small universe. Not unlike the Star Wars universe. Remember when Darth Vader built C-3PO? pfft…

227. Bob Tompkins - January 24, 2013

213- No, that’s a fanboy fantasy.
223- He is not capable of doing both; his other projects are why we have had to wait 4 years for a Star Trek movie.
Paramount can’t be happy with this development and I would not be the least bit disappointed if Abrams does not fulfill his 3rd movie obligation. Star Wars is going to tie him up a minimum of 18 months before he can even consider getting the gang back together and he has other projects in the fire as well.
Paramount would be wise to give Star Trek to someone who can focus on the Star Trek franchise, a lord/overseer similar to Gene Roddenberry/Harve Bennett/Rick Berman type producer as in the old days… these guys had just one plate spinning and it was Star Trek.

228. Paulo - From Brazil - January 24, 2013

Beatles have said…

“Now give me money, thaaat´s what i want…. a lot of money….that´s what i want.!”

Don´t like JJ Abrams and his new Star Trek. I want the old Star Trek back.

229. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

Does this make JJ the Nick Saban of Science Fiction?

230. Bob Tompkins - January 24, 2013

226- LOL; the prequel comic for Into Darkness has artistic lens flares aplenty, probably telling us to brace for more of the same on the big screen.
Wonder how bad those are going to look in 3D?

231. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

@227 – Bingo.

232. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

@230 My head is already hurting just thinking about the consequences of 3-D lens flare.

233. Bob Tompkins - January 24, 2013

229- More like Bobby Petrino.

234. Suit - January 24, 2013

@boborci

You must be happy he has the gig? Yes/No/not your concern? Just get save Fischer in for the final trek film.

235. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

@233 Saban, Patrino, birds of a feather. Et tu, JJ?

236. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - January 24, 2013

They don’t need Nick Meyer to direct the next Trek movie. They need another big name director who’s got some good creative background – a Bryan Singer or some such. I wasn’t expecting JJ to come back for the third movie in directorial capacity, because I expect Trek 13 to be released in 2016. I don’t think he’d be able to direct Trek 13 and do many other projects in that time span. I certainly hope that Bad Robot continues producing and Bob Orci and the others stay on board writing it.

With that being said, I am so looking forward to a JJ Abrams Star Wars. He certainly can do better than Lucas did with Episodes I, II and III.

237. Suit - January 24, 2013

Sorry, Fincher. Damn iPads.

238. Bob Tompkins - January 24, 2013

236- I wasn’t too upset with the directorial choices Lucas made with the Star Wars prequels, just the editorial ones.
They are great eye candy.

239. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

@236 No please take the writers. Orci already said on Twitter he’d go with JJ if offered. Although Episode VII has a writer already. Maybe Disney will do a Willow sequel and they can do that?

240. Jax Maxton - January 24, 2013

Believe it or not, Hollywood sees Star Trek and Star Wars as competing franchises. They are both sci-fi space adventures with rabid fan bases. That means there is no way Paramount keeps Abrams on for the 3rd Trek. The Abrams era is over with Trek after this year. If “Into Darkness” makes money, then there will be a Star Trek 4. Paramount wants nothing more than for the Star Trek franchise to succeed as it is the biggest franchise they have. I wouldn’t worry about the future of Trek. Paramount will no doubt find a good director to take the reins.

241. Smike - January 24, 2013

The ONLY problem for me is that interview in which he stressed his LOYALTY to Star Trek! Why did he do that in the first place? There wouldn’t have been any issues if he had just taken that darn job…

I’m a HUGE fan of both franchises and there is nothing wrong with doing both. But why did he have to emphasize on that loyalty issue? Now of course, Trek fans who hate Wars can roast him for that…

Apart from that: he has already directed two Trek movies! It’s time to move on… In don’t want him to do 3 or 4 movies. Frakes and Nick Meyer had their two as well. We need fresh blood anyway…

242. Bob Tompkins - January 24, 2013

Here’s hoping ILM can stay at the top of the heap and keep innovating in CG.
Someday we can hope for motion capture actors, facial software. and voice imitations of Shat, Nimoy, Kelley and the gang to bring the real NCC1701 and crew back to the big screen.
Still a few years away.

243. Jim - January 24, 2013

big deal. JJ was okay for Trek. If he moves on to Wars thats fine. there are others who can direct. Bryan Singer should get a shot at it. I would like Leonard Nimoy back as director. He’s worked with the new cast too.

244. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

@241 Like I said, he’s the Nick Saban of SciFi. Et tu, JJ?

245. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

@243 I agree Singer is a good director. Nimoy of course, but I doubt he would come out of retirement for a heavy gig like directing a movie. Also, I doubt the suits would let an 81 year old man direct their newly-JJ-made-cool-franchise. But it would be awesome and might even have some umph behind it.

246. Cygnus-X1 - January 24, 2013

Apparently JJ got over his new “loyalty” to Star Trek when Disney offered him enough money.

It’s a great business decision. He’s on his way to being incredibly wealthy. Even more so, that is.

Star Wars had already been sold out to Disney, so it’s not as though the quality of the Star Wars franchise is likely to suffer at the hands of JJ.

Disney will get their wide-appeal popcorn-muncher, and the masses will get lots of flashing lights, explosions and chases set in the Star Wars galaxy. I don’t see that JJ’s reversal changes much, if it’s true. Those of us who would value loyalty to Trek never had any illusions of it from JJ.

But I’ll be seriously pissed if JJ goes after the Battlestar Galactica franchise next.

247. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

Help us, Harve Bennett, you’re our only hope. lol

248. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

@246 BTW – Great handle, Cygnus X1! Great song, great band.

249. Red Dead Ryan - January 24, 2013

I can’t imagine Paramount is too happy with this piece of news. I don’t think they’re mad at J.J Abrams personally (as they have obviously allowed him to work with other studios during the life span of his contract) so much as nervous at one of their highly coveted directors helping bitter rival Disney expand its empire (pun intended) during a time when Paramount has just begun to reboot its own “Star” franchise.

Anyone who thinks J.J Abrams will be able to do both are deluding themselves.

Paramount and Disney are bitter rivals. J.J Abrams is a hot commodity. Neither studio wants to “help” the other, especially if both “Star Trek3″ and “Star Wars Episode VII” come out within a year of each other.

250. BeatleJWOL - January 24, 2013

I know it’s been said but I’ll say it again.

CROSSOVER

spock with a lightsaber
jedis using transporters
heavy cruisers like Enterprise being protected or fought by X-wings and TIE fighters
“use the force, kirk.”

*drools*

251. You people make me sick - January 24, 2013

He already directed a Star Wars movie in 2009. Just got the name wrong.

252. nate - January 24, 2013

I like Abrams a lot and he did a good Trek film, but everything is so slow with him. Maybe if he moves to Star Wars, the Trek will loosen up and we’ll see more TV shows and books and comics and everything else. That may be the best results overall!

253. 750Mang - January 24, 2013

@251 Hahaha… good point!

254. Todd - January 24, 2013

I think this way too cool. I am a Trekkie first and foremost
But like any nerd, I do like Star Wars too. I think Abrams did a great
Job with Trek and hope he makes another, and I’m sure his take on Star Wars will be very cool as well. Now how about JJ Abrams directs the Simirillion?! :)

255. Todd - January 24, 2013

I think this way too cool. I am a Trekkie first and foremost
But like any nerd, I do like Star Wars too. I think Abrams did a great
Job with Trek and hope he makes another, and I’m sure his take on Star Wars will be very cool as well. Now how about JJ Abrams directs the Simirillion?! :)

It is rather wild to have him doing both! Maybe he will bring peace to the whole Trek/Wars battle?!!

256. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 24, 2013

I think JJ leaving Trek might be a good thing. By the third film I think he’d be hard-pressed to impress, and probably wouldn’t have a lot of interest anyway. Get an exciting new director and fresh writers kick ass in the third film! Just like Batman, I have no problem seeing other people take a swing at Batman. Abrams and Orci have done pretty well here, let them do Star Wars.

I’m not anti-JJ in any way. I like (not love) what they’ve done so far, but I don’t have any problem with new director and writers for the last film.

But Star Trek belongs on TV. Star Trek is the kind of show that requires long-term character development. It has rarely been at its best in a movie. Star wars films developed characters very poorly. They were always more about the flash and dash, with leit motifs stolen from various films, myths and books, all cobbled together into a clumsy story. The more films they made, the more it was apparent that Lucas had no coherent vision.

Hell, Star Wars fans ought to be having affairs with themselves over this news. I don’t see how Abrams can do anything but improve the quality.

257. Jason - January 24, 2013

Interesting that there’s been no “official” announcement from Disney or Lucasfilm

258. ScottC - January 24, 2013

I say good riddance, they can all leave: JJ, Orci, etc. Two movies is enough, look how LOST and FRINGE suffered the longer they all stayed involved. They start out strong, then putter out after a while. Lets get some new writing. producing, and directing talent for the 3rd movie and beyond!

259. Jamie - January 24, 2013

Typical JJ, start something and not bother finishing it.

I might go and see his new Star Wars perhaps it will have Data in it as an easter egg in a space scene and the new Captain will say “Engage” when the ship goes to warp speed or whatever they call it in Star Wars.

Maybe we’ll get a nice new reboot of Star Trek back to how it should feel rather than what JJ made it.

260. ScottC - January 24, 2013

Although it sure would have been nice if they could have waited until after STID comes out, because now all the attention will be focued on “JJ’s directing Star Wars, blah, blah, blah…..”

261. K-7 - January 24, 2013

My bet would be the Orci is the source for this story.

262. John - January 24, 2013

Well this is good news! J.J brought Star Wars to Star Trek, now he is where he belongs in making a Star Wars movie. Now lets get someone who loves Star Trek and wants to make a Star Trek movie!

263. Cenobyte - January 24, 2013

I really don’t see how this hurts Star Trek at all… If the into darkness is any good it may drive even more people out to see it, win win… I bet it was unlikely he would have directed 3 anyway. Also who wouldn’t want to direct a killer Star Wars film? In my mind this decision has to be about more than money, as some have stated, give the guy a little credit.

264. JP Saylor - January 24, 2013

Well hell, why not? He’d be perfect for it. Too bad they didn’t get him before he turned Star Trek into some bastardized version of Star Wars. I love Star Wars. I love Star Trek (maybe a bit more) but I don’t want them mixed together.

265. Sebi - January 24, 2013

If the report is true, then it’s “good news everybody”.

We might actually get a decent Star Wars movie for a change…

And with Star Trek: Either he does both or will just produce Star Trek with a different director. He did a great thing with ST09 and I hope STID will be even better. As long as someone continues his concept/vision, we will be fine.

And BTW, George Lucas should stay as far away as possible from any franchise….

266. Saykred Cow - January 24, 2013

Wouldn’t it be cool if Paramount USED this to market Star Trek into Darkness?

‘From the future director of Star Wars Episode VII: Star Trek Into Darkness!’

Let’s be honest here, sadly Star Trek has never come close to putting up Star Wars box office numbers… what do they have to lose?

267. Captain CHIP of the Federation Starship USS Crescendo NCC 4816 - January 24, 2013

Yeah, this is JUST great!!! (Can you feel my sarcasm?)

For all you who think he won’t do a third Star Trek, I submit to you that star wars episode 7 WILL BE the third Star Trek film he makes! As if 2009 wasn’t Star Warsey enough! Here’s a though about the name for this next SW title:

Star Wars
Episode VII
The Rise of the United Federation of Planets

268. diggin up bones - January 24, 2013

The plot of SWVII has been revealed to me in a Force vision! A stormtrooper that blames Luke Skywalker for the death of his wife ( a phlebotomist on the Death Star), goes back in time and blows up Tatooine (JJ hates desert planets) but Anakin survives and stops him before he can blow up Naboo. Qui-Gon gets his legs cut off instead of dying and ends up in a wheelchair. Darth Maul reveals the identity of Palpatine before he dies, so Palpatine is arrested. Since Palpatine isn’t around to get Luke’s parents together, Luke (who has a Flux-Capacitor on his X-wing) has to get them together at the “Enchantment Under the Gungan Sea” dance, so they can have their first kiss…

269. Pegasus - January 24, 2013

This news doesn’t feel good to me.

I don’t like that he said his loyalty to Trek was keeping him from Wars, and then he switches his mind. I also don’t like that he said back around the promotion of Trek 2009 how he wouldn’t start Trek and then wander away and leave it uncared for as he did with Lost. Seems he’s done both of these unpleasant moves. Disappointing, to say the least.

270. diggin up bones - January 24, 2013

@268: The stormtrooper may be Gary Mitchell, but I’m thinking Khan…

271. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - January 24, 2013

JJ’s Star Trek is the way Star Trek should feel today. The way Star Trek felt before JJ was stale. Very, very stale.

@252. JJ at the helm isn’t slowing Star Trek tv down. Paramount wants Trek movies; that’s (no pun intended) paramount over whatever the CBS television production comapny wants to do.

@249 With that said, I don’t think Paramount treats Star Trek like Disney is interested in treating Star Wars. I think if they did, JJ wouldn’t have directed Trek 12, because he had other projects that wouldn’t have fitted Paramount’s time table.

But really, I’m sure executives at Paramount are upset with the situation. But that has nothing to do with him going to direct another “Star” franchise – it’s because JJ’s going to archrival Disney. By the time Star Wars VII is released, Paramount will have rebooted their “Star” franchise 9 years before hand. And that reboot had nothing to do with competing with Star Wars; it had everything to do with trying to get people interested in Star Trek again.

Star Trek and Star Wars ultimately are competing forces since they’re from two different movie companies. Let’s be real about this: there is no real competiion there. Star Trek into Darkness might make 350 million in the box office (ST09 got to 324 million, if I remember correctly). Star Wars VII will make 500-600 million easy. The only competition there actually is the unnecessary rivalry between hard core Trekkies and hard core Star Wars fans.

272. Riker's Beard - January 24, 2013

Not a huge SW fan since the prequals but this will make me buy a ticket. I think JJ will finish what he’s started with a new ST movie in ’17 or ’18. To call him a traitor is ridiculous and he’s clearly a good fit for SW.

273. ilker - January 24, 2013

It is a beautiful morning in Istanbul now, and this is just the best piece of Star Trek news to go with it :) I could not be happier to hear this.

What JJ has done with the Star Trek franchise was kill its soul, manage a nice casting, and glue mindless action scenes one after another, and make it look good thanks to ILM. I can’t say that the franchise went any further. A couple of hundreds of million more at the box office does not mean he saved the franchise. There are video game franchises that start from scratch and actually beat those dollars. Has JJ won the hearts of any new audiences with ST 2009, no. Has he mermerized us veteran fans, no. Because of these, I can not possibly imagine that a weathered giant like Paramount could be fooled by one fourth of the money they make single handedly from a super hero movie, when they look at ST 2009, and rate its success. And if they track Star Trek’s brand attributes as in a consumer research, they will see that the franchise did not go terribly further, in spite of all of the dust and fireworks that was there when it was announced that JJ was going to do it.

I am not blaming JJ. He’s a genre. He makes movies like house music. You like it when it is on. But immediately forget about it, and do not feel the urge to talk about it afterwards. That’s the same with Mission Impossible.

Frankly speaking, what we needed was a Nolan approach, and dedication. Someone who was more creative in the preps, someone who believed he could restart the whole thing without blowing Vulcan up and damaging one of the most sophisticated science fiction folklore ever created. God forbid, I am scared how creative JJ can get if he does a Lord of the Rings remake say after 10 years.

I am in favour of a new director and set of writers, to do a reset after Into Darkness, and give us proper Star Trek. Could not be happier to see JJ go. His style does not blend with Star Trek. It’s not a matter of judging his talents, it just is not his stuff. The Trek needs deeper insights and careful nurturing.

274. L4YERCAKE - January 25, 2013

@269

Exactly.

275. Rank_Zero - January 25, 2013

Did he have to play the “loyalty” card earlier? Seriously? These people are/were going to pay for a ticket (or more), to go see your work. A little more respect, maybe..?

Just saying.

276. Denize - January 25, 2013

Let him direct his Star Wars movie and give us an good director and a new version of Star Trek. Christopher Nolan anyone?

277. Son Of MJ - January 25, 2013

See here is my fear of a JJ Wars movie, he is going to just copy and mimick classic 70s 80s Lucas/Spielberg.
Which is what my big problem with Super 8 was.
I think he should have stuck to his guns and just remained a member of the audience like the rest of us.

I had hoped that getting Super 8 out of the way, he would have followed up Trek into Darkness with something truly orginal, that didnt rely on apeing the emotions that 80s films of directors like spielberg, Lucas, Howard, Zemeckis etc etc like what Super 8 did.

And I know a number of you will disagree with what I just said, and that is your right to, but It is also my opinon and it doesnt have to be right or wrong.

Having said that Countdown to Darkness has gotten me even more excited about what we will see in Trek into Darkness, especially the prospects that Capt April will be a big part of the story.

I’ve come to grow fond of what JJ has brought to Trek, and I really feel that him on Star wars will go back to mimcking the likes of Spielberg and Lucas.

But it is what it is

278. captain_neill - January 25, 2013

The irony is give n that he is a Star Wars fan, he will be more faithful to Star Wars and change little unlike what he did with Trek by making it feel more like Star Wars in places.

Interesting how things play out. lol

279. Son Of MJ - January 25, 2013

Red dead what bitter fued are you talking about between Disney and paramount. I think your mistaken their.
and Paramount willing agreed to hand over the distribution rights to Iron Man, Avengers, Capt America etc in exchange for a nice size check for each movie in those series, and retaining the paramount logo on each of the films in those series still to come.

Perhaps you are refering to the fued between Katzenberg’s Dream Works animation (which is no longer being distributed by Paramount by the way ) and Disney, but there is no bitter fued between Disney and paramount.

280. Son Of MJ - January 25, 2013

Oh and Rival studios help each other all the time.
in fact anytime a new movie comes out, competing studios negoitate to stick their trailers on other studios films.
(its not the theatre chains that make those trailer placement decisions)

Alot of “Rival” studio executives work togeather with each other on various charitable commitee boards.

Heck Paramount and Warner Bros co owned a theatres togeather for well over a decade as recent as 2 years ago.

Speaking of which Paramount has had several premieres in recent years at Disney owned and operated El Capitan.

281. Calastir - January 25, 2013

Last month he claimed loyalty and denied involvement.

Not a traitor, but a hypocrite and a liar then.

282. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - January 25, 2013

@273. When it comes to Star Trek movies and deep insight, it resulted in a largely bashed movie – The Motion Picture. The other Trek movies aren’t particularly deep – hell, The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country smacks you right in the face. If you want a Star Trek movie with deep insight that’s going to be popular and show growth in the brand, it’s not going to happen with Gene’s idealistic concept for the Trek universe – in essence, it’s soul.

When you talk about the “soul” of Star Trek, as much as I want to believe we’ll live on a planet where there is no money (just credits) and everybody gets along – it’s a completely unrealisitc ideal. But, it worked in 1966 because that’s when the future was cool and awesome and everybody imagined about having flying cars and monorails in their towns.

Meanwhile, I think Ron Moore put it best on the DVD commentary on First Contact. In so many words, he said Trek should be rebooted. That means eliminating the “sophisticated science fiction folklore” and starting over again. JJ Abrams didn’t damage it by destroying Vulcan in his universe. In fact, it creates a series of very interesting storylines – how do the Romulans react to the loss of Vulcan? How does it affect the Federation? In the 24th Century, assuming the Dominion War would still happen, is it now easier for them to win the war against the Federation?

283. Djeewhy - January 25, 2013

Pffffffffff if Mr JJ does make good Star Trek and good Star Wars I find no problem. The problem is: Will he be able to do both good, or just one of them or none of them?

284. Aix - January 25, 2013

Do you know the feeling when you see your parents giving your brother or sister a bigger gift on Christmas Day? That is how I felt when I saw this. It is juvenile but yeah, I feel like a jealous 5 year old. I thought you love us more JJ? Why, JJ? JJ!!!

285. Rank_Zero - January 25, 2013

@284, i laughed so hard and i actually kinda feel the same

286. Nx01 - January 25, 2013

Well this is the last Star Trek movie . He is not going to do both. I just wish he had not wasted 5 years not doing aStar Trek movie. If he does a Star Wars Movie I will not go see it.

287. MJ - January 25, 2013

@284. Yea, its a slap in the face to all of us!

Where in the hell is Anthony? This is a piss-poor time for his usual 2-month winter vacation?

288. Red Shirt Diaries - January 25, 2013

“See here is my fear of a JJ Wars movie, he is going to just copy and mimick classic 70s 80s Lucas/Spielberg.”

Cool. That is exactly the type of Star Wars I would pay to see! Bring it on!

289. Herb Finn - January 25, 2013

Perhaps with another producer-director the gaps between STAR TREK films will be shorter!

290. captain_neill - January 25, 2013

Well his directing style for Star Trek was to make it feel more like at Wars so not trying to sound like a hater I think he will be more a thome working on Star Wars.

291. Captain John C Baron - January 25, 2013

Well if this is true, good luck to JJ! Don’t understand this ‘act of betrayal’/'slap in the face’ stuff from a minority on here – have these people never switched jobs before!?

I think he’ll do a great job for Star Wars and I can’t wait to see it. And if he’s not back to direct a Trek 3 (assuming Trek 2 performs well enough as the box office) then hopefully he’ll be able to serve as exec producer much as he did (very successfully) with Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol.

The Trek franchise doesn’t end with JJ’s directorial availability – it has been around since 1966 y’know!

292. shamelord - January 25, 2013

36.

I agree. Brad Bird would be a great choice for a next Trek movie.

As for J.J. he does as he likes. Whatever his next directorial assignments are, God speed.

293. aligee in Scotland - January 25, 2013

Hi read thIs on another site and totally agree…
(I have edited it down to reflect my views)

I have been a Trek fan from TOS (I am a 54) all the way up and I stand behind JJ Abrams 100% on his contribution to Star Trek. His 2009 film was loyal to the Trek universe. If anything, people should get down on their knees and kiss JJ’s butt for rescuing the franchise from the steaming heap it eventually became when Voyager (70% of it became a rehash of TNG) and Enterprise (all just so bland until the end of the series ) were shown.

Good luck to him – if this is true. who wouldn’t want the chance to play in the Star Wars Universe! He must have got an offer he couldn’t refuse, and has every right to change his mind as a top Hollywood director.

There are plenty of other great director who can take up the directing reigns for Trek 3 and onwards and keep it fresh and surprising for us all.

I cant tell you how many of my non sci-fi friends, who have teased me throughout the years for being a Star trek fan – who cant wait for Star Trek 2013 since they saw Star trek 2009.

294. Vulcan Soul - January 25, 2013

Haha, the liar!

So much for ony wanting to commit to one saga creatively, eh, Abrams?!

Though we can hope from this that with Abrams finally being able to do the “real” Star Wars he always wanted that he either won’t have time to hack the Trek vision to pieces, or will be less inclined to turn it into his “Pet Star Wars” anymore at least…

295. Mark Lynch - January 25, 2013

Have not read any of the previous posts, so apologies in advance if I am repeating anything already said. I will read through later when I have more time.

Cannot say I am even remotely surprised at this… JJ Abrams first love has always been Star Wars.

I think he will make a great Star Wars film. But this means we will get another director for the third Star Trek film. This is not necessarily a bad thing and could end up being a great thing.

Hey Bob! How do you feel about directing the third Star Trek instalment in the new Universe you helped create?

Personally I’d love to see him do it.

296. Visitor1982 - January 25, 2013

JJ can do what he wants, but he shouldn’t have said things about his loyalty to Star Trek, only a few weeks ago! That doesn’t sound very trustworthy now.

Hopefully Paramount and CBS will bring Star Trek back to the small screen very soon…

297. JRT! - January 25, 2013

Yeah,a cheat and a liar. Married to Star Trek but Star War was always his mistress,LOL! Oh well,whatever. Wonder how many will not go see new Trek movie ‘cos of this……which is just stupid btw,as it’s just another movie amongst a lot of others this summer. My list is getting kinda long,lol!

J-R!

298. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

#222. Serpico Jones

That was the punt. PI=Pun Intended. I went for the pun.

However, I AM serious that the deal may have been sweetened by Disney reswallowing Bad Robot which used to be a part of TouchStone Television.

299. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

The Last Vulcan,

Did you see who got inducted into The Television Hall of Fame?

300. Sami - January 25, 2013

Is this still a rumor? I can understand the business decision on the part of Disney to give the project to JJ: he’s clearly capable of delivering a big budget hit, but the I question his artistic ability to make Star Wars visually unique. JJ has such a strong visual style in his films – lens flare etc.. I am shocked they would go with him with so many capable directors out there – I signed this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/disney-stop-j-j-abrams-from-directing-the-next-star-wars-film

301. Mel - January 25, 2013

“There were the very early conversations and I quickly said that because of my loyalty to Star Trek, and also just being a fan, I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things.”

He really shouldn’t have said that sentence above. He heavily contributed to make this about “loyalty” to a franchise. Not that I particular care about the Star Trek/Star Wars rivalry. Star Wars is practically only a handful of movies. A comparison between Star Trek and Stargate makes more sense in my opinion. I am waiting for both to make a revival as a TV show (something not as crap as SGU of course). I rather have hours of a series in a year than only 2 hours of a movie every few years.

Personally I don’t really care, if Abrams goes and doesn’t make the 3rd Star Trek movie. I always said, that there are other talented directors/writers out there, who could also do a good job. And because he was too busy, there are four years between the 1st and the 2nd Star Trek movie (2009-2013). With a new director, we may get the 3rd movie in 2015 and not in 2017. That is actually a good argument for getting rid of Abrams.

302. captain_neill - January 25, 2013

297

Even though I know his love for Star Wars is greater and the fact I prefer Prime Trek over Abrams Version, I still admit his film was fun and I will be there on opening night for Star Trek Into Darkness.

I feel it will be a stronger film and Cumberbatch will be amazing. If I come out saying that’s a Trek film then even better, but either way as a movie in it’s own right it should be good. Just a shame Abrams had to change things to make the mainstream love it.

303. Flake - January 25, 2013

Good for both franchises imho

We now know the next Star Wars will be great and we know that the team making the next Trek movie will be new which can be a good thing.

No reason to hate Abrams or Bad Robot for doing this, they must have got an offer they could not refuse.

Paramount need to ensure that after STiD is released and Bad Robot sign off they get someone else as good or better than Abrams etc – They need to pull out all the stops to compete with SW and ensure Trek movies can continue.

304. Boomer13 - January 25, 2013

JJ Abrams real name is Jar Jar. I’m not happy. But I’m a fool’s fanboy to care.

305. JRT! - January 25, 2013

Oh I don’t care one or the other to be honest,I love it all! LOL! Of COURSE I’ll see the new Trek movie,and SW,and Spidey,and Avengers,and…..well,anything that’s fun,lol! Now make a Doctor Who movie already!! lol!

J-R!

306. intruder - January 25, 2013

In my opinion, the only director that can replace JJ on Trek is Alfonso Cuaron. Heck, he is even more talented than JJ, but who knows if he is remotely interested…

307. Daniel - January 25, 2013

J.J., if this is true, CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!! Man, that´s awesome, that`s huge!!!! A Dream come true, what ? Wow!!!! Thanks for what you have done for STAR TREK. Love it completely. You are a great artist & director for me and deserve all the stuff happen to you right now…..i am sure you worked hard for this, and i am sure it was hard for you to resist such an offer…..i can imagine!

So, keep up your passion for the “nerdy stuff” and i respect your achievement in this hard business. Keep up the great work…

Do whatever you want to do……..cheers to you from Germany, Daniel

oh, and party hard with all your guys at BAD ROBOT!!!!!! i think all the people there are blown away by this…….

308. Ian B - January 25, 2013

Hollywood’s talent pool seems to be incredibly small. I mean, there are 300 million people in the USA; yet the same few names keep cropping up directing, screenwriting, etc. Seems very odd, like they all visit the same pub and it’s like, “fancy writing another movie?” “Okay”.

Talking of which, the baffling thing is that this tiny pool of people come out with terrible codswallop like Prometheus, and then you really start wondering what the employment criteria are.

Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see what this new Star Wars comes out like. I’m not bothered whether it’s good or not, not being a “fan”. I am one of that generation who had the life-changing experience of seeing Star Wars as a child (I was 11 in ’77) when movie sci-fi changed forever, but I never really became a fanboy, reserving my fanboyism for Trek and the second life-changing experience of seeing that beautiful new Enterprise on screen in ’79.

Thing is though, Trek was always a communal effort. Despite Roddenberry claiming credit for everything, it was a vision of many minds- Gene Coon, Matt Jeffries, etc etc. But Star Wars is Lucas’s imagination made flesh, love or loathe the second trilogy (not being a fan, I quite enjoyed them as movies, as it goes). So Star Wars without Lucas… it’s a bit like Apple without Steve Jobs.

It’s not as if Star Wars was ever about really great stories or writing. They are good kids’ movies, made special by “the vision thing”. So I can’t really see where they intend to go with it. I suspect that no new Star Wars can ever satisfy the “fans” since they’re generally old people like me who want that sensawunda they felt in 1977 when they were children and, like your first kiss or Beatlemania, that’s a one shot proposition.

Anyway, I dunno. I can’t help but feel that if the half a dozen people in Hollywood qualified to write or direct a movie had a few fewer projects on their plates, we might get a Trek movie more often than once every half decade, and thus manage to tell several Trek stories before the cast are all hairpieces and botox faces. Which would be nice.

309. Ian B - January 25, 2013

Hollywood’s talent pool seems to be incredibly small. I mean, there are 300 million people in the USA; yet the same few names keep cropping up directing, screenwriting, etc. Seems very odd, like they all visit the same pub and it’s like, “fancy writing another movie?” “Okay”.

Talking of which, the baffling thing is that this tiny pool of people come out with terrible codswallop like Prometheus, and then you really start wondering what the employment criteria are.

Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see what this new Star Wars comes out like. I’m not bothered whether it’s good or not, not being a “fan”. I am one of that generation who had the life-changing experience of seeing Star Wars as a child (I was 11 in ’77) when movie sci-fi changed forever, but I never really became a fanboy, reserving my fanboyism for Trek and the second life-changing experience of seeing that beautiful new Enterprise on screen in ’79.

Thing is though, Trek was always a communal effort. Despite Roddenberry claiming credit for everything, it was a vision of many minds- Gene Coon, Matt Jeffries, etc etc. But Star Wars is Lucas’s imagination made flesh, love or loathe the second trilogy (not being a fan, I quite enjoyed them as movies, as it goes). So Star Wars without Lucas… it’s a bit like Apple without Steve Jobs.

It’s not as if Star Wars was ever about really great stories or writing. They are good kids’ movies, made special by “the vision thing”. So I can’t really see where they intend to go with it. I suspect that no new Star Wars can ever satisfy the “fans” since they’re generally old people like me who want that sensawunda they felt in 1977 when they were children and, like your first kiss or Beatlemania, that’s a one shot proposition.

Anyway, I dunno. I can’t help but feel that if the half a dozen people in Hollywood qualified to write or direct a movie had a few fewer projects on their plates, we might get a Trek movie more often than once every half decade, and thus manage to tell several Trek stories before the cast are all hairpieces and botox faces. Which would be nice.

310. Ian B - January 25, 2013

I swear I only hit “say it!” once. Sorry!

311. CJS - January 25, 2013

It was Abrams who cited his loyalty to Star Trek as one of the reasons he was not pursuing the Star Wars job. Therefore it is by his own standard that he is now being disloyal. But you are right, it’s just about a couple of movie series, and not genuinely important. But he owes it to the Trek franchise to let an adult direct the next movie while he’s off playing with his Star Wars action figures.

312. UPFX - January 25, 2013

Lets hope its not, Jar Jar Abrams.

313. William Kirk - January 25, 2013

This could mean that the Trek could return back to the Prime Universe :-)

314. Alec - January 25, 2013

What does this mean for Star Trek? Are the writers et al following JJ? Will we see the complete Trek ‘trilogy’? I would like some answers instead of just questions….

315. madtrekfanuk - January 25, 2013

Good… JJ can hand over directing duties of the next trek movie to Nick Meyer…. Best news I’ve heard in a while…..

316. Rastaman - January 25, 2013

I say if it at all makes Star Wars a little more Star Trekky than I am ALL for it. Always thought these two franchises could benefit more from each other. Is JJ the glue?

317. Herb Borton - January 25, 2013

@ 314 – Agreed. Although the idea of Nick Meyer jumping back in would be fantastic, perhaps a pipe dream though.

I too would like some answers on the future of the 3rd Trek. Hope that comes out soon.

Its like a guy taking his dream girl to the prom but when they get there, the girl hooks up with the quarterback and leaves with him.

318. The Keeper - January 25, 2013

So hardcore Star Trek fans will return to suggesting their favorite mundane directors and soapy toilet water stories…so sad.

319. alec - January 25, 2013

Also, is it wise to make such an announcement before the release of the new Trek film? Some fans and people who only went because of JJ might boycott it in protest….

But, if true, this makes it more likely Khan is in the next one: would JJ leave Trek without having done a Khan film. If so, it would be unfinished business having not utilised the main villain: the best that Trek has to offer. Therefore, either JJ is not going and this news is either false (yet to be confirmed) or it’s true but JJ is not going (he’s doing both at different times)….

320. Mark Lynch - January 25, 2013

^^^
@318
Okay, I’ll bite… :-)

If Bob Orci doesn’t want to direct I think Robert Zemeckis is a great choice.

321. BulletInTheFace - January 25, 2013

Again, folks, look up the term “hypocrite.” As Inigo Montoya says, “I do not think it means what you think it means.” This is not an example of hypocrisy.

322. madtrekfanuk - January 25, 2013

Or throwing it out there, assuming JJ isn’t directing Trek 3…..

Jonathan Frakes anyone???

323. porthoses bitch - January 25, 2013

Wonder how Disney will feel about Jj’s secrecey…..I mean here we are 4 months from STID and we still know very little. Disney puts out trailers two years ahead of a film.

324. Mark Lynch - January 25, 2013

@322
Johnathan Frakes is a great TNG director, but would he cope with this revised Trek Universe? Maybe…

Mind you, I would think at the very least we would get a proper Engineering set.

325. The Keeper - January 25, 2013

@321:
Sadly the real hypocrites are the fans themselves…they have been the ones with a track record of bringing down Star Trek “because of what they want”

@320:
the first of better suggestions..I just don’t want to be hearing Meyer’s, Frakes or even Nimoy tossed around like save all’s of Star Trek.
They are not.

326. Mark Lynch - January 25, 2013

Would Nick Meyer be interested or able to direct a really large Trek movie now? Would Paramount consider it?

IIRC he has not directed anything since 1999, Vendetta, which was a TV movie. Have not seen it so I don’t kow whether it was any good.

327. Jose kuhn - January 25, 2013

If Nemesis had a 150 mil budget with Frakes directing we would not have needed JJ.

The biggest problem facing Trek was that the production values of the movie were barely a step up from Enterprise.

It simply felt like a big episode. That is budget more than anything.

328. Mark Lynch - January 25, 2013

The best things I take away from this announcement for Star Trek 3 – The New Universe (!)

Or rather what I hope for…

1) No bloody lens flares (Sorry JJ, I hate them)
2) Less or no shaky camera work
3) A proper Engineering set
4) More thought and less bang (but perhaps STID will surprise)

I’m sure I will think of others, but those above are the biggest in my mind.

329. Victor Hugo - January 25, 2013

309. you want to feel that “sensawunda “? Play Final Fantasy RPG games, one by one, you´ll feel the same, garanteed.

330. Victor Hugo - January 25, 2013

327. “Insurrection” and “Nemesis” seemed like half baked copies of the best of “Babylon 5″.

Aside of Manny Coto, J. Michael Straczynski is the other guy i would love to take care of Star Trek.

When i was watching the “THOR” movie, i was seeing J. Michael Straczynski fingerprints all over it. It was mostly Babylon 5, with little bits of Marvel on it.

331. Logicalleopard - January 25, 2013

41. dmduncan – January 24, 2013

Soon, Star Wars fans will be hating JJ for

making Star Wars go all Star Trek.

********************

*LOLOLOLOL*

Han, Chewie, and Leia watch from the surface of a planet as the Millennium Falcon autodestructs in orbit

Han: My god, Leia, what have I done….

Leia: You’ve done what you’ve always done….shot first.

Chewie: Gggrrrrrrraahhhhhhhh

332. Mark Lynch - January 25, 2013

Considering the news, I thought this image I found was pertinent.

Don’t worry it is safe for work and may even make you chuckle…

http://forum.starplex.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=116

Have a look around, but please remember to close the door and turn out the lights when you leave!

333. Ben - January 25, 2013

I had really hoped we’d get Trek 3 for the TOS 50th anniversary in 2016… guess that’s not happening now…

334. Ian B - January 25, 2013

329- It’s not me that wants the sensawunda. It’s those guys with the complete set of Star Wars figures and the Chewbacca duvets.

335. Logicalleopard - January 25, 2013

So he turned it down initially. And then he picks it up. Maybe he figured later if he dropped some other commitments, like personal Super 8 type films, he could do Wars and not abandon Trek, as far as producing.

But bottom line, most critics of him can’t probably say that if they were producing and directing Star Wars, and the chance to direct Star Trek after Roddenberry said he wouldn’t do any more, you’d do it.

336. Bender Bending Rodriguez - January 25, 2013

I would imagine that if Mr. Abrams is gone for good, they may want wrap up the alternative universe story arc in the Trek AFTER Darkness.

I would be happy with something simple, like the final scene being the new cast in the original series uniforms on the original series bridge with Pine’s Kirk saying “Mr. Sulu, take us out of orbit, warp factor 1″, with the cut away being the TOS enterprise and maybe some music from Alexander Courage’s score.

337. Holger - January 25, 2013

He ruined Star Trek. After the Star Wars prequel trilogy there isn’t so much left to ruin in Star Wars but I’m confident he will manage to get even below the standards set by Episode I. That’s how I see it.

338. VOODOO - January 25, 2013

J.J. is now the ultimate power in the universe…Nerd universe that is : )

339. Killamarshtrek - January 25, 2013

Let me be first to predict.

Robert April will be in the next Star wars film!!

You heard it here first!

340. Mark Lynch - January 25, 2013

@333
There is no way on the planet that Paramount are going to let the 50th anniversary slide without a movie… Especially as they have “the trilogy” to finish up now. With ot without JJ.

I guarantee it!

341. Horatio - January 25, 2013

JJ Abrams. Hmmmm. Jar Jar Abrams.

Its all becoming so clear.

Well, look at it this way. Lets say Star Trek Into Darkness turns out to be the kick ass wonderful movie that the buzz says it is. And lets say JJ makes a Star Wars movie that totally blows and rates a 10 on the Jar Jar scale.

I’m a SW fan as well, but this scenario does give me warm fuzzies.

342. msn1701 - January 25, 2013

I would love if if JJ could do both! He really would be perfect for Star Wars. He has my full support :) Especially if Leia and Han’s twin babies Jacen and Jaina show up!

343. Ctrl-Opt-Del - January 25, 2013

I now envision official comic book crossovers that will throw quite the spanner in the fanon…

344. ProtoVulcan - January 25, 2013

See you in 2016, JJ.

Hopefully the mouse isn’t too pissed when you keep him waiting an extra year like you did with us. TWICE.

Clearly, the next Star Trek will have a new director. There could be 3 by the time JJ would get another Star Trek out in 2019. [2015, 2017]

345. Flake - January 25, 2013

FROM THE DIRECTOR OF STAR TREK: STAR WARS

346. CJS - January 25, 2013

@339

No. Everyone knows Gary Mitchell is the emperor. He was throwing force lighting back before the force existed.

347. Romulus - January 25, 2013

No star trek 13 then.

“Spock prep your ship, your returning to the Prime universe”

348. James McFadden - January 25, 2013

i’d say JJ will still direct the 13th Trek movie along with Trek shows

349. USSEXETER - January 25, 2013

Jonathen Frakes for director of the next Trek film. JJ got his wish for Star Wars, and those who hated JJ can hope he will bow out of the next Trek film.

350. EM - January 25, 2013

Great news for Star Wars, not so great for Star Trek! Hopefully, the writing and production staff will remain the same for Star Trek for at least one more film.
Star Trek was a reboot, and JJ & Co. did a great job. Star Wars is not a reboot, it is a continuation. I’m sure that JJ will do a great job with Star Wars and return it to the glories of the ’70s and ’80s!

351. Tombot3000 - January 25, 2013

I’m sorry, I’d rather have Lucas than JJ. Revenge of the Sith, despite it’s problems, had Lucas sort of shedding the rust of his years… if only, he’d had more proper push-back on his wrong-headed ideas.
Emotionally, I’m just going to shrug it off, as I don’t feel newly betrayed. Star Trek ’09 didn’t ignite a new fury of fandom in me. I didn’t buy any ST ’09 paraphernalia… not even the DVD. Of course, I don’t own much anymore anyway.
As for possible new directors, a new direction for Star Trek… I’d love one in the vein of Master & Commander, perhaps even directed by Peter Weir, if he was interested.

352. SirBroiler - January 25, 2013

Does J.J. directing Star Wars automatically mean that this is a Bad Robot production? I don’t think so.

Spielberg directed Raiders and the subsequent Indy movies – but they were productions of Lucasfilm and Paramount – no Amblin Entertainment or Dreamworks connection at all.

I’m guessing that J.J. directs this but with no Bad Robot involvement. That allows Bad Robot to continue progress on the third Star Trek, likely with J.J. Executive Producing and a new director taking the helm – hand picked by J.J. of course.

I see Disney wisely following the original Star Wars model of having different directors at the helm of each film.

No matter what, Trek is not dead and the new Star Wars will be infinitely better than the prequels train wreck.

353. TheRedShirt - January 25, 2013

Now that J.J. is going to go save Star Wars can we expect Uwe Boll taking the reigns for Star Trek XIII?

354. Mad Mann - January 25, 2013

Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the internets blow up like this in a long time. JJ Abrams is living a fanboy’s dream right now.

355. Robert - January 25, 2013

Didn’t those same sources confirm that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing Khan?

356. Bill - January 25, 2013

I honeslty could see someone doing both. I mean the pre-production work on Star Wars VII will take a while and I am sure it is way underway. So a four month shoot, 6-8 months in post.

If everyone else is working on Star Trek XIII, they could have him be the director of both and have ST it done by 2016 and Star Wars VIII by 2018.

357. aligee in Scotland - January 25, 2013

the Empire Strikes Back indeed….lol

358. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 25, 2013

I am trying to think when Disney hopes to have the Star Wars film released – 2015? So if JJ starts on the SW movie in the next few months and allowing for a year in post-production, then the movie will likely be ready Summer 2015 release. However, he could still start directing and filming the third Star Trek movie while the SW movie is in its final stages of post-production. I am allowing for each movie to take about 18 months to make from the moment principle photography starts. I am hoping for a 2016 release of the third Star Trek – date 8 September 2016!

It would certainly be a tight schedule…

Could it be done, if JJ Abrams had the responsibility of just directing the Star Wars movie only? What do you think, Bob Orci?

359. Lt. Dakin - January 25, 2013

Paramount needs to announce a deal for Star Trek 3 with screenwriters and a director and keep it on track for 2015 or 2016.

I don’t want to wait around a zillion years for a third Star Trek movie on the hope JJ will direct.

360. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 25, 2013

I am very, very pleased with this bit of news. I see a new golden age of Sci-Fi coming….

361. New Horizon - January 25, 2013

Rather disappointed if this turns out to be true.

362. Sean1701 - January 25, 2013

I’m happy with this news. JJ will do a good job. I just hope they bring the director of “Tron:Legacy” in for Episode 8 or 9 after he finishes his duties on Tron 3.

363. DisgruntledTrekkie - January 25, 2013

Big deal.
He’s been making Star Wars movies since 2009. :)

364. flo - January 25, 2013

@ 363. i lol’d :D
exactly my point of view. sure, trek was trek wasn’t great on the big screen and it never reached the visual scope of the last movie but prior 2009 big screen trek at least tried to be not only visuals. for those who think the same read this interview: http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/01172013_robmeyerburnett7.html

365. flo - January 25, 2013

minus the “trek was” :)

366. Emperor Mike of the Empire - January 25, 2013

Well. Look’s like J.J will be the True Emperor of Star Movie’s. Lol

367. DeShonn Steinblatt - January 25, 2013

So, no Khan then?

368. LJ - January 25, 2013

I love both Stars (all three, if you include Stargate), and I don’t have any problem with JJ/Badrobot being involved in both. The two franchises are completely different sharing, what, that they both happen to be in space. I don’t see any reason why one should suffer as a result of work on the other – if you look at the history of the two, it could be argued by have benefitted from each other.

I personally feel that Wars would be more difficult to rejuvenate than Trek, due to questions of where you do with the plot (Vader dead, Palpatine dead, Empire crumbling), and the natural connect between the audience and the Trek universe (we’re from he same place), but I wish JJ the best with both.

369. The Last Vulcan - January 25, 2013

Again, I’m on a huge project’s deadline so I barely have time to sleep lately as I really wish I could participate more especially with all this hot news.

My take on this news: 100% Negative. JJ has a very identifiable visual style that he universally applies to his work and which I’m sure he will carry over to SW. This blur the distinctions between it and ST. But then again, nothing could be much worse than Lucas’ Prequels so I’ll still pay my ticket to go see it.

299. Disinvited – Yeah, that Rat B##tard Moonves. He should be in the Hall Of Shame instead… alongside Ken Lay, Angelo Mozilo, and Bernie Madoff.. His enshrinement just goes to prove that treachery and perfidy is rewarded in Corporate America.

370. Riker's Mailbox - January 25, 2013

For those that are saying ‘This is not the Star Trek I grew up with,’ keep in mind that there has always been two different Star Treks; one being the shows, and the other being the feature films.

As much as everyone would like the movies to be a big budget version of the cerebral show, that isn’t going to happen. The models are totally different.

J.J. Abrams created a Trek for movie audiences. If he were creating a television series Trek, which I’m sure he’s capable of doing, the show would have the necessary elements that make television Trek what it is.

371. Bill Lutz - January 25, 2013

Good.
Let him ruin Star Wars the same way he ruined Star Trek.

372. I am not Herbert - January 25, 2013

Good! let JJ go f*ck up Star Wars!

then maybe he will hand Star Trek back to someone who can do Sci-Fi?!

not only is he a hack, he’s full of sh*t…

and take boborci with you!

373. Smike - January 25, 2013

Imagine…What would have people said back in…October last year if they had read a headline like that???

JJ. ABRAMS to direct next “STAR WARS” for DISNEY…

It’s simply incredible what has transpired so far…

It’ll be difficult to top that ever again…

SPIELBERG to direct “THE SILMARILLION” for FOX?

PETER JACKSON to helm “HARRY POTTER PREQUEL” at Paramount?

Just insane :-)

374. Non-existant gay trek character - January 25, 2013

Oh Fab! Maybe now we can get an alternate universe Star Trek/Star Wars cross-over!!!

375. George Zip - January 25, 2013

I think his vision fits STAR WARS more than STAR TREK, honestly. Maybe we can get someone who’s a little more aligned with Roddenberry’s version of TREK to do the third installment — if it even happens.

376. alec - January 25, 2013

Why hasn’t this ‘news’ been confirmed or denied yet? I’ve checked back after seeing the page for the first time several hours ago….why has there been no official announcement? This only makes it worse; if he’s gone, just tell us…

If true, it’s bad timing for the Trek fans who are awaiting an upcoming film. I wonder if they ‘vote with their feet’. I feel inclined to, if this news is true. If it’s a good film, I can always catch it on home release, perhaps.

377. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 25, 2013

I’d love to be at that Disney Board meeting when they vote on JJ

378. Thundergil the Slow - January 25, 2013

EPIC! “Can’t wait to see the new Death Star built on the ground with lots of lens flares.” – Quark

379. alec - January 25, 2013

16. Joe G. – January 24, 2013

No; it’s really Trek or Wars: not both. It would be like having the same person/persons helm Bond and Bourne/M.I. It just wouldn’t be acceptable or commercially sound for it to happen.

If JJ goes, what will his relationship be like with Paramount? He had quite a few projects there…

380. Gary S. - January 25, 2013

It is still a rumor.
until it is confirmed .
IF it is confirmed.

381. Caesar - January 25, 2013

Worst news I’ve heard all week. I really hate this guy.

382. Rank_Zero - January 25, 2013

it’s all over the internet. me thinks it can’t be fake..

383. Danpaine - January 25, 2013

No feelings on this whatsoever. I’m pretty confident there’s other directors out there who can put out a fine, even better Trek film. I personally find JJ’s films….fine, but they don’t blow me away.

And like other folks have said…if they even have a 3rd trek installment.

384. ados - January 25, 2013

If you thought this trek movie was well hidden….wait to the secrecy of a Star Wars gig

385. Chriz - January 25, 2013

At least now he can do all the Star Wars stuff, he always sneaks into Star Trek…

386. NuFan - January 25, 2013

364

Oh, look at that. Even Robert Meyer Somebody says it’s going to be Khan.

387. Scott - January 25, 2013

Is there a crossover movie in the future? Can anyone picture Chewie sitting on the bridge of the Enterprise?

388. LostOnNCC1701 - January 25, 2013

Ah, I kind of figured JJ Would take a backseat role in Trek after “Into Darkness” anyway (as a producer or something), this just confirms it. Considering how well he did with Star Trek- which he even admitted he was only a casual fan of- It’ll be interesting to see how well he does with his first love, Star Wars.

389. Hat Rick - January 25, 2013

HARK, the herald Trekmovie sings….

I will tell you this — my heart is not so light for Star Trek, but in the end, I have decided…

…what does this matter?

JJ Abrams has decided, apparently, that he cannot pass up this opportunity.

Just as I prefer to Trek, others may see SW as such. And I really must try to be happy for Abrams. And for SW, since SW isn’t such a bad thing; it isn’t bad at all; it’s a very nice thing.

Let’s hope for the best, my friends.

The best is yet to be.

390. holly - January 25, 2013

I’ve got my fingers crossed that JJ will call up Benedict Cumberbatch for Star Wars as he’d be perfect for so many roles.

391. ados - January 25, 2013

Look at this storms name…http://www.weather.com/

392. Rank_Zero - January 25, 2013

KHAAAAAAAAAN!!!!

393. Orb of the Emissary - January 25, 2013

Uhm, yeah. This calls for the Agony Booth from the Mirror Universe.

394. Mad MAnn - January 25, 2013

OK, so who should direct the next Star Trek since Abrams will obviously be unavailable?

My hopes: Brad Bird or Joss Whedon.

395. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 25, 2013

I’ve been on JJ Abrams side ever since we learnt of his vision for Star Trek and I’ve got to say that after this news I am so disappointed with him.

I totally get why he wants to do it and I don’t think he’s a traitor but…

After saying that due to his loyalty to Star Trek he wouldn’t do Star Wars and then going ahead and doing Wars anyway just seems disrespectful and completely unfair on every single fan that has been with Abrams from the start.

Although this is business when it comes down it, I do think Star Trek has been treated very badly with this news and whilst its great for Star Wars fans, this news won’t do anything but hurt Star Trek’s reputation with mainstream movie goers, this will be seen by many that Abrams has turned away from Star Trek to do the “better” Star Wars franchise.

I hope Abrams has a good reason besides being a fan of Wars as to why he has just flipped all of the fans who have loyally supported his Trek vision from the beginning.

This news makes me feel very cold about the future of Trek and yeah I think as a fan-base we do deserve an explanation otherwise I think perhaps Paramount should start looking for a new creative team. I don’t think he should do both.

One thing is certain I won’t be going to see Star Wars.

396. Rank_Zero - January 25, 2013

395, I am so with you on that post. I totally agree.

397. Thorny - January 25, 2013

Is anyone really surprised by this news? I don’t think Mr. Abrams’ heart was ever in Star Trek. It was a means to an end, and clearly a very successful means. He gave us a good, maybe even very good, but not a great Trek movie. I’ll be standing in line to see Trek Into Darkness, but I’m really fed up with Hollywood’s love affair with dark and dreary, doom-and-gloom movies, and I don’t have high hopes for this one. (You’ve already destroyed Vulcan and Romulus, I shudder to think what’s going to happen in this one.) Good luck with Star Wars, Mr. Abrams, I’ll probably be in line to see that one, too. Especially if you don’t let George Lucas anywhere near the script.

Now, Paramount, bring on Joss Whedon or Bryan Singer to direct Trek XIII.

398. Sebastian S. - January 25, 2013

A perfect fit, IMO. ;-)
JJ Abrams made a better Star Wars movie with ST09 than George Lucas did with all three prequels combined.

ST09 had the warmth and focus on character that the SW prequels sorely lacked. If he can bring that particular focus to the ailing SW franchise? It’ll be great once again (as it hasn’t been for me since the original trilogy really… ).

The force is strong with him!

399. Aurore - January 25, 2013

105. dmduncan – January 24, 2013
93. Aurore – January 24, 2013
That’s provocation dmduncan!
***
Indubitably!
_______

That is how you wanna do it, HUH?!

O.K.

The Star Wars franchise people were desperate to get people interested in their planned sequels nobody cared about.

People only talk about their next movie, now, thanks to Mr. Abrams.

They needed him. Not the other way around.

(Aaahhh….
Ça fait du bien….)

:)

400. Bruce Banner - January 25, 2013

Perhaps the Star Wars fans are less critical and not so hard to please. That could be one reason for JJ abandoning Star Trek.

401. flake - January 25, 2013

When is the next Abrams interview? Because he will be bombarded with Star Wars questions when hes trying to promote Star TREK…. very odd situation to find yourself in!

Should have waited until July or something before announcing it. Very strange timing.

402. Herman Munster - January 25, 2013

For all those who say they won’t go see the new Star Wars movies – liars.

Stop acting like spoiled, pouting babies.

403. DisgruntedTrekkie - January 25, 2013

402.
I won’t go see it. Not because of Abrams, but because I’m not a fan of Star Wars in general
My main gripe with Abrams is him turning Trek into Wars.

404. Jai - January 25, 2013

Well, if this rumour is true, I guess JJ Abrams gets to do his dream job. So congratulations to him. I bet he’s thrilled.

If this also means JJ is bailing out of directing “Star Trek 3″, I’d love to see Christopher Nolan take over. I hope Nolan is one of the options Paramount, Bob Orci etc are considering.

405. Michael - January 25, 2013

@386

Now if only Nicholas Meyer and Oscar Meyer would come forward.

406. Phil - January 25, 2013

@358. Considering the number of other projects Bad Robot has in the pipe (don’t forget they just announced a Lance Armstrong project a couple of days ago), what’s more likely is that Bad Robot will produce Trek 13, and someone not named JJ will direct. I\This didn’t come out of the blue for Paramount because of BR’s contractual obligations for them, so I doubt they have a lot of concerns about the ability of BR to deliver a third Trek movie. If you think about it, a healthy Star Wars franchise is good for Trek, too – it increases the awareness of Sci-Fi for all brands….

407. PleasureGirl1990 - January 25, 2013

He screwed-up Star Trek; let him mess with Star Wars…

408. Aashlee - January 25, 2013

Sadly, this thread demonstrates the worst stereotypical behavior of some of Trek’s most vehement “fans.”

Really, why must JJ Abrams or any other director, producer, what-have-you be limited to a single franchise? Why must it be “either/or” instead of “and”? You don’t think the guy has enough bandwidth, imagination, and management skills to direct both “Star Trek” and “Star Wars”? Why such a two-dimensional, black & white outlook?

And what’s with all the name-calling? “Traitor”…honestly? When JJ Abrams signed on to direct “Star Trek,” did he take some kind of blood oath or something? Did he sign away his right to take on new projects and challenges, to boldly go where few directors have gone before? The guy has a right to develop his career. Why you think you have some say over that is beyond me.

In the past when he said that he had no intention of directing “Star Wars,” that was probably true. Then Lucas sold it to Disney; conditions changed. The opportunity itself changed, and so JJ Abrams exercised his right to change his mind. He made no promises to anyone, so his change of mind violates nothing. It’s his life; it’s his right. You have no say over it.

So, if JJ Abrams does direct “Star Wars,” then I say CONGRATULATIONS to him. I think his input will infuse life into the franchise that, in my opinion, has become ponderous and stale. I’ll look forward to seeing it in the theatres along with the third Abrams “Star Trek.”

If you cannot reconcile yourself to that, then stay out of the theatres. There will be more room for the rest of us, and we’ll enjoy our movie experience more without having to listen to your grumbling.

409. PIcard, Jean-Luc - January 25, 2013

I think Joss Whedon would do an amazing Star Trek that would fit with Abrams 2 Trek’s perfectly since you don’t want the actors and storyline to be thrown out. I’d love to see these characters get a good send off.

410. Non-existant gay trek character - January 25, 2013

@404.
“. . . directing “Star Trek 3″, I’d love to see Christopher Nolan take over. . . .”

I like that idea!

411. PIcard, Jean-Luc - January 25, 2013

Bet we all wish Berman was back now! haha least he wasn’t getting other offers

412. Shannon Nutt - January 25, 2013

JJ’s movie will create an alternate timeline where the prequels and special editions did not happen.

413. Flake - January 25, 2013

No way Nolan will direct Trek! Unless he is a fan??

More chance of Spielberg directing Trek because hes friends with JJ !

We already know Bryan Singer is a fan of Star Trek, maybe he would direct? Superman Returns aside he is still highly respected.

Quentin Tarantinos favourite film is Wrath of Khan…….

414. Thebiggfrogg - January 25, 2013

Felicity fans will be furious!

415. Non-existant gay trek character - January 25, 2013

@413.
“. . . Bryan Singer . . . ”

That would be fine, too.

416. Hodge Podge - January 25, 2013

Fair enough. The direction of the ’09 was beautiful, it was the script I had a problem with. Good luck to him, he seems more comfortable over there.

I like both franchises, so please get the spirit of Star Wars right JJ! Do it right and you can resurrect that whole universe in people’s minds.

Maybe this means we can get a new Trek series now???

417. Slornie - January 25, 2013

How about a Trek/Wars crossover movie?

Two years after the events of Into Darkness, the crew of the Enterprise are pulled into a wormhole and are dragged back in time to A Galaxy Far Far Away, where ships are much bigger and there are lots of people running around with glow sticks.

418. Ensign RedShirt - January 25, 2013

I think he’s a perfect fit for Star Wars. That’s far more his sensibility than Trek. I wish him the best and look forward to whatever he and the gang at Lucasfilm come up with. Trek will be fine. There are plenty of other talented directors out there that would love to get their hands on it.

419. Captain Hackett - January 25, 2013

Quit pissing off about his decision to direct next Star Wars movie ok?

I think his decision will may help Star Trek by bringing Star Wars fanboys into our new movie so they can get better ideas on what JJ Abrans does with the movie. IMHO it is a positive sign for fans in both great sci-fi franchises.

I am a huge Trekkie, and I love Star Wars as well. I am thrilled with his decision!

420. Phil - January 25, 2013

Though few Trek fans will admit it, most of them like Star Wars as well.

421. Anthony Lewis - January 25, 2013

I love the idiots who actually feel “betrayed”. How is he betraying anything? He directed ST09, he wasn’t a guarantee to direct STiD but he did, and there was no guarantee for him to direct the third and even if he did it was very likely going to be his final involvement in Trek any way.

I loved the new movie and I’m probably going to love the next movie as well. The only real “betrayal” hear is that he is also working on a Star Wars movie which is supposedly controversial because fanboys love comparing the two even though they are entirely different franchises that tell incredibly different kinds of stories. It just so happens they both exist in space and both have “Star” in their title.

I’m so excited to see the new Star Wars movies unfold!

422. Crone - January 25, 2013

I can’t believe I am about to say this. They’re only movies. ( Runs and hides and ducks the flying rubber chickens),

423. Crone - January 25, 2013

And, to whoever mentioned Joss Whedon for Trek I would like to add a solid YES to that idea.

424. Ralph Pinheiro - January 25, 2013

If JJ can not direct ST XIII I’d like to see Jonathan Frakes as director.

425. bmar - January 25, 2013

It’s an omen!!!! The National Weather Service has named the Winter Storm that’s heading East…and they’ve named it:

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/winter-storm-khan-20130124

426. Fuba Mushu - January 25, 2013

So much for “loyalty” to the Star Trek franchise.

On the bright side, maybe this means we can say good-bye to lens flares and hello to a production team and director who truly understands what Star Trek is all about and will give us a real Star Trek film.

427. The MOSEPH!! - January 25, 2013

As Vader now says, “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

428. mercury - January 25, 2013

336, this already happened in Star Trek 2009.
And there *will* be a 3rd Trek, that much is clear.

429. REM1701 - January 25, 2013

No “ONE” man should be in “control” of histories 2 “BIGGEST! sci-fi franchies :-(

430. Gerf Ditty - January 25, 2013

Oh sweet holy mother of AWESOME!

431. T2 - January 25, 2013

something, something, something Star Trek. something, something, something Star Wars. something, something, JJ Abrams.

He’s only human. If JJ’s a Star Wars fan, especially from his childhood, then good for him. That’s a great opportunity as both a fan and a director.

Star Trek should go on with or without him. TOS cast had 4 directors for the first 6 movies. The II-III-IV ‘trilogy’ had 2 directors, so why can’t the I-II-III reboots have 2?

I think there have been only 3 Trek movies released while new Star Wars films were being made/released (TMP, TWOK, NEM). This should provide some new incentive to push STID really hard and make STXIII damn good.

432. Joss Whedons Mom - January 25, 2013

Another yes vote for Joss m***** f****** Whedon!!

433. REM1701 - January 25, 2013

BTW: All U people out-there whining & cry’in over “LOYALTY” “grow the HELL-UP!” This is a “BUSINESS!” It’s all about the “bottom-line” MONEY. He’s not a “Trekkie!” he’s a director/ business-man. JEEZ! :-(

434. theinnerlight - January 25, 2013

Maybe now we can get the long awaited Deathstar versus Enterprise conflict! :)

All kidding aside, I betcha we’ll find tons of Star Trek Easter eggs in the new Star Wars film. Maybe a vision of the Enterprise in the background, some tribbles conspicuously placed, etc.

Like Ron Moore did on Galactica. There is a scene with a ship that looks exactly like Enterprise in the background, the locker who’s number is 1701, etc.

Could be fun!

435. Nano - January 25, 2013

“HOLY PUN-FARR”
Trekrilegious this is!!!
If true – may thousands of Andorian rectal mites invade Bad Robot’s Buttocks…
_\\//

436. Craiger - January 25, 2013

Could this be why Anthony hasn’t updated the site that much. He knew Abrams was going to direct SW and knows Trek is done after ST:2? LOL. Unless Orci gets that animated Trek series going?

437. Nano - January 25, 2013

@ 434
Perhaps your right maybe it’s time for ST-SW Cross Over! Kirk vs Dark Luke…

438. NX01 - January 25, 2013

The line Must Be drawn Here. JJ Abrams has kind of forced a war. Star Trek or Star Wars. Him doing this after saying he would is such a slap in the face. Also him leavening Star Trek makes Star Trek weaker. This is going to be the last Star Trek movie, probably so at least we made it to 12 films.
Pick your side everyone. Star Trek or Star Wars!

439. MattR - January 25, 2013

#436 Not sure why you think the ST movie series is done just because JJ probably won’t direct it. Look at the Mission Impossible series…JJ came in for MI:3 and breathed some life into it, and then let Brad Bird take over and MI:GP was one of the best in the series. It’s probably better for another director to come in with a different vision.

440. Nano - January 25, 2013

@439 Yep
Lot’s of hip directors that would luv a crack at ST!

441. Holger - January 25, 2013

Loyalty, schmoyalty. Be realistic. Abrams is a movie producer and director and he wants to make money producing and directing movies. Nothing wrong with that, I think. As opposed to ruining Star Trek, which was very wrong, I think. His statement about loyalty to Trek was, in hindsight, just a bargaining move. Understandable from a business perspective.

442. Nano - January 25, 2013

Actually I’m kinda liking the idea of ST / SW crossover can you imagine the scene’s at the local Theater! Fisticuffs , Police etc…

443. Phil - January 25, 2013

@438. What nonsense, there no line to be drawn. The guy is also a businessman, and based on the numerous other projects Bad Robot has in the pipe there are probably thousands of people who depend on this guy for their paychecks. JJ isn’st producing and directing all of there, there are numerous other talented people who can run with Trek 13, 14, 15……

If you insist on choices, I choose all of the above.

444. Buzz Cagney - January 25, 2013

Not really looking forward to seeing Chewie getting it on with Leia. JJ will obviously want that because, well, you goda have an unlikely love interest dontcha.

445. Jack - January 25, 2013

Brad Bird. Andrew Stanton (not sure about this one), Neill Blomkamp. Sam Mendes (also unsure), Duncan Jones, paul greengrass, rian johnson. I have no idea. I know movies I like, but does that mean their directors would do a great job on Trek?

It’s a tough call, because I think one needs to balance the light and dark of Trek.

As much as people complain about JJ — the visual energy, the pacing, the brightness, the whimsy of Trek 09 were all pretty fantastic. It could have been dark, dingy and non-descript. .

Frakes did a great job with First Contact. But Insurrection is awful. And it has no resemblance to its predecessor. It’s hard to say what Frake’s style is.

Heck, maybe Kathryn Bigelow wants a break from reality.

And all the “Nicholas Meyer!” people — Meyer didn’t even like Trek, and he had a bit of contempt for the characters. I love TWOK, don’t get me wrong. But I wonder what he’d think of doing Trek now. He hasn’t directed in 22 years. Most recently he’s been writing adaptations of Phillip Roth novels.

Heck, the same people behind Raiders did Crystal Skull — and it was marginally fun but mostly kind of terrible.

I hope JJ comes back for it.

446. EM - January 25, 2013

Anger, hatred, looking to the future…these are not the ways of the jedi.

447. Jack - January 25, 2013

Wait. Marc Webb’s my first choice for Trek. Loved The Amazing Spider-Man.

448. Jack - January 25, 2013

446. Lol. Absolutely true.

I always thought Trek and Star Wars had other things in common. In Star Wars, the good guys wore colourful outfits (when flying), made jokes, and weren’t all white guys — the Empire was all white, all male and, visually, all dark and gray.

449. THX-1138 - January 25, 2013

Back when Disney purchased Lucasfilm an announced that they were going ahead with eps VII, VII, and IX I said that you could bet that JJ would be tapped to direct. And all I heard was “No way, JJ says he’s not going to direct SW. He’s not going to bail.”

I said that his favorite movie was SW and there was noway he would pass up the chance to play in that sandbox. What I’m surprised about is how the information got leaked BEFORE Into Darkness was released. I’ll bet JJ is pissed.

Personally I too believe he is a better fit for SW. And go ahead and prepare to roast me but would just as soon the movies in the AU stopped here. Get back to television. Tell Star Trek stories in the medium that it’s best suited to.

450. THX-1138 - January 25, 2013

Back when Disney purchased Lucasfilm an announced that they were going ahead with eps VII, VII, and IX I said that you could bet that JJ would be tapped to direct. And all I heard was “No way, JJ says he’s not going to direct SW. He’s not going to bail.”

I said that his favorite movie was SW and there was noway he would pass up the chance to play in that sandbox. What I’m surprised about is how the information got leaked BEFORE Into Darkness was released. I’ll bet JJ is pissed.

Personally I too believe he is a better fit for SW. And go ahead and prepare to roast me but would just as soon the movies in the AU stopped here. Get back to television. Tell Star Trek stories in the medium that it’s best suited to.

451. Jack - January 25, 2013

This includes a nice dig at Damon Lindelof’s penchant for forcing in themes that come out of nowhere and end up going nowhere:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2013/jan/25/jj-abrams-perfect-choice-star-wars

452. Bill Peters - January 25, 2013

I hope We get a Third Movie and I hope that Orci get to direct it :) He deserves the chance to direct a star trek movie.

I do agree with the Above Statement, I think if JJ is going to Star Wars he will pick the new Director and will be Executive Producer on the project.

453. Julio Scissors - January 25, 2013

Love what JJ & Crew have done with Star Trek, and I’m excited to see what he does with Star Wars.

Far rather him direct with Orci/Kurtzman doing the script than Lucas at this point.

454. Lt. Bailey - January 25, 2013

When I first saw SW in the late 70′s in Woodhills CA , I never thought there would any more. Then Empire came out and we heard Lucas would do 9 films (episodes) starting with 4 , 5 and then 6. He then was supposed to jump ahead with 7 , 8 and 9 that would feature the children of Han & Leia. Then go back to 1, 2 & 3 to tell the story from the start. Well we all know how it really turned out and what we got. This could be good news if done right and the films have a great script. Can’t wait for the lens flares….

455. Thorny - January 25, 2013

420… “Though few Trek fans will admit it, most of them like Star Wars as well.”

That depends. I know very few people over the age of 12 who really like the SW prequels. I surely did not. I hope Mr. Abrams remembers that you don’t have to dumb-down dialogue for kids like the prequels (and a lesser extent RotJ) did.

456. Ajani - January 25, 2013

If he wants to do Star Wars let him. Most Trekkers like Star Wars anyway but we simply adore Star Trek it has a bigger heart. It does feel kinda weird for him to do Star Wars, if it’s even true, but look at the job Nicholas Meyer did on Wrath of Khan and Leonard Nimoy on Voyage Home, two of the best Trek films ever with two completely different directors. I love what JJ has done for Star Trek. It’s been given new badly needed life. And now that it has that life it will live long and prosper with or without JJ in the big chair.

457. Thorny - January 25, 2013

452… Nothing against Mr. Orci, but I’d rather have an experienced, respected director for Trek XIII. Otherwise we might get another Stuart Baird / Nemesis fiasco. Now, if Mr. Orci directs something else in the meantime, I could change my opinion.

458. Phil - January 25, 2013

@444. Leia getting busy with C3P0 would definately be unusual now….wadda ya mean, you have to charge your batteries??!!??

Yeah, that would be a token relationship, too. Enjoy.

459. dswynne - January 25, 2013

@ 457: How about Jonathan Frakes as director? Supposedly, he’s a friend of JJ’s AND this could allow a more classic Trek orientation for the third film. Plus, JJ could still produce a third film while helming Ep. VII.

460. somethoughts - January 25, 2013

Congrats JJ!

Live Long and Prosper and May the force be with you!!!

461. Mad Mann - January 25, 2013

How about Mad Mann as a director? He was the founder of ko paper products after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K/O_Paper_Products

462. HDuff - January 25, 2013

I can’t stand George Lucas. That is all.

463. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 25, 2013

JJ Abrams is not in charge of either franchise. Their respective owners are. It appears that Paramount have afforded Bad Robot – JJ Abrams and co, quite a bit of creative leeway when it has come to bringing Star Trek back to the big screen again. However, Disney and those who are actually in charge of the Star Wars franchise now may not be as “easy going”.

I doubt that JJ will have as much input into the new Star Wars movie as he has had with Star Trek, but I’m not sure that may matter to him. He clearly likes the script enough to want to direct it, but there his responsibilities probably end. From the start, Star Trek has been a Bad Robot production and even BR is accountable to its master.

If I recall, when news was released about George Lucas selling everything to Disney, making another Star Wars movie was just mooted, with a possible release year of 2015. The news was rather vague on whether there was even a proper story outline/script, let alone something that Disney had signed off on. As soon as the news of the sale broke, media were all over JJ Abrams asking whether he would want to direct, produce etc. Everything was vague and JJ Abrams’ production company already had a contract for a franchise that required much of their time and creative input. So why would JJ even consider doing SW? However, it seems that Disney has got it together as in having a proper script that Abrams can do something with and no doubt pre-production is already underway. Now the movie seems doable, without relinquishing necessarily any of his responsibilities/connections with Star Trek.

JJ Abrams always decides on whether to direct or not on a case by case basis anyway.

Hopefully, this will be a win-win scenario for everyone!

464. somethoughts - January 25, 2013

Im guessing michael g will score the music for episode 7, man its going to rock

465. A guy named Joe - January 25, 2013

425, NWS is not the one giving winter storms names.
That is the weather channel doing that on their own, its something they are doing trying to draw viewers away from the local and national news programs.

I work for NWS and I can tell you the winter storm names are not something that NOAA or NWS have anything to do with

So no the National Weather Service did NOT name the winter storm KHAAAAAAAAAN! the weather channel did along with the other cheesy romance novel and tv and movie character names they are using.

466. A guy named Joe - January 25, 2013

In fact NOAA is pretty pissed at The weather channel for it.

467. Well Of Souls - January 25, 2013

I personally see this as a big step forward in a positive way for the long stagnated universe of Star Wars if the story is indeed true.
JJ is a great storyteller and as far as I’m concerned, has revived Star Trek in a way that no one saw coming. He brought our beloved TOS characters back as not only an origin story but as a refreshing reboot full of surprises way beyond the spoon fed mentality that reruns eventually become. And I don’t mean this in a bad way as I have been there from day 1 since Star Trek launched in the 60′s & have enjoyed the spinoffs as well, some better than others, many times over. Star Trek 2009′s success was the shot necessary to open the eyes of CBS in the eventual greenlighting of a new Star Trek series on television. As many have stated, this will be the medium that can allow for slower character development. But in the mean time Star Trek is back in a big way and we have JJ & his brilliant collaborators to thank for this. Basically Star Trek was collecting dust with no hope of anything beyond reflections of what once was. We now have a revived franchise that will move forward provided hate doesn’t destroy the process first. I personally back anything that keeps my favorite franchise alive.
With the intensity & depth that that went into the resurrection of Star Trek, if JJ & company are as a matter of fact accepting the torch to helm Star Wars, I have complete faith that the Force will be very strong. JJ will not allow the Star Trek he reimagined to fade into oblivion either. If indeed he must pass this torch I’m sure discussions will occur to allow for a smooth transition. After all he did eventually come around to have a passion for the Federation of Planets. For the sake of more great Sci-Fi, let’s hope he can do the same for his first passion in that galaxy far far away….

468. A guy named Joe - January 25, 2013

425 here is a story for you.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-07/news/ct-talk-winter-storm-athena-1108-20121107_1_enterprise-products-and-services-opinion-about-private-weather-winter-storms

469. boborci - January 25, 2013

461 LOL!

470. Dear Leader - January 25, 2013

Go home JJ, you’re drunk.

471. LizardGirl - January 25, 2013

For those of you worried about a Star Trek/ Star Wars crossover. Please don’t worry anymore….it’s already done!

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/r2-d2-finally-discovered-in-star-trek/

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/05/is_r2d2_driving_the_enterprise-2/

But seriously, JJ does this this a lot. Which, I believe shouldn’t be taken as an insult, but rather a nod to the fans of that particular tribute. I can’t wait for some Fringe/Sherlock/Doctor Who crossover bits!

472. Hugh Hoyland - January 25, 2013

Maybe Lucas can direct the next Star Trek? They did have him on tap for TMP. :)

473. Jack - January 25, 2013

I have a bad feeling about this?

474. harley3k - January 25, 2013

@472… oh please, no. LOL.

475. Aurore - January 25, 2013

Seriously, my fellow Star Trek fans, I for one, am not worried about any crossover.

I don’t think it will ever happen!!!

:))

…And, if it were to happen…I’ll survive….

476. spinningvortex - January 25, 2013

473, bad. really bad.

Btw, way to get us into darkness and leave us there, JJ. Thanks a million. High five, congrats and all that. stuff.

477. Exverlobter - January 25, 2013

I don’t get it that so many people here claim that JJ Abrams ruined Star Trek.
If there is anybody who deserves to be called that, it should be Stuart Baird!

478. Hugh Hoyland - January 25, 2013

Well since it seems theres going to be a directorial opening position for the next Star Trek movie, let me once again offer Paramount studios (dunno if Bad Robot will still be involved) my services.

I’ll direct *”Star Trek into Terror” for only 600k! Yes my credits are “small” at the moment (I’ve directed several home movies of my yard and dog and a few G rated movies of my Gf). But I’m a cracker Jack with a sony camcorder and can add a certain “cheap” aesthetic to the film. You have my number. Just ask for Hugh (not my real name). Thank you.

*Title subject to change

479. Rob Steckel - January 25, 2013

“Young believes Abrams possesses the sense of humor and adventure that “Star Wars” requires, as well as the ability to handle epic drama. “Remember how hard we all cried in the opening scenes of ‘Star Trek’ with the death of Kirk’s father? Apply that level of emotion and turmoil to ‘Star Wars’ and I think we’ve got something to look forward to,” he said. “A ‘Star Wars’ film in his hands seems like a match made in heaven.”

Both Geller and Young anticipate the director’s new take on familiar characters and settings. “I just hope that Abrams can balance his desire to produce a film that he, as a fan, would like to watch with his desire to work collaboratively with the writer, the producers and, of course, George Lucas,” Geller said.”

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1700815/jj-abrams-star-wars-7-director-reactions.jhtml

Well said, and I agree.

480. Drij - January 25, 2013

star wars with lens flares…

481. Rob Steckel - January 25, 2013

@ 478 – Sounds good Hugh but how are you with lens flare? :D

482. Phil - January 25, 2013

@477. Shatner himself drove a stake through the heart with ST5. And like the Phoenix, she keeps rising from the ashes….

I think the reports of Star Treks death are….premature.

483. Sebastian S. - January 25, 2013

# 475

There can’t really be a SW/ST crossover anyway.

For one thing, SW takes place “A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away….”
and ST takes place 200-300 years from now.

Not to mention the laws of physics seem to work differently in each universe.

There. End of Nerd report… ;-P

All the same I wish JJ Abrams much luck; I kind of think of ST09 as his ‘audition tape’ for a Star Wars movie anyway; ST09 was a better SW movie than the prequels and Clone Wars combined…

;-D

484. Phil - January 25, 2013

Ha ha…there is an ad for lightsabers at the top of the Trekmovie page….lower your shields and surrender your vessels, your cultural and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own.

Hey, JJ, you just signed on to direct Episode 7. What are you going to do now?…

485. Hugh Hoyland - January 25, 2013

@481

Rob I’ve actually tested that on my camcorder, having the misses shine a flashlight at me while filming. It really didnt show up well, but I did get great footage of her calling me an idiot. :)

486. Tim - January 25, 2013

#480 is so right as to the “lens flare” look the next next Star Wars film would get.. I would much rather have George Lucas back directing.

487. Phil - January 25, 2013

@483. Oh, come now, the debate has been raging for weeks about the STID story, with good and bad guys jumping back and forth in time and parallel realities. Stopping off in the SW universe should be no issue at all now….

488. Rob Steckel - January 25, 2013

Wow, actually wanting George Lucas back directing? Come on, lets not say things we can’t take back ;)

489. Rob Steckel - January 25, 2013

I love Mr. Plinkett :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e7Upf6i7dE

490. dmduncan - January 25, 2013

485. Hugh Hoyland – January 25, 2013

LOL!

491. MJ - January 25, 2013

Again, where in the hell in Anthony???

We really need him to shake off his winter seasonal break AWOL nonsense and report on this story ASAP.

492. Craiger - January 25, 2013

MJ – Like I said earlier I wonder if Anthony sees the writings on the wall and Star Trek is over after the sequel and JJ will move on to SW.

Also JJ is really a busy man Foix just picked up his new futuristic Cop drama. I don’t think ST 3 will ever get made.

Also Anthony was a consultant on that new Into Darkness Comic Prequel so he is doing other things besides Trekmovie.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/01/25/j-j-abrams-robot-cops-pilot/

493. ihatefanboys - January 25, 2013

Stop bringing up lens flare garbage, the only reason they were in the film was because the damn set was designed that way.

494. Tom52 - January 25, 2013

ihatefanboys – Um, no. They even shined flashlights onto the cameras to make lens flares intentionally.

495. P Technobabble - January 25, 2013

Ah, speculation thy name is ‘who the hell knows?’

496. smegger56 - January 25, 2013

Well good for him. Really. I think he’ll do a cracking job with Star Wars. And you know he’ll still be involved with Trek. He’ll have input on the story. Heck, with the space between Trek films, he may still be able to direct the 3rd one.

497. Bart - January 25, 2013

DUNCAN JONES should direct the third Trek.

498. NCC-0U812 - January 25, 2013

Really? What’s the big deal? He always said he loved Star Wars and to be honest who wouldn’t want the chance to direct those films? J.J. and company gave Star Trek a much needed shot in the arm and without them this site probably wouldn’t even exist. So J.J., I hope you have a great time reviving another dying franchise and bob, if J.J. Isn’t available for the next Trek I think it’s time for you to take the helm!

499. Rob Steckel - January 25, 2013

@ 492 – “Also JJ is really a busy man Foix just picked up his new futuristic Cop drama. I don’t think ST 3 will ever get made.”

I think its safe to say that STID, like 2009 Trek, will do very well at the box office. By that very definition, Its safe to assume a 3rd one will be made. Money talks and Star Trek is money.

I can’t see what everyone assumes is a planned trilogy get canned simply because their chosen director walks off. I’m sure they have contingency plans in place. Frankly to suggest that if JJ walks that there will be no third Trek movie is ridiculous on the face of it.

500. shm - January 25, 2013

It was terrible when JJ turned Star Trek into Star Wars by introducing SPACE BATTLES into the franchise (as long as you ignore Balance of Terror, Doomsday Machine, Ultimate Computer, Yesterday’s Enterprise, Best of Both Worlds, All Good Things, most of DS9, large chunks of Voyager and Enterprise, Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Final Frontier, Undiscovered Country, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis)

501. smegger56 - January 25, 2013

People do know that directors do have more than one film right? For all we know, he COULD still do a 3rd ST film.

2009 – ST
2011 – Super 8
2013 – ST:ITD
2015 – SW
2017 – ST3

Notice how Trek has had a four year gap and that he directed Super 8 between 2009 and 2013?So we can logically assume that Trek 3 might not happen for another 4 years which could lead to JJ taking the reins again.

502. KG - January 25, 2013

Wow, some of us Trekkies really need to unclench the butt cheeks. JJ directing Star Wars (directing doesn’t mean he’ll produce it too) should not conflict with him doing any more Star Trek unless Disney, himself, or Paramount lets it.

If this means that STID is his last Star Trek, so be it. Star Trek will move on without him. Star Trek survived the death of Gene Roddenberry, it survived the removal of Rick Berman, and now it will survive the departure of JJ Abrams.

I’m looking forward to seeing what someone else (who hopefully is more in tune with Star Trek than JJ was) does in this new continuity of Trek that JJ helped create.

503. stunkill - January 25, 2013

same typical star wars BS,stealing and userping all things trek. Oh and lets not forget the D&D aspects that were stolen for the fantasy parts. Completly derived. Lets get ready for yet another sith vs jedi same ol same ol. Yawn.

504. shm - January 25, 2013

Frankly the only thing that sucks about this is that boborci now knows (or will soon know) all the secrets of both the next Star Trek film and new Star Wars film. And that truly, truly sucks.

505. smegger56 - January 25, 2013

503 – Grow up man. Wars is as Good as Trek in its own way (Prequals excluded IMO).

506. Flake - January 25, 2013

The Next TREK DIRECTOR: Place bets:

Brad Bird
Jon Favreau
Bryan Singer
Seth McFarlane
Joss Whedon
Matt Vaughn
Neill Blomkamp
Brett Ratner
Sam Raimi
Steven Speilberg
Quentin Tarantino
Michael Bay
Jonathan Frakes
Uwe Boll

William Shatner

507. smegger56 - January 25, 2013

506 – I’m sticking with JJ Abrams. Yes, he’s directing SW, which will be released in 2015.

So, he could still direct a Trek film, if they keep the time between them 4 years. They wont rush a Trek film (as they’ve shown).

508. Flake - January 25, 2013

Abrams isn’t directing another Trek, he will be doing SW for the next 10 years!

Disney paid a lot of money to buy Star Wars and they need to make it back and then some! 4 billion !!!!

509. porthoses bitch - January 25, 2013

Seth McFarlane please stand up. I think he’d do a slam bang Meyer-esque vision of Trek…loaded with “in” references…be a great 50tn anniversary gift in 2016…………….ummmmmmmm…… just no crewman “ted”………wait ted could play Bandai…………( theres a 1973 reference for you).

510. smegger56 - January 25, 2013

508 – All we can do is wait and see.

511. Flake - January 25, 2013

I would save Seth McFarlane for the TNG reboot personally. Seth or Joss Whedon. I think anyone else would mess that up.

Yes, the TNG reboot coming in 6 years or so :P

512. Anthony Thompson - January 25, 2013

He only lied once.

513. smegger56 - January 25, 2013

lol. I can miss a TNG reboot thank you :-p

514. Flake - January 25, 2013

Tom Hardy as Capt Jean-Luc Picard? Cmon it would be great :P

Tea, Earl Grey, Hot.

Make it so number one.

515. porthoses bitch - January 25, 2013

@ 509
oopps “bandi” not “bandai” I think they made video games…..

Hey checkout fastcopyinc.com/orionpress it’s exciting.

516. smegger56 - January 25, 2013

514 – As long as he says it with Banes voices, I’m in :-p

517. Stephan - January 25, 2013

I would like brad bird as director. He made a wonderful iron giant. And he has shown in his Pixar movies, and of course mi4 that he has a good sense of humor while telling a serious and heartful story at the same time. And he has worked already with Abrams as a producer.
So I am for Brad bird.
Second comes joss whedon.

518. Admiral Archer's Prized Beagle - January 25, 2013

It’ll never happen, but I’d love to see a Klingon-centric Trek film directed by Quintin Tarantino.

Star Trek: Kang Unchained

519. Mr. Anonymous - January 25, 2013

This is brilliant news. JJ’s good for both franchises. Hell, let’s see what he can do for DC Comic movies, too. I wouldn’t mind seeing him direct Flash or a Green Lantern.

520. Captain, USS Northstar - January 25, 2013

There’s an old adage in marketing: There’s no substitute for being first.

And, if it was your dream to direct a Star Wars movie — and to be the first one to set the vision of a new trilogy, who wouldn’t grab for the gold ring?

If this is true (and that’s a Big IF), hooray for Mr. Abrams! Dreams really can come true and we should give him joy for the honor. We would want the same thing if one of our dreams came true, wouldn’t we?

I have been a fan of Star Trek for decades — mostly TOS and TNG. But, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise had their moments as well. Not all of the movies were great, but what the heck? It was Star Trek in one shape or another.

The new imagining of the Star Trek universe is just that — a new iteration. It is Star Trek in a new shape and I, like so many out there, have enjoyed the new life Abrams, Orci, and the rest have brought to my beloved characters — Kirk, Spock, McCoy and — the most important character of all — the Starship Enterprise.

I’ve also enjoyed Star Wars — there’s room for both. I particularly enjoy some of the books and hope we get to see Jacen and Jaina Solo and Ben Skywalker.

There’s NO WAY Paramount will let the 50th Anniversary of ST pass without a third movie in this trilogy — hopefully followed by a new TV series.

But, there’s another anniversary lurking — the 40th Anniversary for SW in 2017.

Sci Fi fans — let us rejoice and be glad! This is going to be an awesome decade for the two biggest Science Fiction franchises.

And the best thing? My teenaged daughter has inherited my love for both — she’s excited for this year’s ST and SW Episode VII. Yes — these visions live on from generation to generation and, ultimately, isn’t that what we want?

For these stories to live long, and prosper!

521. porthoses bitch - January 25, 2013

BC as Picard ……….ooooh………oooooooooooh…….

522. Mike C. - January 25, 2013

I only say this b/c I really liked Trek ’09… Freakin lying S.O.B.

523. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

#400. Bruce Banner – January 25, 2013

Yeah right, because its all on the fans. A little thing like Paramount forcing him to convert his 2-D work of art into a pseudo 3-D, nah, that couldn’t have anything to do with it.

524. porthoses bitch - January 25, 2013

Only hoping that last years 3d episode 1 left a bad taste in the collective SW mouth……………but I doubt it….

Speaking of which….What format are you plang on for STID?
1) imax 3D
2) reg theater 3D
3) 2D
4)imax 2 D ( if it exists)
5) Wait for Blue Ray/ Dvd release.

525. Harry Ballz - January 25, 2013

I can see it now……in Star Wars VII, Darth Vader will not really have died, coming back for his revenge. But, the emerging good in him will make him feel hollow and weak in exacting it.

The title of the movie?

SPACE IN VADER’S REVENGE

(video game fanatics from the 1970′s will go nuts for this one)

526. Dom - January 25, 2013

Assuming there is any truth to the rumour, there’s no reason for JJ not to produce Star Trek 3 or for people like Bob Orci to take a bigger role in his stead.

JJ doing Wars is no different from him doing Batman or Harry Potter, frankly. Star Trek has never been a serious competitor, financially, to Star Wars and other than both having space ships, there’s little similarity. Trek fans act like their show is ‘deeper’ and more ‘intellectual’ than Wars, which is untrue when you look at much beyond some of the original shows. Certainly, TNG is one of the most insipid sci-fis put on screen and films like The Empire Strikes Back have a depth most Treks would kill for. Good luck, JJ, if you get it. You made Trek good for the first time since STVI, now work your magic on Star Wars. As a non-Star Wars fan and, until ST09, a disaffected Trek fan, I’m intrigued.

527. somethoughts - January 25, 2013

So bob how does it feel to have written reboots for transformers, star trek, upcoming spiderman sequel and now maybe episode 7-9 lol dam

528. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

Sabers on stun.

#408. Aashlee – January 25, 2013

“In the past when he said that he had no intention of directing “Star Wars,” that was probably true. Then Lucas sold it to Disney; conditions changed.” – Aashlee – January 25, 2013

You are woefully uninformed. Abrams said his infamous line in response to Disney sending him a SW treatment after announcing the acquisition.

#449. THX-1138 – January 25, 2013

You and me both. When the news broke that Disney sent him a treatment, I applauded him for his business acumen in pitting Paramount against Disney and vice versa. The derision that was bull-horned when he gave his now infamous Trek loyalty quote was deafening and that’s not easy to do in these parts.

Obviously, as a practical business matter I didn’t/don’t have any problem with him using The Force but then he had to make that unfortunate statement.

529. Jack - January 25, 2013

506. Obviously, Shatner.

530. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

Bob tweeted:

“what does JJ directing SW mean for ST3?” Honestly… No clue.

531. Exverlobter - January 25, 2013

@ 506

“The Next TREK DIRECTOR: Place bets:”

Brad Bird:
Good possibility. Maybe they do it exactly like Mission Impossible4. JJ stil produces and Brad takes the directors chair.

Bryan Singer:
Very strong contender. He loves Star Trek and is also mainstream-proven. Probably my favourite.

Seth McFarlane:
Dont know. Just made one movie until now (Ted). More of a comedian guy, although he knows the franchise.

Joss Whedon:
Would be great. Even better than Abrams (although i think the Avengers is totally overrated) But he showed that he can handle a big movie.

Matt Vaughn
Made the only Comic-film i ever cared about (Kick ass).
I think he could handle it.

Brett Ratner:
God, no. Lets hope the X-men desaster won’t repeat itself. But the omen is bad, because in that franchise the director also left after the second movie. Hope Ratner does not jump on the bandwagon again.

Steven Speilberg:
Was not interested in directing the new Star Wars. Thats a sign he might not be intersted in Trek as well. But he is a sci-fi buff, so he would be suitable.
However he might be too big now for Paramount, because he probably does not want to take over a big studio-franchise-film but rather prefer to make personal films.

Quentin Tarantino:
He said he is not interested in Star Wars and probably therefore is not interested in Star Trek either. Furthermore he is the embodyment of an Auteur-director, who makes what he wants, and probably is not interested in big studio-driven franchises.

Michael Bay:
Said that he not really cares about Star Trek. Thank god.

Jonathan Frakes:
Would be a solid choice. Knows the franchise.
However, he made just one good movie (First Contact). Furthermore Paramount probably wants more of a real A-list director. Frakes career never took off after Star Trek and today he directs primarily TV-Episodes.

Uwe Boll: Seriously?

William Shatner:
Paramount has not forgotten how he single handedly almost destroyed the whole franchise with Star Trek 5.

532. Toothless Grishnar Cat - January 25, 2013

I can just imagine the April 1st headline for this site now…

“BREAKING: Bad Robot and Disney announce Star Trek sequel will be merged with Star Wars Episode VII in ‘biggest sci-fi crossover of all time’.”

533. Juice - January 25, 2013

I think this is being blown out of proportion. I think this is how we can read the Empire article: he meant he had loyalty to Trek in that he wasn’t going to take over all of the SW films, completely leaving Trek for SW. He will only direct the first one. Then he can focus on the 3rd Trek.

534. garth of I - January 25, 2013

NOT Bryan Singer for Star Trek 3. PLEASE. Look what he did w/ SUPERMAN RETURNS – No thanx

535. Jose Kuhn - January 25, 2013

Roxanne Dawson to direct Trek 3!!!

A little hispanic estrogen would be good.

536. Craiger - January 25, 2013

Another series pickup for JJ:

http://tvline.com/2013/01/25/nbc-pilots-believe-undateable/

537. Carlos - January 25, 2013

What about Duncan Jones and Neill Blomkamp ?

538. porthoses bitch - January 25, 2013

If JJ is under conttract to paramount till 2015….suppose they lend him to Disney for SW VII with the agreement that he return to Paramount and Direct ST 3 in 2017 with a startdate of 9/6/16.

539. Jack - January 25, 2013

537. Yep. I still stand by Marc Webb. ;) the guy created an intimate, funny, Old-fashioned super hero movie.

540. Jack - January 25, 2013

“20. Quark – January 24, 2013
Can’t wait to see the new Death Star built on the ground with lots of lens flares.”

Late reaction: hilarious.

541. Jason - January 25, 2013

What about Jon Favreau

542. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

Here’s Disney/ABC News’ compilation from wire services for those who need to be brought up to speed:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/reports-jj-abrams-direct-star-wars-18307820

543. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 25, 2013

I think if Abrams wants to do Star Wars then fine but only if he does Star Trek 3 for 2016. i think this would be fair on Paramount who’ve invested so much into him and really launched his career after giving him Trek.

544. Hat Rick - January 25, 2013

One was JJ can “redeem” himself for that “loyalty” comment, in my view, is to do a Star Trek / Star Wars crossover, if only as a short feature. And it has to be meaningful.

545. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

Trekweb is reporting that Paramount Vice Chairman Says J.J. Abrams Will Still be Involved in Star Trek XIII as a Producer, if not Also Directing the Film.

546. SirBroiler - January 25, 2013

Superherohype is reporting that Paramount confirmed J.J. will produce Trek and Mission Impossible along with his Star Wars directing duties.

547. Phil - January 25, 2013

@544. All done. Here you go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJ-y6BWfUc

548. DonDonP1 - January 25, 2013

“Star Trek”-”Star Wars” crossover? Respectfully, it ain’t going to happen. “Star Trek” is owned by CBS while “Star Wars” is owned by Disney-Lucasflim.

549. Craiger - January 25, 2013

Ahmed – Trekweb scoops Trekmovie again.

550. T'Cal - January 25, 2013

I’m surprised. If he was being considered, I would’ve thought that TPTB would’ve waited to see how STID performs before handing him the reigns to SW.

551. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

@ 547. Phil – January 25, 2013

“@544. All done. Here you go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJ-y6BWfUc

That was hilarious :)

@ 549. Craiger – January 25, 2013

“Ahmed – Trekweb scoops Trekmovie again.”

Guess we are all used to that pattern now, where Trekmovie become inactive for weeks & then come back, sometime with major news item

552. SamM - January 25, 2013

Now it’s official: Congrats to JJ and the team at Bad Robot !!

Having BOTH the Star Trek and Star Wars sci-fi franchises in the palm of his hand makes JJ one of the most powerful movie-makers in Hollywood.

Sure, Wars on its own is a big deal.
But TREK as well as Wars is H.U.G.E. HUGE!!

Why would JJ give that up?
I sure wouldn’t.

553. Hugh Hoyland - January 25, 2013

Whats next JJ…the WORLD???

554. Craiger - January 25, 2013

Ahmed – I guess Anthony figures he can take long breaks like these because he thinks his loyal viewers will never leave Trekmovie because they will be happy just to have news.

555. Craiger - January 25, 2013

Allthough I wonder if the person that will replace Gustavo over Trekweb when he leaves will be as good at reporting Trek and Scifi news as he is? Then I guess we will have to go to StarTrek.com for Trek news. Or Trektoday?

556. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

#553. Hugh Hoyland – January 25, 2013

This might give a hint:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardrushfield/a-brief-history-of-jj-abrams-path-to-power

557. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

Craiger, yeah & the thing is, it doesn’t have to be that way.

Trekmovie used to have weekly sci-fi news section covering both TV & movies stories. Anthony should return these sections. On one hand it will keep the site active when there are no movie news & on the other hand, it will provide us with sci-fi related news that are interesting & fresh.

But leaving the site inactive for long periods as it is now, just doesn’t make sense.

558. MJ - January 25, 2013

@557. Agreed, this is biggest story since Anthony confirmed the villain was Khan….

Again…

WHERE THE THE HELL IS ANTHONY

???????????????????

559. Craiger - January 25, 2013

Ahmed that is what I think also. This site should expand when Trek news is dead post Scifi news or what other people involved with Star Trek new and old are doing. This site used to be so fun even discussing that type of news. I think Anthony has other things in the fire and doesn’t have time devote to this site anymore. That countdown comic book article said he was a creative consultant.

560. MJ - January 25, 2013

If Anthony and this site are not cable on covering this story, I will post the breaking articles myself here on this huge Trek news story. This just in from the LA Times:

(part 1)

J.J. Abrams directing ‘Star Wars’: What happens to ‘Star Trek’?
Jan. 25, 2013 | 4:39 p.m.

t’s a question that immediately sprang to the minds of fans of two franchises with Thursday’s news that J.J. Abrams will direct “Star Wars: Episode VII.”

What happens to “Star Trek”?

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.

Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”

“J.J. will continue to develop projects for us including a new ‘Mission: Impossible,’ and he is committed to produce another ‘Star Trek,’” Moore said Friday afternoon.

With 2009′s big-screen reboot of the beloved television and movie series, Abrams won over a new generation of audiences with a broadly entertaining and accessible take on Gene Roddenberry’s venerable cast of characters — and satisfied hard-core fans by creating a place for Leonard Nimoy to appear as Spock alongside Zachary Quinto’s new take on the beloved Vulcan.

Anticipation for the May 17 sequel is astronomically high. Paramount wisely began stoking interest in “Star Trek Into Darkness” starting late last year, with the release of a plot synopsis, a poster, a teaser, a trailer and then rolling out nine minutes of footage before Imax 3-D showings of Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.”

Last month, Abrams revealed the nine minutes to select journalists at a Century City screening room. Two days later, at the Santa Monica offices of his company, Bad Robot, the writers and select cast members — including Zachary Quinto, Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, Alice Eve and Benedict Cumberbatch — gathered to chat up reporters and to show off costumes and props from the upcoming film.

561. MJ - January 25, 2013

(part 2)

Damon Lindelof, who wrote the script with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, said the early rollout was inspired by director Christopher Nolan’s early reveal of footage from “The Dark Knight Rises.” With four years having passed since Abrams’ first “Star Trek” film, Lindelof said, “there had to be a lifting of the curtain a little bit,” otherwise fans grow suspicious.

With just about 100 days to go before the film officially opens, though, word of Abrams’ defection to a galaxy far, far away — news that met with a decidedly mixed reaction — raises questions about who might direct a third “Trek” film, should Paramount move forward with one, and what role Abrams and his creative partners Lindelof, Kurtzman and Orci might play in a future installment.

Abrams’ schedule likely would prohibit him from stepping behind the camera, though there was a four-year gap between “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel. If Abrams does not direct, that could leave either Lindelof or Kurtzman and Orci in the director’s chair, or perhaps another Abrams associate such as filmmaker Matt Reeves, who helmed the Abrams-produced monster movie “Cloverfield” (though Reeves is set to direct “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” for Fox).

It seems for now Abrams’ relationship with Paramount remains strong — every film Abrams has directed or produced since 2006′s “Mission: Impossible III” has been for the studio, where Bad Robot enjoys a lucrative first-look deal.

Still, executives can’t be overjoyed by the idea of Abrams working on “Star Wars” for Disney, especially with the promotional effort for “Star Trek Into Darkness” continuing to pick up steam. At least for the moment, journalists are probably more interested in hearing about how Abrams might further George Lucas’ vision than deciphering the identity of Cumberbatch’s mystery-shrouded villain.

– Gina McIntyre

562. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

Craiger, what Anthony can do is delegate tasks to other people to keep the place running.

Like everyone else, I’m sure Anthony is busy with other stuff, beside Trekmovie, but he should not let the site die for weeks & then resurrect it again, only to die again like a cursed Phoenix !!!

563. Craiger - January 25, 2013

MJ – Abrams just had two TV series picked up.

564. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

MJ, thanks for the article, looks like there might some damages to Star Trek after all, at least by shifting the focus from the movie to the Star Wars.

565. MJ - January 25, 2013

“Like everyone else, I’m sure Anthony is busy with other stuff, beside Trekmovie, but he should not let the site die for weeks & then resurrect it again, only to die again like a cursed Phoenix !!!”

Exactly. Especially when a relevant story THIS HUGE breaks. I get that Anthony needs a lot oft time off, but come on, this is the biggest genre story in the past year.

See my posts above. I suggest we just staring cutting and pasting the articles on this story as we break, because I don’t think we can count on Anthony coming down from the mountain until his 40 days and 40 nights are up.

566. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

563. Craiger, yeah, I read about that. the cops & androids series looks interesting, even if it remind me of Total Recall 2070.

567. Bill Peters - January 25, 2013

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013/01/25/j-j-abrams-directing-star-wars-what-happens-to-star-trek/#/0

What happens to “Star Trek”?

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.

Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”

“J.J. will continue to develop projects for us including a new ‘Mission: Impossible,’ and he is committed to produce another ‘Star Trek,’” Moore said Friday afternoon.

568. K-7 - January 25, 2013

MJ, I like your idea of us fans posting stories here now until Anthony gets back from his bender in TJ or wherever the “F”he’s abandoning us from.

I am getting really sick of Anthony not being around during Trek crunch times like this!

569. MJ - January 25, 2013

@567. Dude, I just posted that entire article here???

570. Mike C. - January 25, 2013

# 555

Wow, you sound pretty freaking ungrateful. You have now idea what is going on. There are plenty of sites you can go to for news.

571. K-7 - January 25, 2013

Bill Peters,

MJ just posted all that.

572. K-7 - January 25, 2013

#570. How can he be ungrateful when their is no news on the biggest Trek story perhaps of this decade, and the creator this web site — who boldly says here — THE source for everything new in Trek — is AWOL once again with no fracking explanation.

I agree with Craiger 100%. If you say you are the best news site for all Trek, then these are the times you need to shine.

573. Phil - January 25, 2013

Okay, the Times story really just lends a little legitimacy to what has been speculated on here. Even without Star Wars, Abrams is a busy guy. These announcements don’t just pop up out of the blue, and the comments from the Paramount executives suggest there was some discussion of this pripr the the leaking of the announcement. Paramount will make a decision on a third movie based on the performance of this one, and affirmed that if the decision to proceed is made they expect Bad Robot to deliver.It really won’t matter if JJ orr someone else directs, it will get done.

The Trek fan base has been tweaked for a bit now that some creative talent isn’t dedicated to Trek to the exclusion of all other projects, which explains a lot of the ranting about this. Really, whither Star Trek on the part of the Times article is nothing more then speculation at this point.

574. Michael - January 25, 2013

“It’s known that Abrams does not make directing decisions without reading a completed screenplay, having decided on both Treks relatively late in the process. Any decision on directing a third Trek will likely be made equally late in development.”

575. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2013

I don’t want Seth McFarlane as the next Trek director. He’s more of a comedy-type guy anyway, and he may be too much of a Trekkie to remain objective during the making of the movie without throwing in too many references and canon tie-ins.

He’s a brilliant guy, but not the right director, in my opinion.

Neil Blonkampf, Duncan Moon, Christopher Nolan, Joss Whedon, Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird. Those guys are who I would prefer.

As for Jonathan Frakes and Nick Meyer: Frakes is a good director. FC is great, but INS wasn’t. Though I blame INS more on the writing. He’s more of a tv director anyway.

Meyer is a great writer, no question about that. TWOK is still great, but I’m not sure he has the necessary skills to direct a modern big budget blockbuster. His writing abilities could come in handy, though, as that is his strength.

576. TreK_Fan - January 25, 2013

Since the Star Trek reboot was more Star Wars than Trek, maybe its time to get a director who is actually a fan of Star Trek to direct number 3.

577. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

Abrams is becoming more & more like the younger version of Spielberg. From producing & directing hit TV series like Lost, Alias to directing blockbuster movies.

578. Ceti Alpha 5 - January 25, 2013

The only thing I take from this news is that it’s gonna take another 5 years for the 3rd Star Trek film to be released.

Yeah, JJ said he didn’t want to do it, BUT I don’t blame him for changing his mind. I’m pretty sure Disney parked a Brinks truck (or two) in front of his house, and he caved. And who wouldn’t? Honestly.

Ted DiBiase said it best–”Everybody has a price.”

Anyone who says otherwise is a damn liar or stupid.

579. Uberbot - January 25, 2013

I just hope be takes effing KEENSER with him!!!

HAHAHA!!!

580. Uberbot - January 25, 2013

Alex Proyas would be a great choice for Trek III.

581. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2013

I agree with K-7, Ahmed, Craiger, and MJ.

If you’re going to call TrekMovie.Com “the source for everything new in Trek”, then you really need to remember to live up to that title.

And damn, do I ever miss those sci-fi articles.

582. VulcanFilmCritic - January 25, 2013

561 MJ. I wouldn’t mind JJ staying on to produce a third Star Trek film, but I think a new director is definitely in order.
My greatest fear, however, is that this time Bad Robot really has bitten off more than it can chew and they will run BOTH franchises into the ground. The final episodes of “Fringe” were just atrocious.
I have a sinking feeling that monetary success is the only kind recognized in Hollywood and people do tune in or turn out for their “product,” at least initially. But there is a real lack of energy and a creative deficiency at Bad Robot sometimes. Like Tarentino, their projects are often based on other movies and TV rather than being any kind of creative vision.
“Star Wars, Episode IV” itself was a mishmash of Old World mythology (an ancient myth called “The Dragon-Slayer”) wrapped up in the language of pulp science fiction with overlays of Star Trek and comic books. There was also a lot of Freudian and biblical stuff thrown in for good measure.
But at least it was George Lucas’s vision. And it was a very powerful vision. I doubt JJ Abrams has a “vision” about anything. If “Super 8″ is his idea of “vision” then Disney has little to rejoice about. Oh, there will probably be some kind of flashy re-boot with plenty of action which will attract the eyes of those who care little about story, but a half an hour after the movie, you’ll remember little of what you’ve seen.
As for the Star Trek franchise, I really don’t want to see it go in a “dark” direction just like a rip-off of “The Dark Knight.” Star Trek deserves better than that. I was being kind of tongue-in-cheek when I suggested Nicholas Meyer. In all fairness, Meyer and Nimoy as directors were OK, but I think they could do better.

583. Jason - January 25, 2013

Still no official announcement..

I’m holdoing out hope that this deal falls apart.

584. gingerly - January 25, 2013

I’m late but I’m still…

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b324/PepsiMan34/popcorn-1.gif

I think it’s great news.
Good for JJ, I both envy and don’t envy him this…The opportunity to make this better and also be the center of judgment from millions of nerds.

585. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

Official Announcement: J.J. Abrams to Direct Star Wars: Episode VII

The story broke early on Thursday, but now Walt Disney Pictures and Lucasfilm have officially confirmed that J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars: Episode VII! The statement reads as follows:

J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars: Episode VII, the first of a new series of Star Wars films to come from Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy. Abrams will be directing and Academy Award-winning writer Michael Arndt will write the screenplay.

“It’s very exciting to have J.J. aboard leading the charge as we set off to make a new Star Wars movie,” said Kennedy. “J.J. is the perfect director to helm this. Beyond having such great instincts as a filmmaker, he has an intuitive understanding of this franchise. He understands the essence of the Star Wars experience, and will bring that talent to create an unforgettable motion picture.”

George Lucas went on to say “I’ve consistently been impressed with J.J. as a filmmaker and storyteller. He’s an ideal choice to direct the new Star Wars film and the legacy couldn’t be in better hands.”

“To be a part of the next chapter of the Star Wars saga, to collaborate with Kathy Kennedy and this remarkable group of people, is an absolute honor,” J.J. Abrams said. “I may be even more grateful to George Lucas now than I was as a kid.”

J.J., his longtime producing partner Bryan Burk, and Bad Robot are on board to produce along with Kathleen Kennedy under the Disney | Lucasfilm banner.

Also consulting on the project are Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg. Kasdan has a long history with Lucasfilm, as screenwriter on The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Return of the Jedi. Kinberg was writer on Sherlock Holmes and Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Abrams and his production company Bad Robot have a proven track record of blockbuster movies that feature complex action, heartfelt drama, iconic heroes and fantastic production values with such credits as Star Trek, Super 8, Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol, and this year’s Star Trek Into Darkness. Abrams has worked with Lucasfilm’s preeminent postproduction facilities, Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound, on all of the feature films he has directed, beginning with Mission: Impossible III. He also created or co-created such acclaimed television series as Felicity, Alias, Lost and Fringe.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=99397

586. Jonboc - January 25, 2013

I love how everyone is ignoring MJ and Craiger’s usual “Where is Anthony?” rant…lol. Except, of course, the always silent K7, who seems to magically be summoned every time MJ posts…usually to back him up or validate his position. Uncanny how that happens” ;) Oh well, have your rant…you’ll achieve no better results this time than you did last…and the time before that. But it is immensely entertaining to watch you continue to try!

587. chrisfawkes.com - January 25, 2013

So what. As long as he makes a great Star Trek film who cares if he is involved with Star Wars.

I would really love Tarantino to do a star trek at some point.

I know some think of Tarantino as only violence but the truth is the guy knows his history of television and movies and an capture the spirit of the originals.

588. MJ - January 25, 2013

“I love how everyone is ignoring MJ and Craiger’s usual “Where is Anthony?”

Yea, nice job there ignoring me!

Hilarious!!!! :-)))

589. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

@ 586. Jonboc – January 25, 2013

“I love how everyone is ignoring MJ and Craiger’s usual “Where is Anthony?” rant…lol.”

I highly doubt that only MJ & Craiger feel that way, I happen to have similar reactions when the site go silent.

590. Phil - January 25, 2013

Starwars VII will be all action and no story, basically

591. K-7 - January 25, 2013

#589. Agreed. Jonboc always likes to try to bait MJ. The two of them going back and forth is always entertaining.

592. Ahmed - January 25, 2013

@ 590. Phil – January 25, 2013

“Starwars VII will be all action and no story, basically”

So was Star Wars IV: A New Hope. Mostly chase scene after chase scene

593. stunkill - January 25, 2013

episode 7 will suck no matter who directs it.

594. MJ - January 25, 2013

@593. Look what the cat dragged in!

595. stunkill - January 25, 2013

Well star wars has sold out to the satanic NWO supporting disney, well i cant say thats not apropo.

596. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2013

Interesting that as soon as Son of Jello disappears, stunkill shows up!

Looks like stunkill is up to his old tricks again!

597. stunkill - January 25, 2013

@ 594 You still remember admiral, I cannot help but be touched.

598. K-7 - January 25, 2013

Red Dead,

I thought it was even more interesting that we haven’t seen Jonboc in ages, and then all of a sudden, stunkill, who hasn’t posted in ages either, posts as well. This has happened before several months ago, and that time it happened just like this time, with Jonboc first suggesting that I am MJ’s sockpuppet, and then shortly after, stunkill posting.

I’ll let folks here draw their own conclusions from this.

599. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

Interesting CNET quotes the official notice as having an intro:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57565991-235/disney-confirms-j.j-abrams-to-direct-next-star-wars/

“After a bevy of emails and phone calls, the formalities have been wrapped up, and at long last everyone can exhale and properly share the word with an excited Internet.”

600. boborci - January 25, 2013

527.

I am one of the luckiest guys ever.

But I don’t anticipate working on Star Wars.

601. zigzag1701 - January 25, 2013

It is now official
http://collider.com/jj-abrams-star-wars-7/

602. stunkill - January 25, 2013

My how paranoid the people get with who’s posting who’s comments. I assure you I’am posting of my own volition with no help from anyone else. And I dont change my name either. I may be highly disagreeable but I’am not that sneaky nor do I wish to be. I stand by what I post.

603. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2013

#602.

Whatever you say, dude. We all remember your antics on this site a few months ago.

604. mattytrek - January 25, 2013

Bob Orci –

The obvious question is how this effects Trek. I am sure more than a few Trekkies feel like we came to the prom with with Bad Robot and then the red devil left with a hotter girl.

605. John - January 25, 2013

J.J will producer the third Star Trek movie.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013/01/25/j-j-abrams-directing-star-wars-what-happens-to-star-trek/#/0

606. Vultan - January 25, 2013

Watch out! Disney may want to leave a garrison at Paramount.

Abrams: “This deal is getting worse all the time.”

:-D

607. John - January 25, 2013

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013/01/25/j-j-abrams-directing-star-wars-what-happens-to-star-trek/#/0
“According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.”

608. stunkill - January 25, 2013

OK red dead ryan I cant argue with your paranoia its impossible. Maybe you should take a break from your computer and live in the real world sometime and see how real people work.

609. boborci - January 25, 2013

604 mattytrek

You know what? I truly undertand that feeling. I didn’t know about this until I read it, just like you. I don’t know what this means for Trek or how it affects even my own involvement.

However, as a fan of Star Wars, I would love to see JJ’s directing, and I know he will only agree to direct a great script.

but again, I understand. at this point, I just want to have “faith that the universe will unfold as it should…”

610. Vultan - January 25, 2013

#609

But have they heard of the Desiderata in that studio far, far away…?

611. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

#600. boborci

Maybe not, but at least you can dream about it at the Disney Park, Resort, or Cruise of your whim. This may be outdated but I seem to recall Disney has an air force for its execs too. You’ll be living in the high country.

Or at least reconnecting with some old Disney contacts, no?

612. mattytrek - January 25, 2013

Bob –

I am grateful as ever for your full and frank response. I was a huge fan of the “supreme court” prior to Star Trek 09 and so I am always happy to see them have success elsewhere. I just hope Trek is forgotten in the shuffle. INTO DARKNESS will now be creaking under the weight of Star Wars enquiries, the movie will now be held as Abrams’ audition for WARS and that seems a shame for everyone – not least Abrams himself.

One assumes Abrams won’t be back for Trek (1)3 but I hope we retain other key components, such as yourself, Lindelof, Kurtzman, Giacchino etc.

My fear is that our franchise will be overshadowed for longer than this short term media frenzy.

613. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2013

#608.

I know how real people work. You’re just not one of them.

614. MJ - January 25, 2013

@602 Dude, your real identity is internet shapeshifter named Sybil. You have more names than the devil across human history and lanuages.

615. mattytrek - January 25, 2013

612 – I meant to type *isn’t* lost in the shuffle

616. MJ - January 25, 2013

@605. Does ANYONE here read previous posts???

617. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 25, 2013

Star Trek should be on TV anyway. Forget the third movie and give us a series.

618. MJ - January 25, 2013

@609. Bob, are you throwing your name in the hat for director for Trek 3?

Given you probably can’t answer that, do you want to direct someday, or are you happy with writing and producing?

619. stunkill - January 25, 2013

I’am just wondering if people will have to wear RFID chips to track episode 7 box office sales? Could that be possible?

620. MJ - January 25, 2013

@617. So just give up and let Star Wars win? F-that!!!!!!

621. Son OF MJ - January 25, 2013

“J.J., his longtime producing partner Bryan Burk, and Bad Robot are on board to produce along with Kathleen Kennedy under the Disney | Lucasfilm banner.”
So does this mean we Will be seeing in the following order
Walt Disney Pictures logo
Lucas Film Logo
Bad Robot Logo
before a long time ago in a galaxy far far away….

If so just doesnt seem right that another production company’s logo after LucasFilm before the star wars episode scroll.

622. Red Shirt Diaries - January 25, 2013

Everyone, I find it VERY INTERESTING that neither Stunkill nor Jonboc has responded to K-7′s Post #598.

623. boborci - January 25, 2013

618. I would direct something I am passionate about, and Star Trek certainly falls in that category. but it is such a full time job that everything else would have to be lined up, too. It is the equivalent of a tour of duty abroad away from your family.

624. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2013

#622.

Agreed!

Though I do think Jonboc is not a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer.

Stunkill, on the other hand, is a total fake.

625. ajdczar - January 25, 2013

I agree with many comments here suggesting that JJ is more suited to the Star Wars franchise than Star Trek.

Now, if JJ went to Star Wars and Star Trek had Joss Whedon directing, that would work for me.

As one person noted, JJ is about the “ride”. Whedon is much better at exploring interpersonal dynamics that make Trek different from Wars. And as for humor, Whedon would bring back some of the humor that made Trek work. Wars, not so funny.

626. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

#616 MJ

I used to wonder that until I realized they are probable replying off the comments feed:

http://trekmovie.com/comments/feed

627. Phil - January 25, 2013

It’s been four years between Trek movies, and in between Bad Robot has taken on a lot of projects. JJ directing was never a given, and it sounds like the core people are still under Bad Robots employ. I’m happy for the SW people, but this does not bode poorly for STID, especially if the film is very successful. Considering there is chatter about bringing SW to TV, this could be the springboard for getting Trek back on the small screen, too. Remember, the rising tide floats all boats….

628. Adam E - January 25, 2013

It’s official now: http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-is-being-kick-started-with-dynamite-jj-abrams-to-direct-star-wars-episode-vii.html

629. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2013

#628.

Dude, its already been posted several times upthread.

630. Ensign RedShirt - January 25, 2013

Thanks for your honesty, Bob. Hope JJ at least makes some sort of statement to Trek fans.

631. Disinvited - January 25, 2013

#621. Son of MJ

I can only imagine thunderous applause when the little Yoda flies up and annoints The Magic Kingdom with Jedi dust.

632. Bill Peters - January 25, 2013

I think Orci or one of the other writers will Direct Star Trek XIII and I hope Star Trek into Darkness does good enough that they will make another one.

633. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - January 25, 2013

In the voice of Shatner’s “KHAAAAAN!!!”: NOOOOOOO!!!!!

How can anyone forget all the harm Rick Berman did to Star Trek between Voyager and Enterprise – especially Enterprise? Did you forget about Suliban, secret Future Guy and the Temporal Cold War plot in the first three seasons? If Berman hadn’t been so stupidly intent on havinga 29th Century Star Trek series, we wouldn’t have had 22nd Century Star Trek series ruined from day 1. On top of that, he ran away from the Star Trek name by simply calling it “Enterprise,” because he knew the Star Trek brand was damaged at the end of Voyager. Speaking of Voyager, remember how the Borg as a villian were ruined in that series?

Let’s not forget how the Vulcans were characterized throughout the first three seasons of Enterprise, with no particular reasoning other than the writing staff was bad. Or how they used the Borg (at least that was more logical since they were crashed on Earth) and Romulans at a point when they shouldn’t have? Or how the Xindi attack Earth when they’re a species we’ve never heard of before?

It took Berman to be sidelined for Season 4 for the show to get really good – when Manny Coto was head writer and fixing all Berman’s mistakes. Of course, Berman still reared his ugly writing in the last episode of the show, which doesn’t really qualify as an episode of Enterprise! An episode that was written when they thought the show was going to end with season 3.

So long before anyone can say JJ ruined Star Trek, NO. It was Rick Berman who ruined Star Trek.

634. stunkill - January 25, 2013

You are all so eager to cast your stones at me, which is typycall and none of you know me at all, your so eager to gang up on me with your collective authoritarian collectivism and you dont even know who I’am in your paranoid cyber perceptions.

635. MJ - January 25, 2013

@623. I hope you get the job, Bob. I know I have been critical of you at times in the past, but much of that is just my stream of consciousnesses anonymous internet poster persona shtick here; but in a serious decision like this with the future of Star Trek at stake, I think you are the best choice to pick this up from JJ.

636. MJ - January 25, 2013

@634. Perhaps we are without sin.

637. Red Dead Ryan - January 25, 2013

#634.

Quit playing the victim card. We know you’re a sockpuppeteer.

Give it up already!

You’ve been busted!

638. K-7 - January 25, 2013

Hear that sound, stunkill?

That’s me, playing my mini-violin for you.

639. RuneStoneOne - January 25, 2013

Abrams will do a bang up job with Star Wars, no doubt. The zeitgeist of Wars seems fully in alignment with his vision.

As an oooooollllld Trek fan (watched every episode first run since the first season of TOS), I’ve got the perspective to say this: Great SF movies have to connect with the underlying mythos of the current culture to capture our imaginations. And we’re no longer in the 60′s, folks. We’ve lost that hopeful ‘forward into the future’ cultural frame. The shadows looming in our waking dreams hint that there *is* no future… instead, we have global warming & endless war. Hence the shift in the flavor of current Trek, reflecting *current* realities.

Abrams choice of the destruction of Vulcan is true to formulations of Trek – a digital reflection (however strange) of current fears. Planetary destruction. The end of a species. There’s our waking nightmare staring back at us from the silver screen – and a lot of fans really didn’t like it. They came hoping for the old myths, and got the new, instead.

So Abrams didn’t break the ur-code of Trek. And won’t, with Darkness, either.

All that’s been lost has been the vision of a hopeful future – and we lost it long before Abrams ever did. To film a happy, shiny vision of peace, love and interpecies amity would have been utterly retro, and utterly false to the current zeitgeist that Trek reflects.

I personally mourn the loss of that hopeful universe. I’ll be curious to watch ‘Darkness,’ looking to see if any vestiges of that 60′s hope for the future manages to surface after all.

640. stunkill - January 25, 2013

And explain to me how I have been busted and for what exactly. You tell me.

641. MJ - January 25, 2013

@639 “And we’re no longer in the 60′s, folks. We’ve lost that hopeful ‘forward into the future’ cultural frame. The shadows looming in our waking dreams hint that there *is* no future… instead, we have global warming & endless war.”

Mutual Assurred Destruction, Cuban Missle Crisis, Kennedy down, MLK down, Vietnam, Bobby Kennedy down, race riots, war riots, 67 Arab-Israeli War.

Yea, why can’t today be as positive at the 1960′s?

LOL :-))

PS: I was born in the early 60′s. Today’s world is a fracking walk in the park compared to the 60′s.

642. stunkill - January 25, 2013

Tell me how you three have played the violin for me without Christ ordaining it for you to do so?

643. MJ - January 25, 2013

@640 @642

…as his predilection for irrelevancy dictates.

644. stunkill - January 25, 2013

and tell me where it demonstrates where he thinks anyone is irrevilant?

645. Vultan - January 25, 2013

#369

Some well argued points, sir. But can you tell us why precisely Trek’s vision of hope in the ’60s managed to break through some fairly awful real-world events in that decade, another time of seemingly endless war and everything going to hell, while also addressing those problems for an hour each week? I argue it’s because TPTB at that time dared to do it, dared to look at the hellish world around them AND at the world that could be.

And I argue someone with the right mindset could do the same today. Because hope is far from retro. Hope is a companion. Always with us. And still here… and, “out there. That’a way.”

646. Vultan - January 25, 2013

Correction: that comment was for 639 RuneStoneOne

647. supercritical - January 26, 2013

*boy drops old toy* *lets everyone know he’s giving up on the old stupid toy cause all he ever really wanted was the new shiny one, the toy of his dreams!*

648. Disinvited - January 26, 2013

#639. RuneStoneOne, #641. MJ

You tell him, MJ. the 60s wasn’t hope filled but STAR TREK and 2 assassinated dreamers were.

649. trekman - January 26, 2013

it´s just the job of a director to make different movies! how good or bad a movie ist depends on the script, not on the director. a good story with a bad director works! a bad story with a good director will not work at all! i think, abrams is a good director, but he is not the “maker” of the new movies. by the way, i like star trek XI, but even if i would not like it, we think to much about directors like about “gods”, who have EVERYthing in their hands. they have not! and even director is just a job. no director will depend his whole life on just ONE franchise. that would be as stupid like an actor, who is just playing ONE role his whole life, although this happens from time to time.

650. Son of Jello - January 26, 2013

Star Trek is a good example of JJ Abrams knowing the audience. If he is going to direct Star Wars I think this is a good thing. At the moment I see Star Wars as a dog of a franchise that’s in need of a hose out very much like the state Star Trek was in before 2009. Rumor has it that Lucas has outlined the story for 7,8,9, how much room will he have (or any director) when it comes to directing it. Having the Carrie Fisher,Harrison Ford and Mark Hamil in it and trying to relaunch the franchise seems like an awkward situation and probubly a tough gig for anyone who ends up directing SWep7. Just don,t let George Lucas anywhere near it and for Gods sake no child actors.

Today 26 Jan is Australia day and Mondays is a holiday hoooray.

651. Ali gee in Scotland - January 26, 2013

Well it official!
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/24249/official-jj-abrams-to-direct-star-wars-episode-vii

652. MJ - January 26, 2013

@644

…as his predilection for irrelevancy dictates.

653. Jim Nightshade - January 26, 2013

Its not a conflict of interest….BUT….I feel JJ should not do both simply because….I think he will probably LOSE INTEREST in one franchise or the other trying to do both…and since WARS will be fresher for JJ I bet he will lose interest in OUR TREK and not do the third movie….

Without JJ most of the cast of TREK will feel left out and nervous about doing a third one as well….

And Trek will be back at the drawing boards again instead of having new life and money pumped into it….

What says Mr Orci i wonder….havent had a chance to read all 650 comments yet….

If JJ tries to do two films at same time the similiarity of them both may cause JJ to become Stressed out….

Ironic cuz JJS revival of TREK has made him the BIGGEST most sought after director OBVIOUSLY hes doing something right with TREK…..if he abandons TREK for WARs our Franchise will be in DEEP TROUBLE….

And I think this COULD hurt the popularity and sales of TREK INTO DARKNESS because the REAL WARS fans wont bother to see it knowing JJ will be working on their Movie next they wont care about seeing Trek….and many more casual moviegoers may feel the same way…OR it couldmake TREK INTO DARKNESS more popular as everyone will want to see how JJ does TREK to see how great he will do WARS…..

My Bottom Line on this is that IT IS NOT GOING TO BE GOOD FOR OUR TREK FRANCHISE and Im KINDA PISSED JJ said hes NOT INTERESTED in doing WARs and is apparently changing his mind or he lied about not wanting to do it….Personally I dont think JJS motive is MONEY I think hes beyond the wanting money phase….for such a new movie director he has really made a big name for himself very fast….SIGH SNIFF POUT…..

HOPE the REST of them dont abandon TREK…..HOPE especially that ALEX and Bob Orci stick around…….sigh….

654. Son of Jello - January 26, 2013

Hey Star Wars relaunched Star Trek as a movie and now Abrams is relaunching Star Wars because of Star Trek.

655. Jim Nightshade - January 26, 2013

Well Bob Orci we all LOVE you being here and commenting…..You worked on transformers….and trek…why not wars too if JJ wants you guys to….

BUT…..Personally I am in agreement with those stating that us TREK fans supporting JJ and our franchise definately feel that JJ is just dumping us for the shinier toy…..

Although I like both franchises…..I am fiercely Loyal to TREK feeling it is superior in almost every way…..its not a fairy tale….its one of our few positive dreams of the future….and almost a way of life with its many celebrations of diversity, exploration, tolerance, acceptance and love of close friends and family….While both franchises can have similiar themes and stories the differences are palpable for me….

And when I first heard JJ say he was not interested in doing wars I felt really good that he was loyal to trek and us…..NOW I dont feel that way anymore….I wonder if JJ realizes he may be making many Trek Fans feel very uneasy right now…..Wheres the Great Bird of the Galaxy When we Need him….

Lastly I also have to feel TREK works best as TELEVISION…..and WARS works best as MOVIE spectacle….FRINGE on tv has proved to me you can do MUCH MORE with TV in the way of Epic Arcs Character Development, depth, etc.. IF ITS DONE RIGHT which it rarely is…FRINGE got it right and I am gonna miss that show on TV…..

Maybe JJ can get Wars Right and not abandon TREK….I guess we will find out…DAMN…..

656. Jelly - January 26, 2013

I am happy for JJ. I KNOW he is the best director for Star Wars and he has already proven himself with Star Trek. There is no reason why he can’t handle both. I was actually really disappointed when he originally said he didn’t want to be involved with the new Star Wars. I am glad he changed his mind.

657. rank_zero - January 26, 2013

so what about orci et al, i haven’t had the chance to read, will they be joining jj? i mean, is there’s ever going to be a 3rd movie, do we have to get another writing team as well?

658. Jelly - January 26, 2013

JJ was never going to manage Trek permanently. I think we all knew he was going to do 3 movies and move on. Just be happy he was as faithful to trek canon as he was. He could have did an actual reboot of Trek which would have pissed a lot of us off. Enjoy the JJ trek trilogy, paramount did right choosing him. Name a director that could have made a TOS movie as creative and original as JJ and his team. I’m not sure who is to be credited with the alternate timeline idea, probably Bob or Alex but it wouldn’t have happened without JJ

659. John F. - January 26, 2013

Well, I am a Trek fan and also like the original Star Wars. Lucas ruined it for me with the new trilogy. I think J.J. will deliver a Star Wars everybody wants.

660. Aurore - January 26, 2013

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

( http://trekmovie.com/2013/01/24/the-force-is-with-jj-j-j-abrams-to-direct-next-star-wars-for-disney/#comment-4973783)
____________

I sincerely believed it could not.

Probably because I personally did not care about what could happen with respect to the Star Wars franchise…The announcement of the Lucas/Disney deal did not matter…to me.

The recent announcement, regarding Mr. Abrams’ involvement with the Star Wars franchise, on the other hand, does.
If only for the fact that it makes “Star Wars” a little more “desirable” to my eyes…now.

And so, I wonder; will journalists resist the urge to ask questions about Star Wars to Mr. Abrams *during* the marketing rollout of Star Trek Into Darkness?

Will THIS announcement “hurt” the marketing rollout of the next Star Trek?

One thing is for sure; this news, and its timing (as noted by one poster upthread), cannot hurt the Star Wars franchise.

661. Nick - January 26, 2013

I’d be more than happy to see Brad Bird direct the next Trek movie. He did a great job on MI4.

662. Bucky - January 26, 2013

If I was the Head of Hollywood (and, God willing, some day I will be), here’s how JJ Abrams’ schedule for the next decade shakes out:

2013 – Star Trek Into Darkness (Directing)
2015 – Star Wars Episode 7 (Directing, off the script that is written, with some tweaks from the Braintrust)
2016 – Star Trek Tres (Directing, same crew, same everyone)
2018 – Star Wars Episode 8 (Directing, Bad Robot, Orci, Kurztman, Lindeolf et all are involved in the script from the ground-up this time, obviously working off the ST template that was laid out beforehand)
2019 – Star Trek 4 (Supreme Court / Bad Robot crew on script, story, producing, Abrams producing, give director over to Jack Bender who on “Lost” picked up Abrams’ style in the pilot and ran with it for the whole series)
2020 – Star Wars Episode 9 (Directing, everyone from Bad Robot running the show)

Then into the future, the Supreme Court splits all of their creative time running both Star Trek and Star Wars at once!

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

663. Bucky - January 26, 2013

For the record, I love both Star Trek and Star Wars. You’re allowed to like both, y’know! (even though I will admit it is kind of like cheering for both the Yankees and the Red Sox all at once)

664. Aurore - January 26, 2013

“For the record, I love both Star Trek and Star Wars. You’re allowed to like both, y’know! ”
______

Of course.
I always knew that.

It is also possible to love one and don’t care about the other…without having any problem whatsoever with the fact that some people love both.

:)

Moreover, *now*, I might come to love both!

665. shamelord - January 26, 2013

Brad Bird for Trek !

666. Aurore - January 26, 2013

Correction. 664.

don’t care about = not to care about

667. PaulB - January 26, 2013

#662 – That’s a great line of wishful thinking, I guess, except for one thing: Damon Lindelof shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Star Wars sequels. After Prometheus, he shouldn’t be allowed near science fiction at all.

668. captain_neill - January 26, 2013

667

Yet he is a writer on Star Trek Into Darkness.

I miss the days ofRon Moore, Brannon Braga, Ira Behr et all at times when I see the writers of Trek today who sacrifice story for spectacle.

The last movie had good character moments but the script was incoherent mess. I am hoping for something stronger this time, but if I come saying “THat IS Star Trek” I will be very happy indeed but given the style now I wwil more likely be coming out saying cool movie

669. Spockchick - January 26, 2013

@666. Aurore

Nice one! The comment of the beast!

670. Son of Jello - January 26, 2013

668:)
The more people who come out of the cinema saying cool movie the better the chances of Star Trek returning to TV. Star Trek can have some pretty subversive Ideas on Religion,Sex, Empire,Relationships,Race etc. There not the sort of Ideas that sell well to a large audience. But they are apart of the ST identity. Being all Blockbuster is finding another way into peoples heads and when they least expect it ST will slip in and make you think and question who you are what you may believe in and then you start asking questions you may not have normally asked. All we have to remember is ST and its fans are in it for the long haul.

671. Bucky - January 26, 2013

Star Trek can be a big, blockbuster film. It can also be quiet, thematic character pieces and can also be downright parody or everything in between. It’s multi-adaptive to any genre, which is one of the reason it has had legs for decades. Star Wars, by contrast, is a fantasy series, there are certain beats and tones and themes that repeat throughout the movies, which is if Abrams took the same vibe he applied to Star Trek, it’ll fit perfectly in Star Wars. It also fits perfectly in Star Trek but, as mentioned, ANY tone fits perfectly into Star Trek, which is why it’s so good in the first place.

672. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 26, 2013

I would like to see Abrams return to complete his Star Trek journey as Director ideally but as Executive Producer at the very least because now we’re halfway through, to give up now would be appalling.

I just want to take a moment to say I am still so very disappointed this has happened. Whilst Abrams has a right to go and so what he likes, I think the way this has been handled has been completely unfair on those Trek fans who’ve supported him and the supreme court. What this has done, a mere 4 or so months away from Star Trek Into Darkness, has made me feel very cold and bitter against JJ Abrams and unfairly so the rest of his team. I know it’s irrational to think like this, both are different, both have and will go on but it always seems that Star Trek is given the rough and unfair treatment, this time its been discarded just because Abrams childhood is presented to him.

I think in terms of the future of Star Trek, it should return to TV with Ronald D Moore, Branon Braga, Manny Coto, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman producing, getting ACTUAL Science Fiction writers, novelists to write the scripts alongside them.

Possibly under the banner of Bad Robot as I can’t see Bad Robot being used for Star Wars when Lucas Film is its production company.

673. VulcanFilmCritic - January 26, 2013

@639,641
I’m probably just as old. Before JFK was assassinated and before the War in VietNam ramped up, there was a kind of euphoria about the future, culminating in the 1964-5 World’s Fair and JFK’s pledge to put an man on the moon. Star Trek was conceived in the early part of the decade by guys who were already in their 30′s and 40′s. But by the time it actually aired we were starting to be bombarded by bad news. The last season began to reflect the societal problems of the day, and rather than offer solutions it allowed itself to be sucked into that depressing way of thinking. This probably led to its downfall.
I think most people want to read or view science fiction as an escape. The dystopian stuff is never popular, but it is often remembered. ” “Planet of the Apes,” “Logan’s Run,” “Soylent Green” reflected the nightmares of the times in which they were made, but I think people gravitated to Star Trek on the small screen because it offered an alternative vision or a way out of our problems. And it is still relevant because we are still trying to make that dream come true.
What we need now are visionaries who can at least imagine a better future. Not people who simply adapt old properties with a fresh coating of paint. That’s not science fiction,really, is it?
But the future that Star Trek posits is not exactly peachy. There IS war, constant war out there, but we deal with it. There is also ignorance, trafficking in human flesh, out of control computers, genetically altered superman running amok, greed, slavery and oppression. Average people may not be able to deal with these problems, but as the crew of the Enterprise show us, even though they don’t always win, you have to fight the good fight.
Not even fighting is an attitude that has been inflicted on the younger generation, by television and politics. Be happy with your shiny little boxes. Look at them, stroke them, and talk to them all the time. Don’t allow reality to wrinkle your smooth, unwrinkled little brows. Buy something nice and go back to sleep. Sci-fi should be the medium that tells them to WAKE UP!
And the only filmmakers out there who seem to be intent on doing that kind of story are the Wachowski’s. (I wonder if they are Star Trek fans?)

674. The Electric Body - January 26, 2013

PARAMOUNT VICE CHAIRMAN says Abrams still involved in ST….

Beh

Vice Chairman is saying: you,, JJ, you has a contract with us. So, You must fulfil it. And If you don´t want to make more pictures with us, you must pay and the contract will be rescinded…

And the contract will be rescinded. Disney will pay.

675. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 26, 2013

Just read that from Moore and yeah it does read like Paramount wrapping Abrams over the knuckles saying you WILL BE INVOLVED IN STAR TREK OR WE WILL DESTROY YOU

676. general colbert - January 26, 2013

@675
No, they say: He will produce ST3 and he can direct it if he wants to, but he doesn’t need to. Producing ST3 while directing SW isn’t impossible.

If SW7 is to be released on may 2015 and SW8 will follow on may 2018, then Nov. 2016, two month after ST 50th anniversary would be right in the middle of these two dates and therefore the best time to release ST3. This means JJ has 18 months of time for ST3.

btw. I don’t believe disneys time shedule to be valid. Two years is not enough time between the SW episodes. I expect them to use the three year cycle.

677. The Electric Body - January 26, 2013

Umm, i’m sorry very much, but contract will be rescinded…

Wait and be,

Rescission or court.: Paramount vs Bad Robot

678. Cygnus-X1 - January 26, 2013

604. mattytrek – January 25, 2013

JJ moving on to Star Wars permanently would restore balance to the Force…

But only if he’d let go his grip on Trek and devote himself to Star Wars, which does seem to be something of a lifelong passion for him.

Disney’s Star Wars is where JJ belongs. It’s perfect for him. He’s done Trek a service by reminding Hollywood of the franchise’s commercial potential. And seeing JJ’s version of a Trek movie has been interesting and enjoyable. Now he should move on to his true love and let someone else have a shot at Trek…

Someone at least as passionate about Trek as JJ is about Star Wars.

679. Admiral:Bumblebee - January 26, 2013

So Star Wars will look like this in the future ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GMNm0-0-Ko

Time to bring some sunglasses to the cinemas :)

680. The Electric Body - January 26, 2013

@ 676
Numbers, numbers, numbers….

You can be CEO Of Coco Cola o You Can be CEO of Pepso Cola, but you can’t be CEO of Coco Cola and Pepso Cola at the same time…Sorry, you can’t.

You must choose between, and Abrams has chosen between: FIRST: Star Wars. Second: Personal Projects. No spot for Star Trek.

And ST needs a new producer who loves star trek, a new producer who says: Star Trek is the FIRST option for me, not the second , not the third option, the first. This man is not Abrams. For Abrams Star Trek is not important, in his second or third option. Only a job.

It’s time for new blood. It’s time for true trekkers in Supreme Court.

681. mercury - January 26, 2013

i hope paramount lets abrams go in good graces..i’d hate to see him being *forced* to work on Trek. i’m actually kind of glad he’s moved on to Star Wars, since it seems to be his lore anyway. Not that he didn’t do a good job on Trek xi, he did, but it was the set up story and I still think the story itself and how it was presented (ie director’s and writers’ part) wasn’t what made this movie as enjoyable as it was; the cast and the set artists still take the crown for it imo. So I’d like to see someone else take on Trek now and actually make it a great story as well.

682. Aurore - January 26, 2013

@666. Aurore
Nice one! The comment of the beast!
____

Well….I was trying not to make a big deal out of it but….YEAH !!!!

:))

( EVIL LAUGHTER!)

683. Idiots - January 26, 2013

For Gods sake, those calling Mr Abrams out on directing a Star Wars film, really should, as Mr Shatner once said, ‘get a life’! Utterly pathetic many of these responses. All this entitlement crap. He owes you nothing! Nothing! Not a damn thing. Directing is a job! And he’s just got a very enticing one which he initially turned dowm, but (by all accounts) was sweet talked into by Lucas and Kennedy. Good for him!

Where did he ever promise you personally that he’d give you three Trek films? Personally I’d be glad if they didn’t use him for the third! He sensibilities are far better suited to Star Wars, than Star Trek. He’s far more adept at wham-bang glitzy looking popcorn entertinment, than he is with thoughtful sci-fi character and idea driven films, like Trek used to be at its best before Paamount decided to throw it to the multiplex 2 second attention span teen crowd!

All this crap that he OWES the fanbase something is nothing but utter selfishness. And you wonder why fans are gven a hard time by the press/publc sometimes?! Really, get your damn heads out the clouds and take a reality check! This is a series of films. Nothing more. It’s not something Holy. They. Are. Just. Entertainment! Trek is based on change and growth and ‘infinite diversity’. So I say a new potential director for NuTrek III is a damn good thing!

You want want to get riled up about something, go join Greenpeace or any other number of worthy charities and do somethimg worthwhile that DOES matter with your time and energy.

Abrams owes you NOTHING – deal with it and grow up kids!

684. T'Cal - January 26, 2013

Even if SW7 is bad, it will make a ton of money and there will be at least two sequels. You have to hand it to TPTB for SW as they have marketed it so well. The toys, collectables, video games, books, clothing, apps, etc. out there appeal to a wide range of consumers from kids to adults. Trek was never marketed nearly as well and I’d love to see that change. While I’m a bigger fan of 24th century Trek, the Abrams-verse is solid and it has broadened the audience tremendously. A well-done animated series like Batman, JLA, Superman, Gargoyles, etc. could reach out to younger viewers – as well as teens and adults – making Trek accessible to, dare I say it, the next generation.

685. Exverlobter - January 26, 2013

@680. The Electric Body

Until now there was never a director who made more than 2 Trek-movies. You could say that Abrams contributation to Trek is already sufficient.

IMO, Let Bryan Singer take over the franchise.

686. smegger56 - January 26, 2013

About the second quote, you could read it as he had to chose one of the other. That he felt if he did SW, he could in no way be involved with ST due to schedules. But he’ll still be involved with Trek at least at a producing level.

I still think he’ll direct the 3rd Trek :)

687. smegger56 - January 26, 2013

I say keep it in the family. Give Kurtzman or Orci the gig if JJ acn’t/wont direct a 3rd.

688. flake - January 26, 2013

Re: SW announcement affecting Trek… I think this is good marketing because people will check Trek 2009 and 2013 out to see what JJA can do.

Also another potential director: Jack Bender.

689. Exverlobter - January 26, 2013

He probably could handle both franchises if the Star Wars fans as well as the Trekkies always are willing to accept 4 year gaps between each film.

690. Annon - January 26, 2013

In my opinion this will help to sell tickets for Star Trek 3

I can see the adverts now Star Trek 3 from the director of starwars ep7

691. Chris M - January 26, 2013

I think this is fantastic news, to have the same person making Star Trek and Star Wars is extraordinary!!

I am confidend JJ will make a great Star Wars movie!

692. Disinvited - January 26, 2013

#660. Aurore

Thank you for that.

#680. The Electric Body

Actually, in big business it happens more than people think and is perfectly legal as long as there’s enough different entities producing product so that a monopoly doesn’t arise.

693. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

For those who think that it’s “pathetic” to complain about JJ’s directing the next SW movie, I would caution the following: People like me who like both ST and SW would have no problems with JJ’s involvement in both or either, BUT FOR the fact that Abrams specifically stated (as reported here) that he believed that his loyalty to Trek precluded him from directing SW 7.

Why on Earth would he have said that, if he didn’t mean it, unless he had simply wanted to use it as leverage in negotiations with Disney — and possibly unless, in his heart, he really didn’t see his loyalty to Trek as paramount?

So, this whole thing is colored by his statement; it’s a bit saddening for those of us who think that Trek should have been JJ’s first and only priority.

But in fact, this is Life in the Big City, where there are apparently no loyalties that can’t be broken, for the right “price.”

I don’t mind that. I just wish I’d never heard JJ use Trek quite so cynically.

I’m waiting for a form of penance from him, and if he can use his pull to do a Trek-SW crossover — studios be damned! — then I will consider it a form of absolution.

Look — you can’t be a fan without being disappointed at times.

And, dammit, I’m disappointed.

Sorry, JJ. I wish I weren’t. But I am.

694. Aurore - January 26, 2013

“He probably could handle both franchises if the Star Wars fans as well as the Trekkies always are willing to accept 4 year gaps between each film.”
_______

I could handle the four year gap between each movie.

Nevertheless, if some are right about the possibility of Mr. Abrams moving on to Star Wars permanently, if that is what he desires, I agree that he should not be “forced” to work onTrek .

I want him to be happy.
(But, I would certainly “miss” him!)

:))

I will always be grateful for what he did for me, in 2009 ; thanks to him, my interest in the Star Trek franchise was renewed.

695. Mark Lynch - January 26, 2013

All this talk here about letting Bryan Singer have a go at Star Trek….

Does nobody recall how well that went for Superman Returns?

His heart was in the right place, but the film was, quite honestly, tosh.

I’ll say it again, Robert Zemeckis for Nu Trek 3.

696. Mark Lynch - January 26, 2013

I wonder if, when SW VII is released, that Star Wars fans will complain that JJ has made it too Star Trekky…

;-)

697. chrisfawkes.com - January 26, 2013

Truth be told with Abrams at the helm we may finally get a decent Star Wars movie.

698. jas_montreal - January 26, 2013

I think this could be a blessing in disguise. I really want a different directors interpretation of Star Trek. Enough Star Wars in Star Trek already!

All i gotta say is: karma.

699. crazydaystrom - January 26, 2013

Ok, It’s taken a me couple of days, nearly, to digest this news. Now I’m chuckling at that fact that I was so stunned and shocked, like most of fandom,that JJ was chosen and had excepted the director’s mantle for the next SW movie. Mostly because of JJ’s recent declaration of why he would NOT direct an SW movie. And because like most fans the idea of Star Wars and Star Trek being guided by the same vision(ary) just doesn’t…um..compute. But you know? What the hell. Not to get all ‘Kubler-Ross’ here, but I’ve jumped straight from Denial to Acceptance about this. Pardon my tautology, but it is what it is and will be what it will be. What I hope it will be is, ultimately, a move that’ll result in better SW movies AND Star Trek films.

I like SW but there’ve only been two great movies in the franchise. The others range from ok to meh, IMHO. But I’ve been a proud and outspoken Trek fan since the sixties. And while my beloved franchise has definitely had it’s ups and downs, I have been and always shall be a Trekkie. What I’m going to do now is kick back, chill out and wait and see how things turn out.

Live Long and Prosper!
And there just might be some good in whatever is Forced to Be With You….IDIC and all that.

And speaking of prospering, is JJ a billionaire yet? ‘Cause if he isn’t it shouldn’t be very long now. Wow!

700. Idiots - January 26, 2013

@687: unbelievable – what an utterly moronic idea. Here’s an idea (remember those?!) get a proper Science-Fiction writer in. Let him/her spend the time they need to come up with something new which doesn’t involve a villain of the week. Earth under threat. Yet more boring gun fights and explosions. Etc. Something new. Daring. Fresh! Involving exploration and Star TREKing again. Let’s see some strange new worlds up close and personal and spend some time there in a new environment. Meet a different culture. Aliens who aren’t bloody humanoids yet again. It’s almost like they’re scared to not have a villain, as conflict = exciting. And exploration and imagination = boring. Well… not if the story is good enough. But the era of expanding the mind seems to be long gone. Lazy tory telling is in. Get a director who is more targetted towards characters and less towards explosions and Federation fisticuffs!

I tell ya, the current trend of targetting films towards the Xbox and action over decent story teen crowd is really wearing thin, why? Because it’s just about style over substance now. A filmic ‘happy meal’. People are growing up craving conflict and fights and explosions and increasingly becoming bored by anything even remotely thought provoking. Very sad. I actully preferred Trek ‘dead’ then have it become ‘owned’ by the action loving film crowd. Perhaps it didn’t need to be reinvented at all…

I say let a new Director have a go at Trek. Somebody with the balls to do something different that’s just as compelling as the last action fest, but with substance. Something that if you took away the effects it would still tell a good story. Remember those?……

And once more: Abrams NEVER said he’d direct a Trek trilogy…

701. VOODOO - January 26, 2013

#693

Loyalty = LOL!

Grow up.

702. Disinvited - January 26, 2013

#683. Idiots

That line “Get a life!” was created by a writer, Robert Smigel (The man literally behind Triumph, The Insult Comic Dog puppet with the tag line “For me to p00p on!”), for his character, a fictional William Shatner, to say in dealing with fictional fans. The real William Shatner had nothing to do with the creation of that line. His only connection was agreeing to perform Smigel’s fictional Shatner role.

When you misattribute this line, you appear to suffer from the same inability to distinguish fiction from reality that you so disparage and mistakenly project onto others.

To be clear, Robert Smigel is the one who told Trek fans to “Get a life!” and it is difficult to gauge his sincerity as he is an insult comic writer who regularly rakes the real Shatner over the coals in the guise of his character, Triumph, which Smigel himself performs.

703. Andy Patterson - January 26, 2013

“Also consulting on the project are Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg.”

Well, this is the most positive thing I’ve heard from this whole story line.

704. Jonboc - January 26, 2013

I just hope the lines between the two universes don’t begin to blur. I love my Trek. I love the clean lines of the ships. I love the pointed sideburns. It’s about humanoids. I love the sense of awe from Kirk and company as they encounter the unknowns of deep space. It’s about discovery. It’s great fun to watch.

I love Star Wars. I love the rugged, dirty, greasy ships with doo-dads cobbled together on their exteriors. I love the simplistic Saturday-morning-serial fun of white hat, black hat, good guy vs. bad guy…good guy always wins. I love the eye candy and the imagination and rubber puppets. It’s also great fun to watch.

My hope is that JJ, with his own creative troup from Bad Robot, can do justice to both and keep the lines from blurring. I think…and I may be wrong, but think, like an artist can paint in oils or acrylics, JJ is fully capable of living comfortably in both universes and giving 100% to Trek….when it’s Trek’s turn. And it’s that excruciatingly long turn around time between Treks that I hate and fear the most.

705. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

701, I’m listening to Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. in E-Flat, the “Emperor” concerto. I read your “Grow up!” comment, and I am — yes — amused.

We — the royal we — ARE amused.

I’m not really interested in the actual concept of “loyalty” as pertains hereto, as much as I’m interested in why Abrams felt it appropriate to use Trek, apparently, to further his own interests. That’s what bothers me.

But thanks for playing.

706. Craiger - January 26, 2013

What about just rebooting Star Wars? Could they do it in such a way that we don’t know how it will end?

707. Craiger - January 26, 2013

Or another way to do it would be base it on those sequel books that are set after ROTJ.

708. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

Philosophically, pals o’ mine, we use everything we can to further our own interests…. Any one of us who is gainfully employed, in this sense, “uses” the employer to make a living — the get the bucks, the dough, the shekels, necessary, to sustain life.

But it’s one thing to do that, to take a producing gig, to direct two amazing movies, and receive the accolades accordingly, and quite another to issue a statement saying how one loves one’s work so well that one would deem any professional departure therefrom to be a departure — nay, a violation! — of one’s predilictions.

You may say that to a potential employer, but to publicize it? So cynically? To your fans?

Wherefore art thou, JJ?

;-)

They don’t call it Tinseltown for nothing, I know. But I have a right to complain about it when they throw crap at you knowing the result. Or, perhaps even less palatably, not caring one way or the other.

It’s just a movie? Just a show?

Maybe to JJ.

709. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

^^ “predilection.” As corrected.

710. Dom - January 26, 2013

So it’s official! Congratulations to Mr Abrams and Bad Robot! It’s a great thing that the people who were wowed by the works of Lucas and Spielberg and their contemporaries are now bringing these sagas back and, curiously, will likely be more respectful to them than even their creators!

This is good news for Star Wars and actually good news for Star Trek – think of all the Star Wars fanboys who will go to check out a big sci-fI film by the man who’s helming Episode VII!

I loved Abrams’ work on the Missions: Impossible and Super-8, and I’ve rated his work since Alias. I even enjoyed Regarding Henry many years ago. This is a good day to be a scifi fan!

711. David - January 26, 2013

JJ basically decided on Star Trek as his 2nd choice, He problably never even comprehended that Lucas would sell Star Wars to disney and it would be available to direct. He made a commitment to Star Trek and when first approached he chose to stay with Star Trek. But over time i bet he thought this could be my one opportunity to do a Star Wars movie and took it. Bob Orchi said this was the first he heard about this online, if that is true then i bet he shocked everyone with this decision and not only screwed star trek fans but his friends and co-workers as well. I love both but personally i feel that Affleck should have been chosen for SW. I

712. Cervantes - January 26, 2013

Okay, so it’s officially ‘official’ now then, I see. I just hope J.J. can give me a decent ‘Star Wars’ instalment eventually. I certainly have faith in the actual current screenwriter of that.

Now…if only the next ‘Trek’ instalment could be written/directed to involve the current cast in some kind of storyline which ends up ‘re-setting’ their ‘alternate timeline’ back to the TOS timeline somehow…and we can continue with some as-yet-unseen ’5-year mission’ adventures.

Oh, and we could also get a return to something that resembles the original ‘Enterprise’ design too in that case…before the ST:TMP movie ‘refit’ occurred…

Hey, I can wish can’t I?

713. Dom - January 26, 2013

Yep! Won’t happen though! I like JJ’s universe, which was created by a team an I see no reason why the whole of Bad Robot should have to stop working on Star Trek because some of them will be working on Star Wars.

According to a bunch nerds here, JJ shouldn’t have been working on Mission: Impossible or Super-8 and should have devoted his life to being Trek-runner.

Most complaints are bulls**t ‘fan entitlement/geek rage.’ And why should the new universe of the reboot films be ‘reset’ in a manner consistent with the lazy storytelling of Berman’s TV era? It’s a different universe and is the main one now, so live with it!

714. Gary S. - January 26, 2013

So do we have confirmation of a three picture deal for JJ?
Maybe its like Nolans deal for the Batman trilogy .
there was an expectation that he would do all three films but he wasnt contactually locked .

715. Cervantes - January 26, 2013

@ 713 Dom

Hey, some of us are as entitled to ‘fan entitlement/geek rage’ just as much as any fan of J.J.’s and his writers are.

And I certainly don’t want any ‘reset’ timeline to be rebooted in a manner consistent with Berman’s TV era. I want the tone to be similar to the better ‘TOS’ TV era…NOT the ‘Next Gen’ era that he was involved with. Now THAT was an ‘alternate timeline’ universe if ever there was one!

Time will tell what the 3rd ‘Trek’ movie reboot brings, so we shall see. But if it excludes the likes of ‘Keenser’, then that’s a start…

716. Disinvited - January 26, 2013

#690. Anon

You must be far younger than I. There’s absolutely no way Disney Legal will allow any of their trademarked/copyrighted works appear to endorse a competitor’s product. Now of course, the reverse they might be able to do: “From the Director of STAR TREK in a galaxy far, far, away: STAR WARS: VII”

717. Dom - January 26, 2013

Nothing wrong with Keenser. Again that’s just nerd rage. The general public had no problem with him and they are infinitely for important than an angry subsection of the fans, who barely register as an interest group.

Paramount have also confirmed Abrams’ continued involvement with Star Trek 3 as producer at the very minimum. So the Trek movies are still in safe hands.

718. focuspuller - January 26, 2013

Not to be negative, But anyone think this might be The X-men films all over again? Bryan Singer traded one comic book series for another. He was a big fan of Superman and couldn’t resist. Look what happened to X-men.

719. Alec - January 26, 2013

Well, it’s officially confirmed. I wont watch the new Trek film in the cinema as a result. If I’m told it’s good, I may rent it later. I’m really not sure where Star Trek, newly reborn, goes from here. We were going to be lucky to get three films. Now, we certainly won’t get more than that and might not even get past two. I just wish the powers that be gave the responsibility to people who actually liked Trek and wanted to make it

…Disappointed.

720. Ahmed - January 26, 2013

@ 717. Dom – January 26, 2013

“Nothing wrong with Keenser. Again that’s just nerd rage. The general public had no problem with him”

Would you please provide us with the number of focus groups that you organized with the general public to reach to that conclusion ?

At this time & age, you can’t simply dismiss the fan as “an angry subsection of the fans, who barely register as an interest group.”. Word of mouth can make or break a movie.

You can say whatever you want about “Keenser” but don’t trivialize others while stating your view

721. rank_zero - January 26, 2013

719 alec, i won’t be watching either. this coming from a big fan like myself. really disappointed not by the fact that jj goes on to direct SW, i wish him all the best, but i kinda hate the fact we got to be his stepping stone just to get a reaction from Disney. not a good choice to directly adress the fans and just, idk, lie. i wish we had someone loyal on our side.

have a good day, everyone!

722. Disinvited - January 26, 2013

#708. Hat Rick.

I know exactly what you mean. Months ago, I said JJ would have to be a fool not to use this in his business negotiations. I applauded him then and I applaud his business acumen now. I don’t applaud his lack of preparation to be ready to deal with his “loyalty” claim/reasoning.

I respect Abrams as an artist and I extremely doubt he’d do anything to mar his own work. But I have to wonder what kind of screws Paramount put to him in the previously reported budget issues and the 3D that he might have in some small way closed the Disney deal in lashing out on a sub-conscious level?

723. Rob Steckel - January 26, 2013

For all the crybabies, here’s your bottle:

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-trek/24251/jj-abrams-remains-committed-to-star-trek

724. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

722, Disinvited, well stated. It was Abrams who used the loyalty card. Fans like me ate it up.

There’s a cost to everything even if not monetary.

Time to pay the piper. I respect the man less than before.

725. dmduncan - January 26, 2013

Oh this could be great news for Star Trek.

What Star Trek 3 needs is a wild card.

Some unknown personage having a secret genius for the cinema, who also happens to be one of the most ardent fans of Star Trek you can find.

Someone who blindsides the establishment. He comes out of nowhere, leapfrogging talent that’s been waiting in line for the opportunity like an illegal alien on meth.

Who the HELL does he think he is, this guy? Orson Welles?

Oh shut up, you cinematic bureaucrats. He’s been paying his dues as a fan of Star Trek as long as anyone. And while YOU duplicitous mole hunters see merely an opportunity to make your careers, HE sees only an opportunity to make great Star Trek.

But in answer to your question — Yes. Orson Welles! THAT’S who he thinks he is. But he doesn’t eat as many cheeseburgers, and he doesn’t do cheesy magic tricks. No, THIS Orson Welles saves all the bedazzlement and breath-taking for the movie theater! Oh, and when THIS Orson tells you New Jersey is being invaded by aliens…you’d better look outside your window and take notice ‘cuz maybe — juuuuuuust MAYBE — THIS Orson knows a little sump’n sump’n you don’t.

But WHERE would we find a guy like that? Where????

726. Buzz Cagney - January 26, 2013

In a web server, far, far away, I guess there will be Star Wars fans bitchin about “that guy from Star Trek coming in to really balls our franchise up”!

727. Harry Ballz - January 26, 2013

I haven’t read all the posts here, so sorry if somebody else has pointed out….

With Star Trek, Paramount basically told JJ, “sure, do whatever you want. alternate reality, kill people off, whatever…the franchise is toast anyway, so where can you go but up?”

With Star Wars, Disney has a different attitude, when they command, “we just paid billions for this thing! You are going to make it EXACTLY how we tell you. Don’t change a comma in the script!”

Why JJ would want to be a slave to the Mouse Empire is anyone’s guess.

728. AJ - January 26, 2013

This is similar to the massive controversy when Irvin Kershner, of “Empire Strikes Back” directorial fame, was picked to direct “RoboCop II” in 1989 . Who here remembers the scandal? ;-)

The difference here is that ‘RoboCop” peaked with Paul Verhoeven’s original film. “Star Wars” in its real-life linear-time film order, ended as a steaming pile. Kershner never had a chance with Robo2, whereas JJ simply needs to improve upon ‘Sith’ with a hearty dose of nostalgia for IV, V & VI, hopefully with a decent character-driven story and competent actors.

729. Dom - January 26, 2013

720. Ahmed: ‘Would you please provide us with the number of focus groups that you organized with the general public to reach to that conclusion ?’

Would you provide me with all the non-fan, mainstream websites pouring hate over Keenser? When you hang out in the pub, do you hear people spewing bile over Keenser in that Star Trek movie? You can’t? Why? Because no one outside of a bunch of weird so-called ‘fans’ really singled him out as anything other than a minor background character with only a couple of minutes’ I was aware of the character, but barely noticed him. I guess, given the lack of sense of humour these fans have about Keenser, they must be TNG fans!

‘At this time & age, you can’t simply dismiss the fan as “an angry subsection of the fans, who barely register as an interest group.”. Word of mouth can make or break a movie.’

Oh what utter bollocks! Trek fans are a trivial interest group. Their contribution to the films’ takings is nice, but the majority of people seeing the film will be mainstream viewers who will be watching Captain America 2 or The Hobbit 2 shortly after and have no knowledge or interested in the politics certain Trek fans obsess about. And nothing I say or anyone else says here will affect box office takings. So I won’t shut up!

‘You can say whatever you want about “Keenser” but don’t trivialize others ‘while stating your view”

I don’t need to trivialise people when they’re already trivial. The difference is, I’m one person and I know I’m trivial. The ‘fan entitlement’ brigade need a good smack on the arse and a reminder that they’re no more than dust I the wind!

730. This is going to be a long year - January 26, 2013

Surprising news.

But for those of you who feel this is the end, if Into Darkness is a hit Paramount will make a 3rd. Hollywood is a business.

I’m a fan what JJ has done so far. But on the upside, if JJ delegates to someone else we may even get the 3rd movie in less than 4 years.

But I’m not sure how they will get the Star Wars movie out by 2015?

Mr. Orci any insight into the process of how these sci-fi movies get made?

731. PaulB - January 26, 2013

After reading all the idiotic whining about loyalty and about Abrams somehow betraying fans, I find myself yet again embarrassed to be a Trekkie. Some of you people here…geesh, you need therapy. Abrams didn’t kill your puppy, he didn’t rape your grandma, and he didn’t eat your action figure. He got a job directing another SF franchise–that’s all!

He didn’t piss on Star Trek or on fans. He didn’t insult us. Those of you weeping and wailing, and especially those who say you won’t see Trek-2 because of this, are idiots or very, very childish. GROW UP.

I hope Abrams gets a whiff of your whiny stupidity and strikes back by digitally inserting Jar Jar Binks into EVERY FRAME of Trek-2, just to piss off you whiners.

On a happier note, it’s good to see that Kasdan is involved. Just keep Lindelof away from the script, and there’s…well, a new hope for Star Wars.

732. Rob Steckel - January 26, 2013

@ 730 – I believe the thinking is that they can make the Star Wars movies every 2 years so I think its safe to say they can have the first out by 2015. I can’t recall if I heard that the script was basically done or not but I’m going to assume that they’ll start shooting by late spring, early summer at the latest.

Actually I was always baffled that it took Lucas 3 years between each movie. The LOTR and Hobbit movies come out every year.

733. Smike - January 26, 2013

This is really a great time for both franchises. Yes, there are whiners and flamers on both sides who hate each other, but I’ve always loved both universes and now that no one else but one of the singlemost greatest SciFi-geeks-turned-producer/director will be in charge of both franchises, we’ll finally get THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS :-))

734. Tushar - January 26, 2013

Disney and JJ confirmed it (Blu-Ray.com). When will they update this post?

735. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 26, 2013

@boborci, what do you REALLY think of JJ Abrams decision? Obviously he seems born to direct Star Wars but as a Star Trek fan do you feel a bit awkward about the news and the prospect or certainty that Abrams won’t be involved with Star Trek 3?

736. Phil - January 26, 2013

Got only one thing to say about the folks in a huff about JJ heading off to direct Episode 7, and promising not to watch STID. Go lie to someone who will believe you. With both franchises under the roof of Bad Robot, we should be heading off to buy tickets for both movies, to better ensure the odds that Trek will be around for a long, long time.

737. Craiger - January 26, 2013

Harry what do you mean Star Trek is toast? If the sequel is a hit then Paramount would probably want to do a new Trek TV series and then do the third film. If the sequel isn’t a hit then I think Trek is toast. Unless Paramount would let CBS reboot for TV and see if they can make Trek a hit again on TV.

738. boborci - January 26, 2013

picard

yeah, It is weird. I don’t know what this portends for any of our involvement.

739. Ahmed - January 26, 2013

@739. boborci
If you were offered to write either Star Trek 3 or Star Wars VIII, which one you will be interested in ?

btw, have you ever read any of the “Revelation Space” novels by Alastair Reynolds ? I think that you might like them, they are full of conspiracies in a big sci-fi setting.

740. Exverlobter - January 26, 2013

Guys, remember the original Star Wars Trilogy? Every new film had a new director. It didn’t hurt the films at all.
Abrams will probably in some ways still be involved, and the micromanagement will be done by someone else.
No big deal.

BTW, i cannot understand those weird comments about the supposed betrayal of Abrams. Star Trek is no girlsfriend on which you can cheat. Its indeed just a job.
Relax.

741. Jack - January 26, 2013

738. Craiger. Harry was talking pre-Trek 09.

742. helen - January 26, 2013

JJ will do a great job on both franchises.Now all I hope is that he gives Benedict Cumberbatch a prominent role in Star Wars VII. Make it so Mr A.

743. Son OF MJ - January 26, 2013

703 The Lawrence Kasdan news is months old though, you seriously only learned it from this thread?

744. Craiger - January 26, 2013

Oh, ok thanks Jack.

745. Son OF MJ - January 26, 2013

I honestly don’t get how some of you are so hung up on how old some directors are or the frequency of their working on films as a director.

And how some of you ignore that about one director/writer/producer but throw it in the face when another director/writer/producer is mentioned.

In anycase I have spoken my Personal concerns about JJ possibly going his super 8 route and apeing Lucas/Spielberg of the 70s and 80s in episode 7. Will I still watch inspite of those concerens Heck yeah its STAR WARS, will I end up liking you better believe I will even if it does end up just apeing Lucas/Spielberg 70s/80s style of directing.

But I still would have been much more excited if Affleck had ended up at the helm, the guy is a great director and would have made for an interesting directon for Episode 7 who knows though perhaps we will see him helm Episode 8 or 9 or one of the spin off films.

And yeah I agree with the people who are saying that its crazy that people are throwing betrayl and cheating into the discussion. There was no betrayal of anything lol.

It’s just interesting that JJ changed his mind and decided that he would direct the movie instead of simply enjoy the story as a member of the audience like the rest of us.

746. Son OF MJ - January 26, 2013

I will say this don’t forget Harrison Ford has worked on a JJ/Bad Robot produced movie before and got along great with JJ who was the producer on Morning Glory so JJ along with Kathleen Kennedy and a little nudging by George Might make getting Harrison definately back in a smaller capacity a bit easier.

747. Peter Loader - January 26, 2013

J.J. Abrams Will Still Be Involved with STAR TREK 3 and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 5 Despite Commitment to STAR WARS

Head over to collided.com for all the details…

748. Peter Loader - January 26, 2013

748

should be collider.com

749. BulletInTheFace - January 26, 2013

#702: What was the point you were making?

750. BulletInTheFace - January 26, 2013

#721:

Wow.

Really?

That’s ridiculous.

You really need to get some perspective. It’s just a movie. If you don’t go see it, you’re not hurting anyone but yourself.

In any case, it doesn’t matter. There’s not a single person claiming he or she won’t see it who will actually follow through with that claim.

751. Harry Ballz - January 26, 2013

@739 boborci “I don’t know what this portends for any of our involvement”

Oh, c’mon, Bob, don’t portend you don’t know!

752. Disinvited - January 26, 2013

#732. PaulB

What’s so terrible about whining? We definitely now know Abrams was whining about not being able to do STAR WARS out of loyalty to STAR TREK and look what it got him!

753. Harry Ballz - January 26, 2013

@738+742.

Thanks, Jack!

Yes, Craiger, I meant before the JJ movies. Star Trek was languishing.

754. alec - January 26, 2013

751. BulletInTheFace – January 26, 2013
#721:
In any case, it doesn’t matter. There’s not a single person claiming he or she won’t see it who will actually follow through with that claim.
….

I promise I will not see it in the cinema. I’m sure others will not see it in the cinema, either. It’s a personal matter: not everyone will agree; that’s their choice. And if enough of us ‘follow through’ it will matter….

Further, why decide or announce this now? It’s got Trek in the news; but for all the bad reasons. It’s p*@@@d off a lot of fans…..not clever when the film is out in a couple of months. If it has Khan (which it does) it will likewise annoy other Trek fans….

755. Dom - January 26, 2013

740. Ahmed

Agreed about the Alastair Reynolds books! Peter F Hamilton is worth checking out too, if you haven’t already! Chasm City is probably my favourite RS book.

756. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

732, I don’t understand why it’s so unclear to some of you.

I’m not unhappy about JJ’s directing SW7. I’m disappointed with the way he played the loyalty card when he made the statement that outright stated that he wouldn’t direct SW simply because he had loyalty to Trek.

Why would he say that?

And why is it somehow wrong to call him out on making that gratuitous statement?

What are we as fans? Mushrooms, simply to be kept in the Darkness and fed crap? We don’t get a voice about something we really like?

757. smegger56 - January 26, 2013

757 – You could take that as he thought he could only be involved with one or the other. But it looks like he’ll still be creatively involved with Trek, so he can do SW. I still think he’ll direct ST3 (13)

758. PaulB - January 26, 2013

#753 – So now Abrams was “whining” when he made that statement? I guess you use a different definition of “whine” than I do–or than dictionaries do…

#757 – Get over it. Abrams hasn’t shown disloyalty to Trek by taking on Star Wars. He may have believed (as many fans do) that doing Wars would interfere with Trek, to which he felt loyalty. Based on the comments from Paramount (that Abrams will be involved in Trek3), it’s like that his concerns were resolved, allowing him to be loyal to Trek (through the trilogy to which Abrams, et al. have claimed to want) while doing Star Wars.

Your closing paragraph is laughable and undeserving of comment. Fine, you feel all butt-hurt over Abrams’ statement. Life goes on.

759. Garth Faction - January 26, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhPz-Hr4nQA

Star Wars.. Inside the Force

760. Disinvited - January 26, 2013

#759 PaulB

New facts color interpretation. We now know that JJ Abrams obviously and passionately DID want to be involved when he said the words “…out of loyalty to STAR TREK…I wouldn’t even want to be involved…” thus it can now be seen as a lament.

761. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

759, with all due respect — get a grip on reality. I’m prone to read stuff before I vent and if you did, too, you’d understand that I’m royally pissed that he made the statement that he did.

Who gives a crap if he’s ultimately loyal? It’s the fact that he said what he said, and misled those of us who care about Trek to think of him highly, that bothers me.

Must feel good to be keyboard warrior; work on your reading skills while you’re at it.

762. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

Oh, and by the way, PaulB, I’m not prone to prematurely defend this hero of yours — JJ, apparently, by speculating that his “concerns” about loyalty were ultimately resolved.

Why do you assume this, PaulB? Don’t you know what it is to assume?

;-)

And, folks, the day that I extrapolate humanity from what a megacorp like Paramount deigns to say is the day I will gladly eat my Hat.

763. Phil - January 26, 2013

@739. I can understand it’s weird in the context that you are used to him having his roles in the project. Sitting out here in the suburbs of Southern California, though, having another major franchise under the Bad Robot umbrella seems like a win-win for everyone. The future of Trek, like any other project in the barn, hinges on the success of the next movie, it seems to me that from there, the possibilities are endless. Keep doing good work, and there will be more Trek….

Cheers…

764. PaulB - January 26, 2013

#762 – “I’m prone to read stuff before I vent and if you did, too, you’d understand that I’m royally pissed that he made the statement that he did.”
****
Um, yeah, Hat, that’s why I told you to get over it. You are “royally pissed” about this, and that’s really sad. I read what you wrote, which is why I replied as I did, so drop the condescension.

As I said, you’re butt-hurt over the statement Abrams made–sorry, “royally pissed.” So frakkin’ what? GET OVER IT! He did no harm to you, to Trek, to fans, to the world–he made a statement about loyalty to Trek. You say “…he misled those of us who care about Trek…” Not really.

Think it through: He said he didn’t want to do Wars out of loyalty to Trek. Then, when the news broke that he’s directing Star Wars, we also learned that Paramount is reassuring fans that Abrams WILL BE INVOLVED in Trek-3. Thus, Abrams’ loyalty to Trek is protected, which allowed him to accept the Wars job.

If it turned out that doing Wars would have kept him from doing Trek-3, maybe he wouldn’t be doing Wars. But his statement about loyalty to Trek is intact, no matter how much you and the other hand-ringers want to twist it.

Enjoy your overreaction to a non-issue. Or grow up, get over it, and move on. But spare me the misguided condescension about reading skills: I clearly read and replied to EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, so if you have nothing new to say, don’t say anything else to me. I’ve already replied to your butt-hurtedness twice, because you simply restated what was already clear from reading your words.

And “keyboard warrior?” WTF are you even talking about?

765. PaulB - January 26, 2013

#763 – Now you are showing YOUR lack of reading skills. I’ve already stated (on the previous thread where the Star Wars news came up) that I’d like to see Abrams NOT directing Trek-3. I’d like a director who has grown out of lens flares–clearly, not a comment I’d make if he was my hero.

Get a grip on reality, buddy. Your overreactions and misreadings are laughable.

766. Thorny - January 26, 2013

I think this means ST:ID is the last Trek that Mr. Abrams directs. It took four years to get ST:ID after Trek 2009, and that was only making the relatively modest “Super 8″ in between. Episode VII will be a huge project in comparison. There’s just no way will we get an Abrams-directed Trek XIII in 2017. Abrams Trek has been good so far, but really, is it worth a five year wait for? No, in my opinion.

767. Jack - January 26, 2013

Bob, any chance this will affect the final cut of Into Darkness? Will JJ be around to finish the thing? I don’t know JJ personally, but the Star Wars schedule seems pretty tight.

768. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

Wow. another assumption, PaulB — that your other comments are reader-worthy.

Who are you again? Besides a keyboard warrior, that is.

;-)

769. Jack - January 26, 2013

From a Reuters story: “Lucas himself said in October he had story treatments for Episodes 7, 8 and 9, which he would hand over to Kennedy, who assured him that she would adhere to his ideas.”

Uh oh.

770. Jack - January 26, 2013

769. Guys, can you pls. knock it off, for the rest of us? Fine, you disagree. I understand how this can feel darned personal…

771. PaulB - January 26, 2013

#769 – You’re funny. Clever. So amusing. Seriously, stop it, I can’t handle anymore of this side-splitting laughter.

Unlike you, I actually READ what others say before replying, and I haven’t made any assumptions. You assumed Abrams is my “hero” among other things.

Lots of projection going on here, Hat. How about just taking your poor, royally pissed self away from the computer for a few minutes. Go for a stroll. Drink some tea. Smoke pot–whatever gets you to stop being such an uptight, overreacting, joke of a commenter.

Meanwhile, I’ll let you go ahead and have the last meaningless word on this. I hate thread hijackers, so I’ll save future comments for those deserving of response. (Hint for your reading-impaired brain: That means I won’t be responding to you anymore.)

The last word is yours. You have the floor. Meanwhile, I have a life.

772. Ahmed - January 26, 2013

@ 756. Dom – January 26, 2013

“740. Ahmed
Agreed about the Alastair Reynolds books! Peter F Hamilton is worth checking out too, if you haven’t already! Chasm City is probably my favourite RS book.”

I read Peter F Hamilton books, he is one of the best sci-fi writers out there. Someone in Hollywood should adapt The Night’s Dawn Trilogy & The Commonwealth series to movies series or at least miniseries.

Chasm City was such a beautifully written book that I couldn’t put it down until I finished reading it.

There are so many great sci-fi books that deserved to be adapted to the big screen.

773. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, PaulB. I’m simply not in the habit of reading your posts, and if you had said something in another thread that put something else you said in a different light, then perhaps you would have been well-advised to note it rather than assume that someone who has utterly no interest in your postings in general would have caught it.

In any event, why the pot reference? If smoking is your game, have at it. As for me, I stay sober.

Just say no to drugs, kids.

774. boborci - January 26, 2013

768. Jack – January 26, 2013
Bob, any chance this will affect the final cut of Into Darkness? Will JJ be around to finish the thing? I don’t know JJ personally, but the Star Wars schedule seems pretty tight.

——-

Oh, don’t worry about that! He is gonna knock it out of the park!

775. Killamarshtrek - January 26, 2013

Well I think they’re taking a big gamble here. Yes JJ’s record with ‘proper grown up Sci-Fi’ is exemplary but that’s very different to producing ‘ Kiddie Fantasy’ films!

776. Ahmed - January 26, 2013

@775. Bob

Great to hear that.

I’m re posting a question again here for Bob

If you were offered to write either Star Trek 3 or Star Wars VIII, which one you will be interested in ?

btw, have you ever read any of the “Revelation Space” novels by Alastair Reynolds ? I think that you might like them, they are full of conspiracies in a big sci-fi setting.

777. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 26, 2013

@739, boborci

yeah, It is weird. I don’t know what this portends for any of our involvement.

I may be wrong but If I may say, you sound pretty disappointed by the news? If that’s the case, you are not alone, I’m feeling hugely deflated by this since seeing such excitement for Star Trek Into Darkness it seemed you were on a roll, now I don’t know what to think.

Thank you for replying to me. I sincerely hope JJ Abrams involvement in Star Wars and whatever the future holds for him does not effect yours and Alex Kurtzman’s involvement in Star Trek. You both have been the driving force behind making Star Trek relevant again. There are plenty of other amazing people out there who could work well with you both and the cast in creating a fitting end to the Star Trek story and the characters you guys have been so passionate about since 2009, and possibly even more amazing creative types (Ron D Moore, Brian Fuller) that could team up with you further into the future in creating Star Trek: The Next Generation alternate universe edition for TV. You guys have worked so hard to bring Star Trek to the masses as well as respecting canon and what has gone before as well as taking the time to engage with the fans on here and for everything you’ve done may i say a huge thank you.

I hope to see you and Alex Kurtzman back for Star Trek 3 and possibly more Trek beyond that.

Live Long and Prosper.

David Ellis, UK.

778. MJ - January 26, 2013

@668 “I miss the days ofRon Moore, Brannon Braga, Ira Behr et all at times when I see the writers of Trek today who sacrifice story for spectacle.”

Oh my goodness, those were days or boredom on Trek, and they were part of the problem that nearly drove Trek into the ground.

779. Jack - January 26, 2013

775. Cool.

I read Michael Piller’s book (the version that’s online) about Insurrection last night and he talked about how the film was at the mercy of focus groups, test audiences, Paramount (and the notes from Paramount were surprisingly perceptive — and, at the time, the movies were part of a franchise of two other TV shows), the budget and the stars right until opening night. No surprises there, really — but I was wondering whether it’s still quite that mired in committee until the last minute…

780. MJ - January 26, 2013

@780. That, and his script SUCKED. It seems like many of the people from the latter Star Trek series try to pass the blame for why the series went downhill onto others. The truth its, they all collectively let us down.

781. Dave - January 26, 2013

IT’S OFFICIAL: JJ ABRAMS WILL direct next star wars movie

Go to startrek.com

Wow— star trek will now take a back seat to star wars
In JJ and Bad Robot’s minds

782. Craiger - January 26, 2013

I wonder if Paramount will position Star Trek to take on Star Wars? `

783. MJ - January 26, 2013

@782. Well thanks, Dave for the huge News Flash!

Lois Lane you are not, dude. LOL ;-)

784. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 26, 2013

I take it that JJ Abrams thought that he could not do be involved with doing a Star Wars movie as well as do Star Trek, so declined the idea of directing Star Wars out of loyalty to Star Trek. Since then, he has found that he can do one without seriously affecting his ongoing involvement with the other. He can still remain *loyal* to the Star Trek franchise. Surely, such a huge thrill as well as possibly the ultimate challenge for him! Going where no man has gone before…!?

Pre-production for Episode VII needs to happen now, so that JJ Abrams has time (as well as some down time/family time) to direct a Star Wars movie, and then turn attention back to Star Trek.

As for his directing any movie, it seems that it has been a case by case/script by script basis when it comes to deciding if he will direct or not. That was evident even with STID, although he did appear to leave his Yes decision to what seemed like the very last minute. Maybe Paramount, Bob et al already knew what he planned. It was only made public at what seemed the last minute. Then again, Paramount can do what it likes, like making public only what it wants to make public, if and when it wants…

I have not seen People Like Us yet…:( but Alex Kurtzman is said to have done a fine job directing the film, especially since it was his directorial debut. Perhaps he might be interested in doing Star Trek, however it is sci-fi which is different from the PLU film genre, but still…

785. MJ - January 26, 2013

People are missing a big point here in comparing ST to SW. Star Wars hit the highest point the franchise in terms of the quality of the project 1980 with the Empire Strikes Back, and has never approached that level. Stat Trek, on the other hand, is still ascending.

I expect JJ to make some good SW movies that are better than the prequels. But I know one this for sure, the young Luke, Leia, and Solo aint ever coming back folks, nor is Alec Guiness, and Lawence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett are not positioning up the screenplay right now either.

The real SW many of us loved IS NEVER COMING BACK folks. Deal with it.

786. Jack - January 26, 2013

781. I agree. But it’s interesting to see why it sucked. Or at least to watch the lousiness evolve. And it’s interesting how (according to Piller) the actors, Berman snd Paramount didn’t want to see all the things that posters here say define Trek. They wanted an action/adventure movie. Everybody, including Stewart, was arguing against things like an emotional arc for Picard, an arc for Data, political intrigue, an examination of morals, and the lack of a scenery-chewing villain — they wanted a light, fun, inconsequential adventure with a very bad bad-guy (Stewart praised Soran), lots of joked and lots of space battles. Piller still gets blamed, and yes, he wrote the boob joke — and he’s dead. Interesting to see that he says about some of the biggest problems — like the Ba’ku being cast as a bunch of white guys, that he says he had nothing to do with and was disappointed in. Frakes still blames Piller for the nearly all-white Ba’ku.

Whatever. He said, she said — but it was interesting how they were all arguing against the stuff that everybody here says is essential to Trek.

787. F4 - January 26, 2013

@531. Exverlobter – January 25, 2013

@ 506

“The Next TREK DIRECTOR: Place bets:”

Michael Bay:
Said that he not really cares about Star Trek. Thank god.

Well, Bay didn’t really care for Transformers either when Spielberg originally approached him (though now it can be argued that he possibly knows more about Transformers than most of his internet detractors who claim they are “hard core Transformers fans”. Seriously.)

Bay eventually delivered three financially successful movies, the last of which made in just over a month (adjusted for inflation) more money than The Dark Knight did during it’s entire run (including the Oscars re-release)*. Billions of dollars in 6 years. So, while Bay’s style and temperament would definitely not fit Trek and so such a match would be extremely unlikely, I wouldn’t discount any studio pursuing a director that they think can deliver them mega bucks in the box office, which is really all that matters for summer popcorn blockbusters.

*On an odd side note, Christopher Nolan’s cinematographer Wally Pfister has claimed in an interview that Nolan is a big fan of Bay’s work.

788. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

I know that JJ Abrams will do a great job with his SW movie(s). I still think highly of him as a skilled director.

I’m sure I’m gonna be blown away by STID, which I will of course see on the first day of release. I’m not one of those who is so annoyed by the apparently now-dubious provenance of Abrams’ “loyalty” comment that I will sacrifice my enjoyment of Trek. Hell, for all I care, Abrams could be booked for Murder One by Sgt. Joe Friday and I’d still see it. Yes, I’m that much of a fan of the franchise.

What will Abrams do with SW that Lucas, et al., were never able to do?

Two words: Lens flares.

;-)

Seriously, though — the last SW movie, (ROTS), seemed quite fakey to me. It all seemed to occur in a very sterile environment, lacking the comparatively “cinema verite” style that the first Star Wars movie had.

The last three SW movies, if seen side-by-side with Episode IV, stagey and mannered.

The wooden acting by a certain Hayden Christensen (whatever happened to him, anyway?) certainly didn’t help.

And it doesn’t help the mythos that Jake Lloyd, the child actor who played Darth as a kid actively regrets his role and avoids SW because of negative associations fans have made with it as a result of his participation. Apparently he has stated in a recent interview that SW, and even acting, is ruined for him accordingly. (See, e.g., http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-06/news-interviews/31126639_1_interviews-jake-lloyd-film-industry )

On the other hand, too much lens flare is or would be admittedly absurd. (See, e.g., http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous )

789. boborci - January 26, 2013

778. Picard, Jean-Luc – January 26, 2013

Thanks, David.

Disappointed is not exact;y the right word. We have been a great band over here, so it’s more bitter sweet when the band may to break up to do other things, simply because we’ve had so much fun. But doing other things is natural and healthy.

I think Star Trek will continue to grow beautifully, with or without us because there are so many people who love this franchise and have great stories to tell.

And to see my friend JJ achieve an impossible dream (cue music) brings genuine joy. He is one of the true good guys in the world.

790. F4 - January 26, 2013

@786. MJ – January 26, 2013

“People are missing a big point here in comparing ST to SW. Star Wars hit the highest point the franchise in terms of the quality of the project 1980 with the Empire Strikes Back, and has never approached that level. Stat Trek, on the other hand, is still ascending.”

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I think “still ascending” is a bit optimistic, assuming you meant it was still ascending during the dying days of CAPTAIN ARCHER VERSUS THE LITERAL SPACE NAZIS.

I would say the last high point of Star Trek prior to Trek 2009 was Deep Space Nine. It went downhill after that show ended. New Star Trek was the franchise crawling out of an abyss and becoming relevant again.

(This is not directed at you MJ :-) ) I’ve always thought that no matter what one might think of the new franchise that Abrams, Bob, Alex & co have created (and I have quite a few criticisms about Trek 2009′s lack of philosophical and moral debates common in Trek), making Star Trek *relevant* and noteworthy again is quite an achievement.

791. Buzz Cagney - January 26, 2013

How ironic though that they made it relevant by making it pretty much irrelevant. Irony indeed.

792. Brea Tonnika - January 26, 2013

Long time reader of the site, first time poster.
I just had to finally say something because I feel it really drags these comment sections down.

MJ can you possibly tone down the nasty and meaness of your responses to people. GEESH!
You’re posts are always so negative, rude and condescending to those who do not see eye to eye with you

499. MJ – January 24, 2013
@493. The real secret is that you are a f@$ing moron.

779. MJ – January 26, 2013
@668 “I miss the days ofRon Moore, Brannon Braga, Ira Behr et all at times when I see the writers of Trek today who sacrifice story for spectacle.”

Oh my goodness, those were days or boredom on Trek, and they were part of the problem that nearly drove Trek into the ground.

781. MJ – January 26, 2013
@780. That, and his script SUCKED. It seems like many of the people from the latter Star Trek series try to pass the blame for why the series went downhill onto others. The truth its, they all collectively let us down.

ANd then you have posts like this where your just being nasty and rude to be nasty and rude. seriously dude there are almost 800 posts in this thread if you think a person has read everyone of them before commenting on the main story then I do not know what to say. most people especially when they are excited to talk about something do not neccesarily have time to scan each and every little post. and his post was not harmful at all, I have noticed on this thread alone you have been rude and nasty to atleast 4 or 5 people who have posted a link to a story about the confirmation.

Now if Anthony P the sites operator has made you some sort of honorary moderator (which is unlikely seeing how he has told you a number of times not to be rude and attack other posters in various threads) then that is one thing. Perhaps Anthony can clarify if you are a official/unofficial Trekmovie moderator. Till then maybe you can be a little nicer with people who you do not agree with.

Sorry everyone for that rant I just had to say it, and the last I will say on the matter.
569. MJ – January 25, 2013
@567. Dude, I just posted that entire article here???

616. MJ – January 25, 2013
@605. Does ANYONE here read previous posts???

784. MJ – January 26, 2013
@782. Well thanks, Dave for the huge News Flash!

Lois Lane you are not, dude. LOL ;-)

793. Brea Tonnika - January 26, 2013

Bonus points to anyone who can correctly guess my screen names Sci-fi origins

794. Buzz Cagney - January 26, 2013

Don’t waste your breath on MJ, Brea. Just do your best to ignore him/she.

795. Buzz Cagney - January 26, 2013

#776 I suppose there’s always the chance it could get knocked out of the park and lost in the long grass. :-p

796. Charla - January 26, 2013

Great outlook to have on the franchise, Bob. JJ is lucky to have you on board- I’m sure he is aware of that fact. Damon and Alex are also very talented. Anyway it goes, best wishes to all of you in your endeavors, and we’ll be there to support all of you.

How cool is it to get to work on both franchises?!! JJ is certainly a lucky guy- (deservedly so)

At any rate, I know I’m looking forward to what’s next for both Star Trek and Star Wars! :D

797. F4 - January 26, 2013

792. Buzz Cagney – January 26, 2013

“How ironic though that they made it relevant by making it pretty much irrelevant. Irony indeed.”

I would prefer my favourite franchises exist successfully in some reasonable, recognisable, enjoyable* form than dwell in obscurity because they wouldn’t be able to remake it exactly to how *I* remembered it being.

This is also good advice for all of those mindlessly angry people complaining about the live-action Transformers movies.

*Your mileage may vary.

798. Jack - January 26, 2013

Am I the only guy on earth who likes the lens flares?

Dial ‘em down a little, sure. But they made that bridge look pretty damned amazing.

799. Brea Tonnika - January 26, 2013

795
Yeah I do try to ignore his posts cause they are so nasty and rude to people. but it just ruins the comraderee of the site.

He is definately not very Trekian

800. Craiger - January 26, 2013

How is MJ’s, criticizing Insurrection being rude and nasty? That film did stink. Some say the TNG films could have really just been Season 8 episodes.

801. Ahmed - January 26, 2013

@ 799. Jack – January 26, 2013

“Am I the only guy on earth who likes the lens flares?”

Don’t know about the rest but I sure don’t like them. They even put the damn lens flares in the comics !!

802. corman - January 26, 2013

@799 – I also like the lens flares.

803. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 26, 2013

Bob Orci – “We have been a great band over here, so it’s more bitter sweet when the band may to break up to do other things,”

Do you really think that might happen just because JJ decides to direct one Star Wars movie? Gosh, I hope not…:(

#791 – “I have quite a few criticisms about Trek 2009′s lack of philosophical and moral debates common in Trek”

I can’t agree at all. You only need to see the debate about characters and events of Star Trek over the last four years on this site and others, to see that what you say is simply not true. I am not going into them here. I think more than enough has been said already.

I suspect that we’ll be for a similar ride once STID is released. The idea/implications of the Prime Directive, briefly mentioned in the STID trailer and preview, has already received discussion on this site.

804. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 26, 2013

I think that the writers of the comics were just having fun with the lens flares. JJ Abrams does have fun doing them as well. There were too many in Star Trek, especially on the bridge, and JJ has admitted that he did go a bit far. Hopefully, he will have toned it back a bit with STID, but no lens flare in an Abrams would not be “cricket” and I would feel a bit cheated…:)

805. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 26, 2013

damn – meant to write “…in an Abrams’ FILM…”

806. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

I’m half-kidding about the lens flares. I don’t mind them. I think JJ is a brilliant director, even though I am not a happy camper about the “loyalty” statement. But, you know, water under the bridge and all that.

So, what about the future? Will JJ actually be able to juggle ST and SW over the course of a few years? I sorta doubt it. But thinking about this makes me mad/sad, so I won’t.

I prefer now to focus my attention on what will happen with ST now that JJ has achieved his professional life’s dream, which is to helm SW, apparently. I just hope that ST doesn’t get the red-headed stepchild treatment.

I’m glad Bob thinks so highly of JJ. I like that.

(Disclaimers:

1 No offense meant to red-headed children.

2. No red-headed children were injured or mistreated in the writing of this post.)

807. Phil - January 26, 2013

I think Joss Whedon is a better choice to make starwars in the spirit of the original trilogy.

I’m sorry it didn’t come to that.

To think what he did with the budget he was given for Serenity. Compared to the starwars prequels.

808. Craiger - January 26, 2013

Now I hope they don’t have the sequel end in a cliffhanger. Unless Paramount really positions Trek to take on Wars. If they don’t then maybe Trek could take a break again to find find a new director and team to take over and reboot Trek again in a few years. Unless they hand it over to Orci and Kurtzman?

809. F4 - January 26, 2013

@804. Rose (as in Keachick) – January 26, 2013

Yeah, I usually avoid Star Trek arguments. I mainly basked in the glow of the very notion that people who normally wouldn’t have any interest in Trek actually went to see and enjoyed the 2009 movie.

Btw, boborci, I trust you will deliver on a request I made of you years ago on the Transformers movie forum? Namely, Scotty would be deluded to the point of not believing that the Enterprise’s engines are capable of the task for which they were designed and, indeed, could explode at any moment. *crosses arms*

Hehehe :D

810. Dunsel Report - January 26, 2013

#799: Jack, I liked the lens flares a lot. I thought they worked well for creating a feeling of wonder. Sort of like how Steven Spielberg would always have “the light off screen” to suggest something amazing was going on out there.

811. dmduncan - January 26, 2013

So if JJ doesn’t direct #3, then whoever does get the nod MAY bring in other writers. Is that what I hear Bob saying?

That won’t just break up the production family.

What are the odds that they’ll have another writer who cares enough to engage with fans the way Bob has? Low to none, methinks.

And if Bob fades out of here, this place won’t be the same.

812. sean - January 26, 2013

#804

I would assume Bob is referring to the fact that Star Wars already has a writer (and several producers) so he probably wouldn’t be involved. And honestly, I think this means JJ will likely not direct Star Trek 3.

813. Jack - January 26, 2013

Trek ’09′s on TV right now — I’m always surprised that it’s better than I remember. And I like the movie, a lot. But the flaws we dwell on here seem a lot more minor when watching it and seeing how well everything works. And visually it’s fantastic.

814. JJJJJJJ - January 26, 2013

It’ll all work out for the best.

815. Commodore Adams - January 26, 2013

Actually, I take back my previous comment, it was rather ignorant. Although I wish JJ would have stuck with trek exclusively for at most 3 movies, there is no one better to direct the new Star Wars movie, it’s going to be damn exciting. It’s also the first time a Star Trek director and a Star Wars director were one in the same. That in itself is pretty damn awesome.

816. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

Yeah, Bob is one of the best reasons to read TrekMovie.

Notice I’m not complaining about the lack of new news stories lately. That’s because Anthony’s site makes up in quality what the other sites have in quantity.

Believe it or not, I’ve been registered with TrekWeb since the early 2000′s, and yet I rarely check it. I don’t believe I’ve checked it for several months, perhaps up to a year.

TrekMovie is where it’s at, as they say.

For the first time in years, however, I feel a bit insecure about Trek’s future, nevertheless. Those of you who’ve read some of my posts from time to time know that I’ve been in on some of the goings-on locally to the production; I posted some photographs when ST2009 was filming, for example. Hard to believe that was about five years ago.

I get sort of tired of the mind games played by some of patrons here, but I’m not really one to get involved in the petty disputes. They come and go, and I rarely care one way or another if they continue to post garbage or not. Sometimes I get riled; most often, I don’t.

Nothing lasts forever, however. If Trek goes downhill again in popularity, in a larger sense, I can live with it.

That’s life.

But I do wish it the best, as always.

817. Gary S. - January 26, 2013

Rose , I agree abbout JJ directing one Trek film.
That is all we know right now .
One way or another, it will all work out
and I refuse to believe that Paramount just found out about this a few days ago .
i am sure thay have known for awhile .
JJ is either going to bejust a producer or produce and direct the next Trek.
It will be fine .

818. Jack - January 26, 2013

“809. Craiger – January 26, 2013
…Unless they hand it over to Orci and Kurtzman?”

I think I’d be okay with that.

819. Bob Tompkins - January 26, 2013

Perhaps there will be an Easter Egg in the new Star Wars of Spock floating by a window along with other battle debris…?

820. Hat Rick - January 26, 2013

Come to think of it, I think I could have registered with Gustavo’s site in 1998. I don’t know why why that year sticks with me. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Anyway, it’s been a long time.

821. Bill Peters - January 26, 2013

No I think they are stuck in a 3 movie deal, I think the Writers will stay on for one more movie, I think that it is what Paramount wants and with Star wars back Paramount may want more trek movies not less.

822. Jack - January 26, 2013

811. Cool. I agree.

823. DeShonn Steinblatt - January 26, 2013

Good Lord, Buzz Cagney! Do you have any idea what time it is in the UK?

Didn’t think so.

824. Son of Jello - January 26, 2013

If Disney is going to release Star Wars with spin off movies also being produced along with the main franchise. Star Trek could have more than one incarnation. If Paramount wants to you may even get the Pike movie and some form of TV show (like clone wars animated) along with Star Trek or a kind of Star Trek chronicles movie that allow for stories that can be placed in any part or time of the Star Trek universe. Like Star Trek Klingon Empire, Star Trek The Romulan wars or Star Trek Take your pick of topic. If the franchises are going to compete directly with each other it could open Star Trek up to movies that don’t involve the Kirk, Spock, etc.that could prove to be just as successful and increase the fan base. All that is needed is a team with long term commitment and understanding of Star Trek’s potential as a franchise and story telling tool. I think those people already exist and have been involved with ST in the past and the present.

825. Jack - January 26, 2013

Bob, Trek 09 was terrific — even though, as fans, we nitpick to oblivion. Most of the nitpicks aren’t legitimate criticism as much as thy are gut reactions to change. People complain about awesome things like the superfast turbolift — but i don’t think any of the changes took away from the heart of Trek. And the movie got that absolutely right.

This “jj gave us Star Wars not Star Trek” stuff is just dumb.

826. Jim Nightshade - January 26, 2013

Well thank you for your thoughts Mr Bob Orci Sir….thanx also for fringe…I think some are feeling a bit betrayed because they have all gotten used to JJ being star treks savior…guess we can share him and he can be Star Wars Savior also hahah….

I think his earlier statement that he didnt want to do wars out of respect to the star trek franchise also made this a shock for some…..

Best of luck to All concerned and please let us know BOB when you get details as to what will happen in the future….as others have said we dont want to lose you as a poster here we respect and enjoy hearing from you….

Bob remember during release of Trek 09 I told you the story of my niece who hated star trek but because her hubby wanted to go went and enjoyed trek 09 so much she couldnt go to the bathroom for the whole movie because she didnt want to miss anything…Can I tell her that Star Trek ID will be similarly exciting to her?? I hope so…

Hey DISNEY may as well buy Star Trek as well….then they can own everything in the known universe….sheesh….
Disney is playing MONOPOLY with all our franchises and appears to have the Park Place and Boardwalk properties all locked up…for good or bad…we will see….

827. Exverlobter - January 26, 2013

I am a little bit surprised that so many people are disppointed that he makes the new Star Wars film.
I mean, it is not as if Abrams is leaving Star Trek to produce a romantic-comedy or something. He’s doing Star Wars!! He’ll resurrect it like he did itwith Star Trek.
Yeah, i know this is a Trek-Forum but, c,mon 99% of you have to be Star Wars- fans as well. ( i always thought that those stupid Star Wars vs Trek disputes were ridicolous anyway).

And Star Wars definitely needs JJ. Star Trek seems to be stabilised again, but Star Wars is still dead after the the recent desastrous Lucas-years. Well not financially of course, but the soul of Star Wars is dead.
Trek at the moment does not need JJ anymore, he resurrected already a dead patient, and now he has to move on to the next one.

828. Schultz - January 26, 2013

So Abrams made Star Trek more like Star Wars. Does that mean he’ll make Star Wars more like Star Trek? ;)

829. Hugh Hoyland - January 26, 2013

#812 dmduncan

It kind of sounds that way. This puts the circumstances of future Trek up in the air unless there’s things behind the scene I’m not aware of.

But I’ll keep Bob and Alex on if I get the directorial gig. :)

830. Elias Javalis - January 26, 2013

I feel only admiration for that man! He took 2 beloved franchises and crafted them with care..(one for now).

831. Rob Steckel - January 26, 2013

For me, it would be a great nerd trifecta if JJ did Star Trek, Star Wars, and also started doing more Indiana Jones movies.

My idea would be that IJ would be like the James Bond movies – once an actor IE Harrison Ford is too old, another younger actor could take the role, keep the action set in the 30′s and 40′s and keep making em.

Sorry off topic but I love IJ and I’d hate to see those movies end because Harrison Ford is an octogenarian. JJ would be a great director for IJ

832. JP Saylor - January 26, 2013

This is such crap, but I’m not surprised. He had to get his hands on Star Trek and make it more like Star Wars because apparently more explosions and less story makes for a good movie. I mean, he basically ripped off Luke in episode IV with Kirk in the last movie.

I love Star Wars. But I love Star Trek a little more. What JJ has done to the franchise is horrible. It’s good for all the money makers, but not for the idea and vision that Star Trek is. And if people like these new movies, I don’t consider them Star Trek fans. I don’t care who you are. You’ve forgotten what Star Trek is all about. It’s not about movies or grand sagas, they’re about the people and the hope for humanity to aspire to something greater than what we are. Not, “stop the mean bad guy from destroying Earth, but not Vulcan”.

I hate these new movies and I hate JJ and anyone else associated with making them, as well. I wish you’d ruin Star Wars too to make it even, but you’re a Star Wars fan JJ, so I doubt you’ll do that. Thanks a lot.

833. Jack - January 26, 2013

From Zachary Handlen’s review of Insurrection — and I think it’s appropriate to the Trek movie discussion. Keep in mind that he’s talking about TNG, not TOS:

“The Ba’ku’s precious privacy is a lost cause from the moment anyone leaves their planet alive, but no one acknowledges this. The ending is resoundingly triumphant, and that, ultimately, is why this movie doesn’t work, and why all the TNG movies fail to varying degrees: they have no interest in being smart. TNG, at its best, was a smart show. It told complicated stories about heroes who had to make difficult choices, and it found the drama in recognizing that good men (and women) face no win situations every day. These are qualities that can be difficult to translate from the small screen to the large, and I recognize that, but I would’ve infinitely preferred a movie that at least tried for complexity and failed, to the generic Mad-Lib actioners we got. The reason why the TNG movies don’t work is that none of them are representative of the show they’re trying to adapt. Instead, we get Picard, Data, Riker, Geordi, Beverly, Worf, and Troi shoe-horned into TOS style movies, full of broad plots, attempts at crowd-pleasing that offer little respect or understanding of the characters, and the same tedious arc again and again. All four TNG movies end with Picard physically fighting a bad guy. You can’t even say the same for the TOS films (the greatest of which doesn’t ever have the hero and the villain in the same room).”

834. Exverlobter - January 26, 2013

JP Saylor.

Dude be open-minded. When TNG aired, the TOS-fans said that TNG was no real Star Trek. When DS9 aired they all said, its not real Star Trek. The same with Voyager and Enterprise, now with Abrams.
Wrong. This is all still Star Trek. The franchise is just renewing itself to be still fresh and watchable. Otherwise Trek would have died decades ago.

Seriously, I can’t here this: “Trek-incarnation “XY” is no real Star Trek” anymore.

835. sean - January 26, 2013

If JJ does step down to a producer role on Star Trek 3, I would love to see Brad Bird step in. He’s already part of ‘the family’, so-to-speak, and definitely knows how to handle a retro scifi property well.

836. Lt. Dakin - January 26, 2013

The story here is that Paramount confirmed Bad a robot for Star Trek 3 and Mission: Impossible 5. With JJ attached to Star Wars, will we see either of these movies before hell freezes over? There seems to be no momentum on M:I right now.

Paramount needs to announce deals an commit to release dates for M:I an Star Trek 3.

I like Star Wars fine and wish JJ the best, but I don’t want to wait until 2017 for Star Trek 3.

Paramount needs to treat this like a business and make commitments like Disney/marvel, Disney/Pixar and Disney/Star Wars.

837. Jack - January 26, 2013

Watching Trek 09: Nero says “The life I will deprive you of just like I did your father” — okay, so how does he know he killed Kirk’s father?

This actually makes the trailer stuff resonate — Kirk not only became a captain in days, but he heard various people tell him that this was his destiny, or at least was in that other timeline. It would be hard not to get a big head… And Pine’s Kirk certainly has a big head.

838. John - January 26, 2013

This bites the big one!! I truely hope this is not a big blow for Star Trek

839. dmduncan - January 26, 2013

I wasn’t bummed out at first, but the more I think about it the more I feel like Star Trek came home and found her husband sleeping with another woman called Star Wars.

Feels like JJ’s best attention will now be going somewhere else. I’m happy for him if Star Wars is what he really wants, but as primarily a Star Trek fan I still lament that Star Trek doesn’t seem to be any bigshot director’s favorite girl.

840. Exverlobter - January 26, 2013

@dmduncan

God thats miffy, i mean he already directed 2 films, and he’ll very likely produce the third one as well. How much dedication does he still has to prove? As i already said until now there was no director that made more than two Trek-films, so it’s not like as if Abrams was a fast dropout.

And there are many big-name directors who probably would want to follow.
Brian Singer, Seth McFarlane, only time will tell.
And as i said in a earlier post, Star Wars at the moment needs also to be resurrected, Trek already is. Abrams indeed is needed elsewhere.

841. dmduncan - January 26, 2013

841: “How much dedication does he still has to prove?”

As much as Christopher Nolan would be nice, but only if he feels it, which is why I said exactly what I did.

I actually believe that Star Trek is good enough to deserve somebody’s full attention for a three movie deal.

And nobody knows how this will play out. Maybe he will direct #3. But with Star Wars competing for his time and attention it now seems more possible that his involvement with Star Trek will shrink. And that is disappointing to reflect on.

842. Promo Boy - January 26, 2013

Nothing against Abrams…
but not looking forward to seeing that stupid “Bad Robot” animation, followed by “A long time ago…” and that magnificent Star Wars logo swooping in.
And crossing my fingers that Michael Giacchino can do a decent John WIlliams soundalike score.

843. Son of Jello - January 26, 2013

JJ Abrams dividing his time between 2 franchises may not be good in the long run. Hopefully STITD will repeat the success of ST2009. And SW can have his full attention, Star Wars needs it. Why not just be happy for the guy. He has made a lot of peoples childhood favorite Star Trek relevent to the audience again. Be happy with that and let JJ have his childhood dream with Star Wars

844. Gary S. - January 26, 2013

I dont have a link to it but Hollywood Reporter has an article reporting that JJ is Directing SW 7 but he is NOT locked into a 2015 start date .

845. The Great Bird Lives - January 26, 2013

It’s safe to assume that Star Trek 2009, and STID, will have been enough exposure that the franchise can, and should continue without him. To me, there would be a conflict of interest, and the danger of making Star Wars more ‘Trek’ like, and Star Trek more like ‘Star Wars’ like. He’s done a great job, but I believe there should be another prominent director hired to complete the 3 film deal, and help usher the franchise back to it’s original domain- Television.

846. F4 - January 26, 2013

@833. JP Saylor – January 26, 2013

“And if people like these new movies, I don’t consider them Star Trek fans. I don’t care who you are. You’ve forgotten what Star Trek is all about. It’s not about movies or grand sagas, they’re about the people and the hope for humanity to aspire to something greater than what we are. Not, “stop the mean bad guy from destroying Earth, but not Vulcan”.”

Hey pal, I think you’ve crossed the line. It’s all fine and good to dislike a new incarnation of some franchise or other that you are a fan of, but to say that you don’t consider fellow fans to be fans if they like what you don’t like? That is not cool dude.

I don’t know what print of Trek 09 you watched, but they tried to save Vulcan but didn’t know what the hell was going on at the time. When the time came to save Earth, they came armed with knowledge, Scotty’s Magical Transporter and a plan.

847. Chain of Command - January 26, 2013

Star Trek and Star Wars are now firmly joined at the hip. It’ll be funny to see and hear the commercials for the next Star Wars,

“From the director of Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, comes the next chapter in the Star Wars Universe….”

Maybe we’ll see an homage to “Trek” in the new Star Wars….Say, a Klingon cruiser off in the distance in the middle of a vast space fleet. Seems it’s time for the homages to be reversed now. :-)

848. F4 - January 26, 2013

@843. Promo Boy – January 26, 2013

“Nothing against Abrams…
but not looking forward to seeing that stupid “Bad Robot” animation, followed by “A long time ago…” and that magnificent Star Wars logo swooping in.”

I would be more disappointed in the fact you won’t see the 20th Century Fox logo and music accompanying the Lucasfilm logo anymore. It just feels *right* and an essential part of the opening titles of a Star Wars film.

849. Red Dead Ryan - January 26, 2013

This is about J.J Abrams wanting to cement his legacy as one of the all-time greatest and prolific directors/producers in modern day Hollywood history as much as it is fulfilling a life-long dream.

He’s not going to do that by directing “Star Trek” films, no matter how great they are. “Star Trek” isn’t nearly the global superbrand that “Star Wars” is.

No, it will only be done by conquering the proverbial “Hollywood Mt. Everest”, i.e, making the next “Star Wars” trilogy something truly special which evokes the classic epicness of the originals, yet brings something new to the table WITHOUT alienating fans while bringing in new ones.

850. Exverlobter - January 26, 2013

@ 849. F4
Good question. WIll Disney replace 20th century Fox? Or will it be a joint-production?
Does anybody know?
It would be indeed strange if there is no 20th century fanfare at the beginning of a Star Wars film.

851. Red Dead Ryan - January 26, 2013

JP Saylor is one of these fundamentalist Talifans who consider TOS sacred holy scripture from which all Trek writers are NOT allowed to diverge from, lest they become “heretics” and “infidels”.

Anyone who likes Abrams’ new movies aren’t “true” fans, according to him.

Well, all I will say is, if he is the measure of what makes a “true fan”, then the rest of us should take it as a compliment that we are not at all like him.

“True fan” my green-blooded ass!

852. Red Dead Ryan - January 26, 2013

#851.

It would be wierd hearing the “When You Wish Upon A Star” theme at the beginning during the Disney logo.

On the other hand, it may be very fitting, indeed.

853. Son Of MJ - January 26, 2013

Just want to point out it really was not that weird seeing Warner’s Logo in front of Star Wars Clone wars when it played in theatres.
I can live with the Disney logo infront of the film.

I just don’t think another production company’s logo(which is what Bad Robot is) should be up there with Lucasfilms logo.

854. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

Still a bunch of JJ hate here, I see. It’s all pretty silly, claiming Abrams killed Star Trek when Trek died after DS9. Voyager and Enterprise were merely its long long death throes. Especially Voyager. It was painful watching that corpse flop around for seven seasons.

Even IF Abrams’ Trek was a travesty (which I don’t believe), better it be two hours instead of seven seasons. Frankly though, I’d rather have Trek on TV, but if they insist on making movies, I’d like to see them have different directors and interpretations like Batman. Hell, let Tarantino do one. I’d love to hear Spock say motherf@%$er.

855. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

I actually like the Bad Robot logo. It’s a cute robot.

Bad, but cute.

856. Lt.LanaShelby - January 27, 2013

I’m out. Goodbye Trek and Wars… think I will go read The Forever War and them maybe Foundation or The Green Brain.

I will miss you, but this is just an abusive relationship now.

Best of luck.

857. Mel - January 27, 2013

I hope Paramount change their mind and get completely rid of Abrams. He will do Star Wars and Mission: Impossible and who knows what other projects. The 4 year hiatus between 2009 and 2013 was already way too long. I rather have the 3rd Star Trek movie with a new director in THIS DECADE. If they wait until Abrams isn’t busy with something he likes more than Star Trek, the Star Trek actors will be old and grey by then. I want a director for Star Trek, for whom Star Trek is his clear priority and not an afterthought for the time, he has from his point of view nothing better to do.

858. Jack - January 27, 2013

No Bryan Singer, please.

859. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

Say, speaking of the Bad Robot logo, when are we ever going to learn the backstory behind the eponymous automaton? What, we’re supposed to believe that one day the camera just happened to be around to capture footage of the robot running around in a field? We need facts! We need details!

860. intruder - January 27, 2013

That’s how I feel:

JJ, YOU TEARING ME APART!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm9Fgq3r_zA

…but don’t worry about it, I still love you

861. captain_neill - January 27, 2013

4- while Trek needs to be updated to keep it fresh with modern audiences it must not lose what it is about or it ideals or it is Star Trek in name only.

DS9 was a great show and so is BSG but if the humans acted more like the humans in BSG then it would def not be Trek to me. You can challenge the vision of Trek, which is what DS9 did, but you cannot abandon it.

Abrams made a fun film in it’s own right but was not strong Trek.

862. Red Shirt Diaries - January 27, 2013

#794 / Brea Tonnika: “Bonus points to anyone who can correctly guess my screen names Sci-fi origins”

You a legend in your own mind. I’ve never heard of you, and yet you show up with personal email attacks on someone who posts here regularly, and then you give us this nonsense about being some kind of sci-fi internet celebrity.

What hubris; what ego! And no, Brea Tonnika, I have never heard of you, and I don’t think its too bold that say that practically no one else here has ever heard of you either.

Sorry, Brea Tonnika, you are not famous, but now you are infamous for making a complete ass out of yourself here.

863. general Martok - January 27, 2013

@boborci

If J.J. isn’t in the cards for Star Trek XIII (or Star Trek III, depending on numbering), how about Jonathan Frakes or Bryan Singer for the next director?

Or even George Lucas? XD

864. Red Shirt Diaries - January 27, 2013

#864. What an insult to Bob.

865. Son of Jello - January 27, 2013

794 Brea Tonnika Star Wars cantina scene. Are you Shada and Karoly?

866. Son of Jello - January 27, 2013

793 Brea Tonnika I agree completely.

867. U.S.S. Manila NCC-99232 - January 27, 2013

Did you just accidentally inject yourself with some kind of psychotrophic agent? :D

868. Garth Faction - January 27, 2013

I do think people need to calm down. I’m sure there have always been plans in case something like this happened. There will be a third film. A new director doesn’t mean the plans for the Trilogy will go away. Remember, a major part of that is with the writers….

869. stunkill - January 27, 2013

Brea Tonnika and Son of Jello, I agree 100%

870. Roykirk - January 27, 2013

Son of Jello and Brea Tonnika,

You are both completely right here. MJ is out of control. As a new person here it is really hard to get my point across with people like him here. I wish more people like you would post.

Keep up the great work — you have my full support, Brea Tonnika!

PS: Stunkill, well said, my friend. You are completely on target, as usual.

871. Harrison - January 27, 2013

I wouldn’t go that far to call JJ a traitor or liar, but I expect some more information on what changed his mind!
I never liked Star Wars because I find it quite boring to tell mostly the same story six times again and again.
But we will see with what the writer comes up.
I am also curious about what will happen with the next trek.

872. Aurore - January 27, 2013

“Why JJ would want to be a slave to the Mouse Empire is anyone’s guess.”
_______

Message from the “Mouse Empire” to the world :

“If you did not already love us, from now on, you’ll give us a chance :

*HE* IS WITH **US** NOW !!!!!!!!!! ”

I still do not care for the universe George Lucas created.
But, I might be tempted to see what Mr. Abrams’ take on it would be.

That is what I could be curious about.

873. SON-OF-SHATNER - January 27, 2013

Huzah!
JJ destroyed ‘Trek’ now he’s going to wipe out ‘Wars’…

I really hope them give him a ‘Bond’ to do as well!!!!!!!!

874. Stuart Wilson - January 27, 2013

I’m just wondering what character Simon Pegg will play in the new Star Wars movie. I’m sure he will be in it if JJ is directing!

875. Dom - January 27, 2013

833. JP Saylor: ‘And if people like these new movies, I don’t consider them Star Trek fans. I don’t care who you are… I hate these new movies and I hate JJ and anyone else associated with making them, as well. I wish you’d ruin Star Wars too to make it even, but you’re a Star Wars fan JJ, so I doubt you’ll do that. Thanks a lot.’

I grew up watching the original Star Trek. It was my favourite TV show throughout the 80s until Twin Peaks came along. But Star Trek was a fun sci-fi action show, with a sense of humour, characters who would fight over their ideas, romantic interludes harking back to the old Flash Gordon serials. It was the whole package. And after Gene Roddenberry’s chilly, dehumanised ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ (such a pompous title for such a pompous film!) the subsequent trilogy was a lot of fun.

Then Gene Roddenberry brought TNG to television and ruined everything for me. I hated TNG’s self-righteousness, the lack of action, the boring stereotypical 1980s characters and the Soviet Federation of Planets, travelling through space, its citizens so convinced of their moral rectitude, where the orignal show was always questioning.

Worse still were the new fans and organised fandom who embraced TNG as some kind of atheistic religion and often poured scorn on the orignal Star Trek, while deifying Roddenberry. So I stepped away from Star Trek. After TNG, I watched the odd episode, but it wasn’t for me.

I didn’t go back to Star Trek until JJ Abrams’ film was announced. And, given his first film is a set-the-scene film, it captures a lot of that pizzaz of what made the original show great.

I simply feel, if these new Star Treks upset you that much, that you should step away. I hate the new Doctor Who, but don’t go on Who forums bitching about it. Life’s too short to get this upset about a movie series, believe me. Take care. :)

876. BarryDennen12 - January 27, 2013

I think I’m just going to get as many action figures from Ebay as I can and make my own movies.

They have to be better than the crap that’s going to be coming out.

877. Khan 2.0 - January 27, 2013

@boborci

this might be a silly question/thought but do you think theres anyway JJs appointment as director of SW Episode VII could help STID between now and its release? i dont just mean as curiosity factor for all us geeks who trawl the movie news on the net every day. but in terms of marketing/publicity etc….i realize you cant put on the posters and trailers from ‘the director of Star Wars VII’ but there might be some way of enticing people (esp overseas) who wouldnt normally go see a Trek movie (but who would go see star wars) to go and check out ‘Into Darkness’ as it’s THE Sci Fi space film before the new Star Wars. Like a ‘come and see Star Trek and see whats in store for Star Wars’ type thing…

i dunno what though …other than the news spreading that the director of Star Trek is doing Wars next…

878. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - January 27, 2013

Just a random thought.

What if Star Trek were put up for sale? The way the rights of Star Trek is held right now is pretty crappy. Both Paramount and CBS are looking for investment right now – CBS to carry further production with the network, Paramount with investing in their new animation division. Les Moonves is still in charge of CBS and still not a fan of Star Trek. Who better to (ironically) buy it than Disney and fold it into LucasFilm? A deal for Star Trek certainly has the possibility of being sold at a value similar to LucasFilm itself.

I know, the idea that LucasFilm would own all the rights to Star Trek might be heresy at best. But, considering that all rights would be under one company instead of two, it would be better than Star Trek’s current situation.

879. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 27, 2013

Ideally I would like to see Abrams finish what he began and round out Star Trek by producing and directing a third Star Trek movie with the Supreme Court and the cast and crew responsible for Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness.

At the moment Im sure Abrams is hard at work doing Into Darkness, what happens next will depend on the success of Star Trek Into Darkness.

As I see it Abrams will be finished doing Star Wars Episode 7 by mid 2015. I’m sure that Paramount would have wanted a movie out in 2016 for the franchises 50th however it is possible to have a third Abrams directed movie out by 2017, whilst Star Wars is a bigger gig, this isn’t much different from Abrams wanting to do Super 8 before doing Trek. Had Abrams not taken the Star Wars gig I doubt he would have wanted to go from Into Darkness straight into doing a third movie for a release in 2016, either way there would have been and will be a substantial break between Star Trek Into Darkness and a third movie as has been between Star Trek 2009 and the sequel. so with that its possible to think that he wouldn’t want to do another Star Wars strait after his first one either which would potentially give him the opportunity to don his Starfleet uniform one last time to direct. the question will be whether or not he wants to go from Trek to Wars back to Trek again. if he does then theres no reason to think if the script is right and he’s enthusiastic about it that he wouldn’t want to direct, after all we know that the cast and the crew all really respect and admire Abrams and that the respect is mutual, Abrams I’m sure loves working with the cast and crew of Trek, some of which won’t be involved in Star Wars.

Its really a separate issue but the developments with JJ Abrams joining Star Wars have really brought this into question and that is where does Star Trek go now. The 50th anniversary should be a massive chance to present the next chapter in Star Trek’s future as a brand with longevity. Abrams was never going to remain doing Star Trek for the rest of his life so it is vital that the studios don’t rest on their laurels anymore waiting for Abrams. Let 2015 be the year Star Wars comes back and then let 2016 be the year Star Trek launches its next chapter, what that may be and who that may involve is up to the powers that be but in my opinion the following should happen:

- CBS and Paramount announce that a new Star Trek TV series will be launched. Created by a new team and based within the alternate timeline and on the adventures of Captain Jean Luc Picard.

- CBS and Paramount launch a brand new animated series to be aired on Nickelodeon based upon the continuing missions of Captain James T. Kirk and the crew of the USS Enterprise…

- On the 50th anniversary of Star Trek it is announced that JJ Abrams will produce and direct the third and his final Star Trek motion picture for a release in 2017 that brings with it the epic conclusion to the JJ Abrams Star Trek trilogy.

Whether or not Bad Robot continues to produce Star Trek incarnations remains to be seen with or without Abrams but personally I would hope that Bad Robot continues to work with Paramount Pictures and CBS to develop Star Trek for future generations.

880. Kroll - January 27, 2013

To be honest he is the perfect man for the job isn’t he?

881. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 27, 2013

@879.

I think what should happen is for Paramount Pictures to obtain the entire rights to Star Trek, currently split between Paramount and CBS. Then what Paramount should do is possibly buy Bad Robot and have Star Trek produced by Bad Robot. Whether that would include JJ Abrams who knows. You could end up with Disney buying Bad Robot when their contract with Paramount expires in 2015.

882. Flake - January 27, 2013

If it came down to some form of bidding war between paramount and Disney for bad robot it is pretty clear that Disney would win it. Disney is far bigger than paramount and has a lot more money, also Bad Robot seem to have chose Star Wars in future over Star Trek. Best that trek move on from the Abrams era and get someone else to take the reigns. Paramount should let bad robot & Abrams buy themselves out of whatever contract they have with paramount and then they can concentrate on Star Wars.

883. chrisfawkes.com - January 27, 2013

Well bad robot only signed on for three Trek movies and that never meant Abrams would direct all 3.

I think Bob Orci has said here a few times that after three it would be good for someone else to take the reigns just to inject another creative perspective and keep things fresh.

884. Aurore - January 27, 2013

“I still do not care for the universe George Lucas created.
But, I might be tempted to see what Mr. Abrams’ take on it would be.

That is what I could be curious about.”
_______

…Especially insofar as I agree that “Whoever directs the next SW film will have to do it wearing Disney shackles. Disney makes movies within prescribed parameters for a prescribed audience, i.e. children and families. That’s been part and parcel of their brand for 80+ years and they ain’t straying from it now….”

(That was a fellow poster’s opinion, a while back.)

….Thus, I really hope Jeffrey Jacob Abrams will be able to feel happy, creatively speaking etc…, with this new endeavour.

885. Rob Steckel - January 27, 2013

Watching a comedy special last night made me think of this thread. Those with such nerd rage against this announcement I would liken, as the comic suggested, that these people are beyond nerds – they’re dweebs. The kind that are born of very old parents and as the saying goes – the fresher the mayo the better the sandwich – these anti-JJ dweebs are “slightly expired”. They hide from the light, swallow in weird places in sentences, sweat a lot and make weird nasal noises.

Think Napoleon Dynamite and you have a good idea of what I’m talking about.

886. Uberbot - January 27, 2013

The one constant of the Star Wars films is that whoever directs them — it doesn’t really matter because like episodes of a TV series, the look and feel doesn’t change much — aside from advancements in visual effects technology.

887. Disinvited - January 27, 2013

#886. Rob Steckel

Whatever humor that you were trying to convey is lost on a nation whose number one broadcast comic character is Jim Parson’s Dr. Sheldon Cooper.

Best to leave the comedy to those you observed with mastery of it. Lest you risk being seen as that which you fear.

888. boomer13 - January 27, 2013

The thing that makes me upset that it upstages the next film. Instead of people talking about Star Trek, they will be talking about JJ’s involvement in Star Wars.
My excitement for the movie has gone down. They didn’t finish what they started.

889. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 27, 2013

I do find it slightly strange that Abrams would want to do Star Wars beyond being a long term fan.

Where as Paramount gave JJ Abrams the freedom to do with Star Trek what he felt was right, with Star Wars he is just one cog in a very large wheel so I’m a bit baffled as to why he’d want to seemingly take a step back In his career by just padding out Lucas’ laundry list of things he wants to see in Star Wars 7.

As for fans unhappy about this, I don’t think calling them names is really all that fair. I’ve likened it to a football fan (soccer) having their best player or manager move to their rivals.

890. Dr. Image - January 27, 2013

Spreading himself too thin.
But ANYTHING’S gotta be better than the last 3 SW films…
Wish he would not have agreed to do it, because I’m not a fan, but hey, money talks.

891. Brazilian trekkiefan - January 27, 2013

to boborci:

I think at this point you guys could do something to offset the pessimism and anger that this news caused among trekkies and even some in the media, perhaps launching online the 9 mins, or a big promotion at Super Bowl, you know, the important thing is that we must go back to talking about ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’!

Please do something!

Thanks!

892. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

All I’m saying is I wish there was a brilliant director in the queue for whom Star Trek was HIS or HER childhood dream. That kind of person puts in effort that money can’t buy.

893. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

People should do what they want and feel most strongly about (on non-moral matters, that is), so if that is what’s behind JJ’s sudden shift in opinion AFTER his declaration of loyalty, then that’s how it is, and everyone has to adjust.

But that doesn’t erase the sadness either. You also have to feel what you feel. Don’t LIE about it. And that’s how I feel.

If it turns out that JJ has time to do #3 (and we can’t rule that out yet), I’ll be happy, and my happiness will be a mirror image — an identical but OPPOSITE reflection — of what I feel right now.

894. Picard's Fish - January 27, 2013

#893, dmduncan

Bryan Singer?

895. NCC-73515 - January 27, 2013

“He understands the essence of the Star Wars experience” XD

896. boomer13 - January 27, 2013

#892 right on!

Good for the Star Wars franchise that they are getting JJ. But I am just sadden that they abandoned the Trek franchise, it would of been more palpable if they finished the supposed trilogy.

897. TerranGuy93 - January 27, 2013

This has been really disappointing on 2 levels for me.

For Star Trek, its rude and angering that he lied. It also means Trek will most likely get the backburner given the schedule for Star Wars release. Not to mention that’s what he did to Trek with every other one of his projects over the last couple years.

For Star Wars, a fanboy is taking over. I don’t think that’s good. That’s what ruined the prequels imo, too many fanboys in the production team.

898. sean - January 27, 2013

#882

Both companies are owned by Sumner Redstone, so there’s really no reason to move the rights around. It’s not like Paramount have had cooperation problems with CBS.

899. sean - January 27, 2013

#898

George Lucas having billions of dollars and 100% creative control is what ruined the Prequels, not fanboys working on the production.

900. Uberbot - January 27, 2013

I don’t think being a “fanboy” hurts Star Wars. The problem with the SW prequels is that nobody told Lucas NO on stupid ideas.

I think film franchises could use a few more “fanboys” working on them. As pointed out above — who could know these films better than a fan? Who else would give it the TLC it needs?

901. Gary S.. - January 27, 2013

Sean,
how did Lucas having billions ruin the franchise?
I dont get that

902. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

@TerranGuy93 (898), I agree with you that JJ’s taking the SW gig is disappointing. This is what I’ve been trying to convey — that his “loyalty” statement was gratuitous and just plain wrong. Again, I’m ready for him to do penance by doing a crossover short feature, because he’s the only person who has the means and influence to do it. A crossover movie production would benefit primarily Trek, since movie audiences — let’s be frank — still prefer SW.

There’ve been uses of Disney characters alongside non-Disney properties before. Mickey Mouse was present for a brief moment in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” — the first time, as I recall, that said Mr. Mouse and Bugs (“Property of Warner Bros.”) Bunny had ever shared a venue. So crossovers of this type, though not magnitude, would not be unprecedented.

And in literature, you have your Trek / X-Men crossover. (I’m referring to the Pocket Books, I think, publication.)

I’m still irritated at JJ for his loyalty statement. How unnecessary! How unfeeling! (To JJ: Seriously, dude, why’d you do it, man? Why? The statement, not the gig. I know you had to do the gig.)

So, anyway.

Life goes on.

Still kinda bitter, though.

P.S.: Still wanna know why the Bad Robot was running around in a field.

903. AJ - January 27, 2013

‘Star Wars’ is a series of films aimed at pre-teen and adolescent boys. When someone tries to make it more than that, including Lucas himself, it falls flat on its face.

JJ may be all a-twitter about this gig, but if it sucks like the last three, he is high-profile enough to be shoved under the bus by Disney for sure.

904. Anthony Lewis - January 27, 2013

Lucas having billions didn’t directly ruin anything. But that made him uber rich and uber powerful. When you hit that stage you think you are bullet proof (obviously you were doing something right) so you end up being surrounded by people that are paid to agree with your brilliant ideas.

The Star Wars Prequels were all George from top to bottom. If the fault lays with anyone then it lays with Lucas who wrote and directed them all, plus he oversaw virtually every aspect of production.

If anything more people should seek out The Phantom Edit and at the very least listen to the editors commentary and you can see all of mistakes pointed out right before you, ones that are just common sense.

I mean in the commentary for Episode II Lucas himself says that the only reason there is a long Obi-Wan/Jango fight scene is because they wanted to “show off” the Jango CGI. It didn’t further the story and it made a Jedi Master look like a fool because he couldn’t easily dispatch a dude with a few gadgets.

905. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

^^

P.P.S.: Maybe Abrams had just changed his mind after making the “loyalty” statement. But that’s kinda bogus too. How deep are your convictions if they can be changed after a few weeks?

Man oh man, I tells ya.

906. Aurore - January 27, 2013

I’m sorry .

Earlier, at 660, I gave the wrong link.
It should have been:

http://trekmovie.com/2012/11/02/will-star-wars-episode-vii-announcement-hurt-star-trek-into-darkness-marketing-rollout/

907. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

When the news first broke that SW was going into production again without George Lucas, the first thing that came to mind before I read anything else was that JJ Abrams was THE man for the job.

He is.

What hurts is that JJ publicly passed on the offer after it became known that it had been made to him, and he expressed loyalty to Trek as one of the reasons why.

If he had just accepted the offer I think we would have understood, and we would not now be feeling betrayal of that sense of confidence that JJ himself gave us.

And that part is his doing. It’s like he steered the ship away from the rocks, and we all went back to bed only to suddenly feel the ship hitting the rocks, and going up on deck to find JJ on shore disappearing over a hill.

To me it feels like there’s a bunch of us looking at each other with a WTF? expression.

I guess the “loyalty” thing is how JJ WANTED to be, but he didn’t have a heartfelt commitment to the principle.

908. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

@dmduncan (908), I’m more and more impressed with you contributions here, the more I read them. Great thoughts and I find myself in agreement.

It’s a self-inflicted wound on his part.

I wish he’d never made that statement. Then, and only then, would I be able to revel in the fact that SW is good enough for JJ — the man who brought ST back from the brink — to direct! :-)

Ever feel like Superman when he had to turn back the Earth’s rotation to save Lois? (Yes, I admit — it’s a nerd reference. So what?)

909. Uncle Protein - January 27, 2013

Sit back and watch him completely bugger-up Star Wars (just like he did Star Trek)

910. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

Probably, JJ convinced himself that he could do both without sacrificing the quality of either.

We’ll see.

911. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

Rick Berman….oops, I meant McCallum will have nothing to do with the next “Star Wars” movies.

912. daivd - January 27, 2013

I think Star Trek just needs a new start. First of all it needs people who are in charge to just love star trek and not have a 100 other projects going on. I love bad robot and most of their shows but they are never gonna be in it for the long haul, they have too many things going on. Also for some reason its hard for me to read comics or see the movies with the faces of the new actors, i have 10 grand set aside for the new stern pinball star trek machine (based on the alt timeline) that will probably come out in may or june. Now i dont know if i even want it. Kirks time has come and gone and now the same with picard. Certain actors can be recast, a kirk and picard are not them, shatner and stewart and even Nimoy are their characters. Star trek has to become a new series with a whole new cast and characters. It is not a movie franchise, its a tv show i feel if most people had a choice they would chose a tv show over a movie. A movie is a nice addition but the tv is where its at. Our star treks gone and its not coming back, star wars on the other hand this is the perfect time to make a new movie with the original actors, because u cannot recast luke or han. We have to let go and as much as i enjoyed 2009 trek its not the same and i rather start fresh with a new crew. sorry for the rant and jumbled message but i think we need to move on, because after the 2nd or 3rd movie where do we go, pine is not going to do a tv show and neither most of the actors, this is 2 or 3 and done and then what?

913. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

And from what I gathered about Bob’s statements upthread, “Star Trek Into Darkness” might be the final time the supreme court work together.

I know J.J Abrams is supposedly signed to direct/produce the third Trek film, but he may opt out because of the heavy “Star Wars” workload, or Paramount will decide to just re-start the Trek film franchise with an entirely new production and writing staff. Which would mean that Chris Pine and co. could very well be done after the sequel, which is a shame, as I really like the cast and was hoping for a trilogy.

914. Gary S - January 27, 2013

I can understand why people are upset by this,
But nothing has happened yet .
There is no firm shooting schedule for the next Star Wars film.
I know people think JJi snt doing Trek3,
but right now, that is conjecture not fact .

915. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

Maybe, 915, but everything prior to the last few months regarding STID seemed to shriek “Back burner!”, and with JJ now betrothed to his first love, well … what are the probabilities?

Spock, any ideas? :)

916. Aurore - January 27, 2013

“And from what I gathered about Bob’s statements upthread, ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ might be the final time the supreme court work together.”
________

If it comes down to this, I’ll keep an eye on what each and every member of the “gang” will be up to, in the future.

I owe them a lot !

:)

917. Ahmed - January 27, 2013

@915. Gary S

Why we need to wait for Abrams to come back after finishing Star Wars to do the third Trek movie?

Paramount should start looking for new director right now. Otherwise we will wait 5 to 7 years to see a new Trek movie if they are going to wait for Abrams, what with his trademark of taking forever to make a single movie.

I’m happy that Abrams will make the new Star Wars movie. The guy is a brilliant director & I can’t wait to see what he will bring to Star Wars universe.

918. Bunkzzz - January 27, 2013

Only one reason, Money.

919. thomoz - January 27, 2013

@Quark
“Can’t wait to see the new Death Star built on the ground with lots of lens flares.”

That was funny as hell, I’m high-fiving you from here.

920. Cygnus-X1 - January 27, 2013

893. dmduncan – January 27, 2013

—-All I’m saying is I wish there was a brilliant director in the queue for whom Star Trek was HIS or HER childhood dream. That kind of person puts in effort that money can’t buy.—-

Hear, hear.

921. Gary S - January 27, 2013

But STID is ironically the wild card in this whole euation
If it is successful ,Paramount will first attempt to move Heaven and Earth to get JJ back.
If that fails , they will sign him on as producer and plaster his name on on every TV spot trailer and poster and make the public THINK he is the director.
If JJ continues to make money for them,
Paramount will use him every way that they can so that he continues to do so .

922. John - January 27, 2013

Maybe Paramount should give George Lucas a call and see if he’d come out of retirement to direct Star Trek 3! No?

923. Adolescent Nightmare - January 27, 2013

I think we will see Simon Pegg in Star Wars. He was the biggest defender of John Harrison’s secret identity. JJ will reward him.

924. Simon Pegg - January 27, 2013

Simon Pegg is a huge Star Wars geek!

925. George Lucas - January 27, 2013

I”d love to direct the next Star Trek movie!

926. J.J. Abrams - January 27, 2013

You have my permission to do so George!!!

927. Steven Spielberg - January 27, 2013

J.J. can you please direct E.T. 2? I wrote the script it just for you!

928. Chris Pine - January 27, 2013

J.J. can you please cast me as Luke Skywalker’s son who goes bad?

929. J.J. Abrams - January 27, 2013

Chris I told you not to give away any part of the script!!

930. ilker - January 27, 2013

Everyone is in it, well when it’s SW level, money of course.
There is nothing wrong with JJ wanting to make more.

But the old men at Paramount! Please dont be such losers. Bid JJ farewell on ST and find someone else. It is not true that there is not another director who could give us a “box office successful” ST film… If you dont take action it will likely to come out earliest 2017 and we’ll start seeing the crew in mid age crisis already…

Paramount! Get over JJ. Us fans are even happy to see him go.

I call to trekmovie.com! Why dont we open a petition to call Nolan to direct? How many signatures could we collect?
Let’s do this guys…

931. Christopher Nolan - January 27, 2013

I’d love to direct the next Star Wars after you J.J.?

932. J.J. Abrams - January 27, 2013

Done!

933. Joss Whedon - January 27, 2013

What about me guys?

934. Christopher Nolan - January 27, 2013

You can direct the third one!

935. J.J Abrams - January 27, 2013

Yeah!

936. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

923, revenge is the best… revenge!

:-D

LOL. :-)

Wouldn’t it be great if Lucas were to direct ST20XX? (The “XX” is for “who the hell knows when the next Trek sequel will premiere? And will your granchildren be the first to see it?)

I totally would love to see C3PO debate McCoy or Scotty concerning the niceties of human foibles and preferences.

“Why, you yellow-plated inhuman pile of junk, I’m a doctor, not a linguist!”

;-)

937. Joss Whedon - January 27, 2013

Thanks guys!

938. J.J. Abrams - January 27, 2013

;)

939. Christopher Nolan - January 27, 2013

So J.J. how are you going to kill off Luke?

940. J.J Abrams - January 27, 2013

Chris!!!!

941. George Lucas - January 27, 2013

That’s it nobody get to play in the sand speeder!

942. Joss Whedon - January 27, 2013

But George! :(

943. George Lucas - January 27, 2013

You all heard me!

944. Disinvited - January 27, 2013

#899 sean

Except Redstone purposely cleaved the original Paramount in two so that he could set its top two antagonistic execs, Brad Gray and Les Moonves, at each others’ throats because he believed the “competition” would generate more profits. Make no mistake, Moonves might now head a division called CBS but he believes it to be the real Paramount of which he was wrongfully deprived of inheritting the movie mogul mantle he rightly deserves. Likewise, for Gray with entertainment tzar. Both want to restore the two pieces back together and dump the other guy.

945. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - January 27, 2013

I hate when Anthony goes on vacation and people feel free to run amok all the time. I hate it more that JJ went to the dark side.

946. J.J. Abrams - January 27, 2013

:(

947. Christopher Nolan - January 27, 2013

No fair! :(

948. Steven Spielberg - January 27, 2013

Really George? :(

949. George Lucas - January 27, 2013

No you can play in it Steven! :)

950. Steven Spielberg - January 27, 2013

Cool!

951. Kathleen Kennedy - January 27, 2013

Now stop all this clowning around and get back to work!

952. George Lucas - January 27, 2013

Yes mama!

953. crazydaystrom - January 27, 2013

887. Uberbot -
“The one constant of the Star Wars films is that whoever directs them — it doesn’t really matter because like episodes of a TV series, the look and feel doesn’t change much — aside from advancements in visual effects technology.”

Indeed. And no doubt JJ won’t change the look of the Star Wars universe, at least not radically. I’m guessing the look of his installment(s) will be a mixture of of the looks of the OT and the sequels. But I have to think he’ll want to put his own stamp on it and I wonder what that’ll look like, besides the occasional (?) lens flare.

954. Kathleen Kennedy - January 27, 2013

You don’t have to George, you’re retired. But don’t get to relaxed we are going to need your creative input!

955. J.J. Abrams - January 27, 2013

I’ll be calling you George, quite a bit!

956. Joel Schumacher - January 27, 2013

I have meditated a lot after my last Batman flick and I think I am ready to do ST3 if you all have also forgive me for what I did to Batman… I will make a blockbuster with ST3! Support me fans…

957. George Lucas - January 27, 2013

I await your calls!

958. Francois Ozon - January 27, 2013

I will try to give the frigid old Star Trek franchise a more “sensual and nudistic” approach if Paramount allows me… Wasnt the whole deal about making ST sexy again? You’ll be right in good hands.. Hmmm

959. Gus Van Sant - January 27, 2013

There are a lot of gay stories that could take place on the Enterprise, and I would absolutely like to take up Roddenberry’s vision against discrimination in that sense… Anyways I always thought Bones was gay… Yummy!

960. Disinvited - January 27, 2013

#945.

correction, that should be Brad Grey with an “e”.

961. BulletInTheFace - January 27, 2013

#961: Why does that matter enough to correct the other poster?

962. Uberbot - January 27, 2013

#954 — Might be some lens flares but I saw some of those in Revenge of the Sith a couple of times. LOL!

I just don’t see JJ putting much of a stamp on it. I think he can direct actors better than Lucas can — that much is for sure. I doubt we’ll see the wooden acting of the prequel trilogy…and that’s a good thing.

However, if you go back and look at the original trilogy, I have to say I’d be hard pressed to find the directing style of Richard Marquand in Return of the Jedi for example…Empire and Return blended perfectly as far as direction goes and they were both directed by different directors.

But, with a series, that’s what you want…consistency. Some directors are ok with that but I could never see a director like David Lynch being ok with working within those constraints. Lucas alledgedly wanted Lynch to direct ROTJ…

963. BulletInTheFace - January 27, 2013

#902: Lucas having billions made him completely out of touch with the fan base. He became the Emperor–he surrounded himself with yes-men who never had the balls to tell him many of his ideas were terrible. That’s why we ended up with the crappy SW prequels and the fourth Indy film–those who used to keep him in check were no longer part of the equation. His money and power so removed him from criticism that he become incompetent as a storyteller.

964. Anthony Thompson - January 27, 2013

The Death Star’s power plant will have giant beer vats.

965. sean - January 27, 2013

#945

True, but that doesn’t change the reality that Sumner Redstone is still majority shareholder in both. And the way he divided up Star Trek (CBS owns the name, while Paramount owns all the distribution rights) means the two have to work together in order to keep the cash flowing.

966. Anthony Thompson - January 27, 2013

It’s really ironic that his stewardship of something (Trek) which he has expressed contempt for from time to time (ie. “cheesy” and “baggage”) has now helped him achieve his dream come true.

967. sean - January 27, 2013

#902

Limitations can be a good thing, and George basically has none. He’s so wealthy now he can produce films entirely outside the studio system. And while that has benefits, it also means there’s no pushback on his wackier tendencies. The original trilogy had more creative involvement from outside sources because he wasn’t yet a proven moneymaker for the studio. Even Harrison Ford goaded him with his famous, ‘You may be able to write this shit George, but you sure can’t say it.’ I don’t think anyone on the prequel trilogy would have dared say that. In fact, the only person who did complain about the script publicly didn’t return for the sequels (Liam Neeson).

968. Uberbot - January 27, 2013

#965 — HAHAHAHA!!!! Probably!!

969. CB Demille - January 27, 2013

…amateurs.

970. Gary S. - January 27, 2013

Sean, Stra Wars is about to thrive under JJ, it is hardly ruined ,
The only way Lucas getting billions from the original trilogy ruins the franchise is if the Prequels didnt make any money, but, they did.
About this ” Back Burner” business,
What Trek director has devoted 100% of their career to Trek after signing on?
It is an unreasonable expectation that the Supreme Court will only focus on Trek.

971. The Electric Body - January 27, 2013

Ummm, That’s the problem right now. In ST forums people speaks a lot of Star Wars and only a bit of ST. That’s the problem right now with Abrams in Star trek: SW overshadows ST because right now Abrams is SW. and SW is colonizing ST via Abrams. SW is eating star trek space…

Paramount and CBS: you can’t permit this situation. In ST, the most important thing is ST. Abrams can’t be executive producer of ST and director-coproducer of SW at the same time because it is no good for Star Trek. Incompatibility.
Trekkers should be speaking about ST into the darkness, not about SW.

The marketing of STITD is ruined because of this stuff.
Sorry, It’s time to say good bye, Bad Robot.

972. Brea Tonnika - January 27, 2013

Red dead first off thanks for slinging the insults at me, I see MJ’s pals are begining to circle the wagons.
secondly I never said i was famous on the internet or anywhere else I said bonus points if you could guess the origins of my screen name I posted my 1st and only comment on here as.

Brea is one of the 2 Cantina girls in A new Hope, I thought it was appropriate name to post under being a girl posting on a thread about star wars on a star trek website.

But no you have to be like MJ and sling insults and make implications that were never implied in the first case. I backed up my statements about MJ with his actual posts on this thread.

I am a long time reader here, but I don’t post on here just wanted to ask MJ to stop being mean. And now I go back to just reading comments on here unless you or MJ decide to insult me again.

Clean your act up guys its very sad to hide behind a computer monitor slinging insults and ruins the fun of reading the site.

973. Brea Tonnika - January 27, 2013

And not very Trekian,
The Great Bird would be very sad indeed

974. pilotfred - January 27, 2013

so how going to be 1000 person

i kind of want him to do both be the first to do so

975. Mark Lynch - January 27, 2013

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21214040

Not one ention of him having directed two Star Trek films…
Bloody journalists!

976. Mark Lynch - January 27, 2013

I meant “mention” Sorry.

977. LtHumphry - January 27, 2013

ok, STAR WARS WILL KICK @SS UNDER JJ’S DIRECTION.

WHY ON FREAKING EARTH MUST WE DISCUSS HOW FREAKING AWESOME WILL SW BE ON A FREAKING ST FANS SITE?

SWEET MOTHER OF JESUS, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

978. sean - January 27, 2013

#971

Gary, my point was that he had full creative control on the prequels with no one questioning his decisions, which resulted in 3 very lackluster films. I wasn’t debating whether they made money.

JJ will not have the freedom George did on the prequels. IMO, this is a good thing. JJ works well within limits (as he has said many times).

979. Jack - January 27, 2013

905. I remember reading somewhere that thefirst Star Wars movies were really collaborative, and Lucas got a lot of input and guidance from various people over the years. He realized he wasn’t a great writer. He had friends and colleagues telling him what didn’twork. various people did uncredited rewrites. And by The Phantom Menace, there was nobody to tell him what to fix (either thT, or hedidn’t care).

980. BulletInTheFace - January 27, 2013

#978: Feel free not to discuss it if it bothers you.

And quit yelling.

981. Jack - January 27, 2013

974, but Brea, if you’ve been following here for long, you’d know that most of us demand JJ et al adhere to Trekian principals — but we don’tdo so ourselves… we squabble, name call, label, judge, presume, assume, condescend, belittle, jump to conclusions, appeal to dogma & tradition, reject innovation, ignore history, take credit for the work of the hundreds of people who madeTrek successful, dwell in an idealized past and often just make shit up. And we say JJ is the one who doesn’t get Trek.

982. Bucky - January 27, 2013

^ hahahah, that whole George Lucas / Christopher Nolan / C.B. Demille back and forth was pretty gold up there.

983. Khan 2.0 - January 27, 2013

@BulletInTheFace

are you going to see Bullet in the Head ?

984. Khan 2.0 - January 27, 2013

@983 agreed. no one has had the balls to do something like that for fear of Anthony banning them LOL

985. Ahmed - January 27, 2013

When the cat’s away, the mice will play :)

986. Khan 2.0 - January 27, 2013

my top choices for ST3 director

Spielberg – yeah that wont happen but wouldnt it be cool if it did

Singer – ive a feeling this will happen

Shatner – cmon give the guy a break

987. Khan 2.0 - January 27, 2013

cmon dudes who gonna bank the 1000th post? i want it!

988. NX01 - January 27, 2013

I Hate Star Wars. I just want to know how this Liar, leaving affects the future of Star Trek. I guess we will not know for a while. But it can’t be good.

989. Aurore - January 27, 2013

I do not feel betrayed.

Nevertheless, I believe there is more than meets the eye, here.

The timing of this announcement, the fact that Roberto Orci himself did not seem to know what was going on ( which is the impression I had, at least ), those are the things I found intriging.

To this day, however, the only time I felt “betrayed”, so to speak, was around the year 2000, when I decided to give The Next Generation movies a chance and discovered that James Tiberius Kirk was no more.

990. Mark Lynch - January 27, 2013

I think the strange thing is that we have never before seen a director jump from one hugely known sci-fi franchise (hate that term!) to another before.

Unless someone can tell me otherwise?

991. Mark Lynch - January 27, 2013

@987
Won’t be Singer. Not in a million years.

992. Aurore - January 27, 2013

990. Correction.

intriging = intriguing

993. crazydaystrom - January 27, 2013

988. Khan 2.0 -
“cmon dudes who gonna bank the 1000th post? i want it!”

I posted @ ’1701′ on a thread on this board once. It WAS sweet! One thousand seventy first trumps any kind of ‘first’ IMH.

994. Son of Jello - January 27, 2013

Brea Tonnika. Where are my bonus points.:)

995. rogerachong - January 27, 2013

JJ is direcvting the next Star Wars movie. Get over it already. Therepy sessions will be handled somewhere else for all the SW and ST fans suffering from Post/Pre JJ Stress Disorder or PJSD Syndrome. Grow up and leave the tears at the door.

I am looking forward to Star Trek Into Darkness and I was lucky to see the 9 minute Prolouge before the Hobbit in IMAX 3D. It was truly amazing and I find that the tone and content hit the spot. I agree with a Brazillian poster a while back that suggested that they should release the prologue online to help promote the movie now that The Hobbit is out of the Top 10 in the theatres. I await the Superbowl trailer next weekend and I hope Anthony and company will update us on these developments. I have two kids and they do not whine half as much as some folks on these threads. Lets us make our future brighter and go with a smile. LLAP!!

996. crazydaystrom - January 27, 2013

oops That’s IMHO.

991. Mark Lynch -
“I think the strange thing is that we have never before seen a director jump from one hugely known sci-fi franchise (hate that term!) to another before.”

There are only two “hugely known sci-fi franchises”. Well I guess there’re four – Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who and Battlestar Galactica. And Stargate, so five.

Of course depending on how you define “hugely known”, two may actually be it. Oh well.

997. K-7 - January 27, 2013

Folks, please check out this extremely suspicious series of folks, from two, plus “stunkill” and his already known alias, “Son of Jello:”

**************************
793. Brea Tonnika – January 26, 2013.
Long time reader of the site, first time poster. I just had to finally say something because I feel it really drags these comment sections down. MJ can you possibly tone down the nasty and meanness of your responses to people. GEESH! You’re posts are always so negative, rude and condescending to those who do not see eye to eye with you….(….and son on an so on an so on….)

867. Son of Jello – January 27, 2013
793 Brea Tonnika I agree completely.

870. stunkill – January 27, 2013
Brea Tonnika and Son of Jello, I agree 100%

#871. Roykirk – January 27, 2013
Son of Jello and Brea Tonnika, You are both completely right here. MJ is out of control. As a new person here it is really hard to get my point across with people like him here. I wish more people like you would post. Keep up the great work — you have my full support, Brea Tonnika! PS: Stunkill, well said, my friend. You are completely on target, as usual.
************************

Draw your own conclusions from this people, but this all looks like the work of one person to me — “Stunkill.” I mean seriously, this Brea Tonnika person is a “long time reader – first time post of this site,” who never posted about the sequel announcement, who never posted about the Khan debate, who never posted about the trailer or IMAX preview, but yet decided to post about MJ suggest folks read some earler posts?

I mean, come on, she/stunkill is getting “supposedly upset about MJ saying stuff like: “Dude, I just posted that entire article here???” ;”Does ANYONE here read previous posts???”; “Well thanks, Dave for the huge News Flash! Lois Lane you are not, dude. LOL ;-).” These are just some humorous quips…this is laughable. Like MJ is the only guy using a bit of humorous sarcasm here?

And let’s not forget what Brea Tonnica/stunkill told us as well:

“793. Brea Tonnika – January 26, 2013. Sorry everyone for that rant I just had to say it, and the last I will say on the matter.”

Then following this, she/stunkill posts multiple additional attacks against MJ, as well as condemn and shout down one person who tried to jump in to disagree with here on this. What a hypocrite — she/stunkill says ” last I will say on the matter,” and then continues with multiple negative attack emails. She/stunkill has been significantly more negative than MJ here, and is frankly ruining my enjoyment of this site today.

Nick try, stunkill. You are not fooling me.

998. Harry Ballz - January 27, 2013

Well, 1000 posts and we’re still carping about Tek Wars…..er, I mean Trek/Wars!

999. rogerachong - January 27, 2013

Breaking News: The world did not come to an end today.

1000. Harry Ballz - January 27, 2013

Damn, one too early!

1001. Harry Ballz - January 27, 2013

Oh, for cryin’ out loud!!

1002. Jack - January 27, 2013

I really hope Singer never touches Trek. I really don’t like the guy’s stuff. He robbed Superman returns of any spark, and I know this is anathema, but I didn’t like his take on X-men all too much either (2 was good — but the gay=mutant stuff wasn’t too subtle). They felt like low-budget, made-in-Canada TV movies. Although his style fit more for X-men than it would for Trek. Being a fan isn’t always enough.

1003. ilker - January 27, 2013

NOLAN-REBOOT, NOLAN-REBOOT, NOLAN-REBOOT!
Please :)

1004. Khan 2.0 - January 27, 2013

you want to know how this all pans out? here it is:

2015 – Star Wars VII: A New Dawn released – critices are divided. some love it some think it too referential to the original trilogy. only does a disappoiting $591m ww while Avengers 2 takes home $2b in the same month.

2016: Star Trek Revolutions released. directed by Brett Ratner – like SW7 reviews are fairly mixed. this time too much action at the expense of story, but amazingly does slightly better box office than Star Wars 7 – $660m ww. Another movie is commissioned despite the definitive end to the trilogy (timeline is restored:)

2019 – Star Trek Origins: Khan – a standalone film starring a CG Richardo Monotalban.

2021 – Star Trek First Generation – TNG prequel (with elements of a reboot) starring James McAvoy as Picard. directed by Matthew Vaughn

2023 – ‘The Star Wars’ – Reboot directed by Zack Synder, produced by Chrisopher Nolan

2024 – Star Trek Futures Past – directed by Bryan Singer. Time travel crossover movie with the Nu TNG and original TNG casts (Patrick Stewart etc). William Shatner finally guest stars :)

1005. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

I propose that we establish a day in which the words “Star Wars” and all its incarations, and abbreviations such as “SW,” are banned from this site, as this is a Star Trek site, not a Star Wars site.

Of course, by rights, this would also mean that on that day, the name “JJ Abrams” shalt not be mentioned, by implication.

Yeah, that’ll happen.

1006. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 27, 2013

Even though a lot of the questions directed at Abrams now whilst promoting Star Trek Into Darkness will probably be Star Wars related, I don’t think Abrams would ever answer them.

Whist myself included this news makes me feel cold and deflated regarding Star Trek’s future, really I think these feelings will pass as we come to acknowledge that really these two franchises don’t share anything in common other than being set in space.

The one thing this may do in time, now the same person is at the moment doing both is actually work in favour of creating a noticeable difference between them both, Abrams may even come out and say just that, he took on Star Wars because when you get down to the specifics, Star Trek and Star Wars are totally different so I (Abrams) saw no conflict of interests even though there is this wrongly perceived notion that they are similar.

And there’s the reality here, these may be two huge franchises but they couldn’t be any more different. Whilst the new team behind Trek borrowed some lessons from Wars, Star Trek is totally different from Wars.

Yes there will be a lot of mainstream media outlets drawing comparisons and asking Abrams questions about both but the success of Star Trek Into Darkness will not be measured against the anticipation of a new Star Wars movie, it will be successful or unsuccessful on its own merits. In fact we may see more people now going to see Into Darkness because of Abrams deal to do Star Wars. Truth is these movies are not going up against each other and whilst Abrams is jumping over to Wars, that doesn’t really mean anything to Star Trek as a successful franchise in its own right with its own fans and its own stories to tell. the two have and can still co exist even if they share the same director/producer.

Sure the timing could have been better, ideally this news would have been best saved for after the release of Star Trek Into Darkness and yes it could have been handled better but when you think about it, Although this is a slap across the face for Trekkies, its superficial, Star Trek has been sucessfully restarted and if Abrams is commited to producing, perhaps directing as Paramount have stated a third Trek movie then things are playing out as they did after Star Trek in 2009. Trek was revived by a then fresh faced newbie, untested with a franchise as big and as demanding as Trek, it was actually a bold move on Paramount’s part to have a guy who’d by then only just wrapped his first big screen movie (MI3) and had only one successful TV show (Lost). If i were a Wars fan however, this may seem like a victory but its a rather hollow one I think. The appointment of JJ Abrams to do Star Wars shows a hugely lazy attitude and a complete lack of imagination and originality within Disney and Lucasfilm. That’s not to say JJ Abrams will do a bad job but come on, the guy has been doing Star Trek since 2007 and whilst he’s done a good job with Trek, why on earth would Lucasfilm and Disney want the Star Trek director to make Star Wars? Regardless of talent and passion, if there was any originality left at Disney and Lucasfilm, they, like Paramount did when looking for the guy to reinvent Trek, would have gone for someone who could put their own unique stamp on Star Wars and not someone who could do with Star Wars what he’s done with Star Trek…

I would have gone for someone either unknown or someone who wasn’t the obvious choice. With JJ Abrams, he may make a great Star Wars movie but its not going to be as fresh or as bold as Abrams Star Trek.

1007. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 27, 2013

The rivalry between the two isn’t on screen but between the fan bases.

1008. Myke - January 27, 2013

I have to say I’m happy Abrams gets to direct his “Dream Project”. But as a Trek fan i’m kinda upset. Star Trek Into Darkness has just started it’s press tour, and now all we’re going to hear is questions about star wars. I’m also worried Trek actors are going to be in the new Star Wars film, which I believe to be a worse case situation! Also I don’t know how Abrams is going to utilize his “Bad Robot” production company. Like honestly, he’ll have ILM & Skywalker sound and all the other Lucasfilm companies at his disposal. So if I were a Bad Robot employee, i’d kinda get worried about what my role in Star Wars would be. All in all, i’m not to pleased about it. And I feel bad for paramount, who got Trek into features in the first place to compete against Star Wars. Was I shocked he was choses to do it? NO! Am I disappointed? Yes!

Only time will tell I suppose.

1009. fwise3 - January 27, 2013

@ 976 from your linked story:

“Abrams, who co-created Lost and directed the Star Trek reboot…”

:)

1010. crazydaystrom - January 27, 2013

1005. Khan 2.0 -
Interesting fantasy there but let’s face it, even if JJ’s Ep. VII is the worst SW movie ever, which it won’t be, it’s going to do a billion plus box office world wide. Maybe even a WHOLE LOT MORE!

1011. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

^^ I kind of like the term “cold and deflated.” Kudos.

It sucks when you have to share your director with the competition. I mean, I know I don’t want to do the whole “ST versus SW” thing, but I can’t help but do it.

I’m tired, frankly, of SW’s all the glory as a cinematic franchise when it really hasn’t put in the time or effort to be a philosophical force to be reckoned with. Or should I say, “Force”? Gimme a break. Like Han Solo, I’m totally skeptical about this “Force” business. (Or this “midichloridan” (??) business, which is a whole ‘nother cop-out, but let’s not go there.)

SW isn’t supposed to be us. It’s supposed to be some kind of allegory, and in fact it has nothing in it that really makes any kind of realistic sense. Jedi? Bad Jedi? Sith Lords? Come on! Be serious — are there Sith Lords among us?

By contrast, eugenics is a serious deal. It actually exists. Bizarre or not, a “Khan”-type guy could actually exist in the near future. A god-emperor such as Palpatine? Not so much. Again, SW is an allegory, a fantasy, a popcorn franchise.

But JJ has to go over to the ___ side. Okay, JJ. Whatever.

I guess.

1012. DiscoSpock - January 27, 2013

998 – K-7

K-7, you have confirmed my suspicions. This Brea Tonnika person claiming to have been here for years, but claiming to have ignored all the huge Trek topics, yet decided MJ was the topic that interest her finally enough to post — that is just not credible.

I agree with you — this Tonnika person, Son of Jello, roykick probably others — are just stunkill up to his old tricks.

1013. Hat Rick - January 27, 2013

^^ “frankly, of SW’s bogarting all the glory”

As corrected.

1014. Harry Ballz - January 27, 2013

For all those here who think that JJ Abrams has betrayed Star Trek by taking on Star Wars as well….

You probably look at his photo at the top of this thread and think he’s got the wrong finger sticking up at his lips.

1015. Khan 2.0 - January 27, 2013

@ 1000. rogerachong

you SOB i wanted to be 1000!!

1016. D.W. Griffith - January 27, 2013

Why dosn’t anyone offer me the job? I pioneered the use of narrative and camera techniques and made the feature length film the format of choice.

1017. Cecil B. DeMille - January 27, 2013

If you want spectacle I,m your man

1018. Killamarshtrek - January 27, 2013

The only thing that interests me about this whole ‘JJ moves to the dark side’ thing is the prospect of Michael Giacchino’s take on Williams classic music!

1019. Mark Lynch - January 27, 2013

@1010
Ah Crap, missed that bit. Thanks for pointing it out and making me look a wally though ;-)

1020. Will - January 27, 2013

When asked why JJ changed his mind, he came clean and finally admitted, “Pfff, Star Trek loyalty? Did you see the movie I made? Yeah, their uniforms are the right color and I got the original Spock, but look at the rest! I wasn’t even loyal to the tie in comic my writers wrote! HA! Ka-ching!”

1021. rogerachong - January 27, 2013

@ 1016 Too Late, Too late shall be the cry! Better luck next time. I do look forward to seeing you Mr Khan 2.0 in the next Star Trek movie along with GATT 2016, Wookies and C3PO.

1022. Bill Peters - January 27, 2013

You know I think Bad Robot will be around for the 3rd Star Trek Movie if we get one because they need to finish what they started, Paramount has a contract and they will not allow Trek’s 50th to go by without a new Movie, Now I know Fans don’t like the Fact that JJ has moved to Star Wars, but you can Produce Star Trek without needing to direct it, Orci said that the band is breaking up but that doesn’t mean that a Majority of the Band will not be around to do a Third Movie, Bad Robot is more then JJ, I think Orci and the other Writers can make a Great Thrid movie if we get one, but I don’t see Paramount Abandoning it’s Team that revived Trek.

1023. Son of Jello - January 27, 2013

Why don’t we hand both franchises over to robot chicken.

1024. Bill Peters - January 27, 2013

I agree with 1007 that we can get good Trek from people at Bad Robot while JJ works on Star Wars from Bad Robot, Neather Trek or Star Wars are going anywhere and JJ helped get a new fan base for Trek that wasn’t there before yes he did make some Star Trek fans angry with his take but after Nemsis, Star Trek 2009 was our best hope at getting new trek or we would have to wait years and years to get new trek on Screen.

1025. rogerachong - January 27, 2013

Here is a post from Trekweb from last Wednesday 23rd January, I thought it has some important information to share here for the fans still interested in STID.

! SPOILER ALERT !

StarTrek.com sent to us this small Press Release with contains a briefly new synopsis of Star Trek Into Darkness (minor spoilers)

Starfleet is in shambles, Earth is in ruins, and countless lives have been lost as a mysterious, malevolent force scorches its way through space. It’s up to the brave crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise to hunt down those responsible to bring them to justice. To celebrate the upcoming theatrical release of Star Trek Into Darkness on May 17th, CBS Consumer Products is exclusively offering fans of the famous franchise the chance to buy the movie’s legendary poster. Featuring the seemingly unstoppable entity standing amid wreckage forming the rough outline of the Starfleet insignia, the poster can only be purchased in the StarTrek.com shop.

A must-have for fans, the 23” x 35” poster is available for $19.95. We thought your readers would be interested in reading about this exciting news. Please click here for the entire Star Trek poster line, and let us know if you have any questions

1026. Ahmed - January 27, 2013

Why J.J. Abrams Gives ‘Star Wars: Episode VII’ A New Hope

“Abrams proved with his reboot of “Star Trek” that there was a place for complex drama amidst the CGI, that the fantastical world of space is still just a place, and in that place are humans (or humanoid like creatures, anyway)with problems that can’t be solved with just a laser.

If anything else, “Star Wars” has always been about people fighting against oppression of one kind or another, and what’s more complex than that? I don’t suspect Abrams is going to go against everything else he’s ever done and move “Star Wars” into overtly dark terrain (unless he’s been hiding a Christopher Nolan-like desire to make every toy I’ve ever owned into a mess of psycho-sexual pain and suffering), but I do have a slight fear of the winking earnestness of “Super 8,” though that may be more about Steven Spielberg than Abrams himself.

Nevertheless, the “Star Wars” franchise has always been a little goofy, which lines up well with Abrams ability to find rakish humor in the midst of otherwise otherworldly events – he did this exceptionally on “Lost” but it’s one of many things missing from his latest show, the Abercrombie & Fitch-in-dystopia “Revolution” – and I can only hope that Abrams, unlike Lucas, creates characters more for their ability to enhance a scene dramatically than to fill the coffers of Hasbro”

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/01/26/why-j-j-abrams-gives-star-wars-episode-vii-a-new-hope/

1027. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

There is no doubt in my mind that JJ is going to make a kickass Star Wars. Which…really…shouldn’t be that hard since the bar got set so low. There hasn’t been a really good Star Wars since 1980. Roland Emmerich could probably turn out something better than the past few films, and that is a terrible thing to contemplate.

I AM glad to see two new big SF films coming out that have no history, i.e., Oblivion and After Earth. Then of course there will be the long awaited, eagerly anticipated Bob Orci production of Ender’s Game, which I am as excited for as Star Trek.

So I have my fingers crossed that this will be a good — PROFITABLE — year for SF in the cinema, because I would love to see more variety on the screen, and more chances taken with new material.

1028. Craiger - January 27, 2013

Does Bob’s statement mean Trek is over after the sequel or just over with them and Paramount will reboot Trek again?

1029. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

Just discovered this. Twixt hasn’t seen wide release, but Francis Copolla is still a genius, still doing some of the most interesting things in narrative filmmaking:

http://www.twixtmovie.com/

1030. boborci - January 27, 2013

1029 Craiger

Bob’s statement means neither, necessarily.

Difficult to see… always emotion with the future.

1031. Stop the flares!!!!!!!!!!!!.com - January 27, 2013

Guess 3PO will be blinding with lense flares…………….enough said.

1032. Hugh Hoyland - January 27, 2013

#1030 dmduncan

Thanks for that link. Agreed, a true genius and still exploring at the age of 73. I now want to check out that movie for sure.

1033. Bryan Singer - January 27, 2013

Hey I want to direct the next Star Trek movie!

1034. Patrick Stewart - January 27, 2013

Make it so!

1035. CK - January 27, 2013

Does this mean Khan will be in the next Star Wars movie?

1036. Capt_Crash - January 27, 2013

I am wondering though, with all this new excitement regarding JJ and Star Wars….. if this will impact or steal the thunder away from ST:ID’s May release or hurt it in anyway?

To be honest – with ST:ID right around the corner, this news could not have happened at a worse time, Personally, I wonder if JJ will be pressured to “wrap things” up with ST:ID’s post-production ASAP to begin work on SW:VII?

1037. Mad Mann - January 27, 2013

Soooo….If JJ Abrams doesn’t direct the third Trek, and this 2nd one makes a boatload of money so that Para will most definitely greenlight their 3rd, will Abrams and company HAVE to be involved? I know they are under contract, but they could always buy it out.

Whoever would direct the next one would be crazy to follow Abrams. Like mad. A mad man. Hey!!!!

1038. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

1033

Glad you like!

Here’s Copolla delivering an entertaining speech in 2010 after George Lucas (his friend) presents him with the Irving Thalberg award. Copolla is a very interesting man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmY2ypAHr5E

1039. A guy Named Joe - January 27, 2013

1013 She never said she didn’t read major posts she said she doesnt normally comment herself, and said she just posted those 3 posts to ask MJ to play nice and not be mean in responding to people.

In all honesty that is not that out of hand to request.
We all know how he gets at times.

1040. MJ - January 27, 2013

Wow, I take a weekend off and somebody I have never heard of (Brea Tonnika), who doesn’t understand my regular type of humor I use here, leads some shit-storm of personal attacks against me, with the usual suspects, stunkill and Son of Jello, backing her up.

I’ve got two things to say in response to this:

(1) Brea Tonnica, if you are a legit poster here, I apologize if my posts offended you in any way, but would encourage you to have a better sense of humor and not take this stuff so seriously; or

(2) Brea Tonnica, if you are really stunkill as some are suggesting, then sham on you for dragging me through the mud with you latest round on shenanigans here.

1041. MJ - January 27, 2013

Craiger, the cast of nuTrek is signed for 3 movies. So, if the sequel makes a lot of money at the box office, you can take it the bank that their will be a sequel regardless of whether the Supreme Court is still involved or not.

I doubt Bob would disagree with this?

1042. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1042. Oh sheesh, I hope my post @1042 didn’t just offend anyone’s overly-delicate sensibilities? ;-)

1043. boborci - January 27, 2013

1042 MJ

Correct.

1044. The Optimist - January 27, 2013

Bob, would you still write for a third movie even if JJ can’t direct it? Also would you still be involved with the comics? Thanks.

1045. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1028 “There is no doubt in my mind that JJ is going to make a kickass Star Wars. Which…really…shouldn’t be that hard since the bar got set so low. There hasn’t been a really good Star Wars since 1980. Roland Emmerich could probably turn out something better than the past few films, and that is a terrible thing to contemplate. I AM glad to see two new big SF films coming out that have no history, i.e., Oblivion and After Earth. Then of course there will be the long awaited, eagerly anticipated Bob Orci production of Ender’s Game, which I am as excited for as Star Trek. So I have my fingers crossed that this will be a good — PROFITABLE — year for SF in the cinema, because I would love to see more variety on the screen, and more chances taken with new material.”

Outstanding post, DM. I agree with everything you said, and am hopeful that this is going to be a big year for scifi. I am also hopeful that the new syfy series, Defiance, looks as good as its trailer suggests. Also, Neil Blomkamp’s ultra secret film, Elysium, is coming out this year, as well at another season of the outstanding Falling Skies on TNT.

1046. opcode - January 27, 2013

So what? JJ Abrams and Bad Robot are some of the most overrated things in Hollywood. People nowadays have no idea what a great director is.
And I think Paramount and Disney are getting what they deserve, a producer/director who can never commit to anything because he is overbooked.

1047. Fizzprod - January 27, 2013

I have always been a fan of JJ’s Story telling, and am so eternally grateful that he brought Trek back to life. Although as a sci-fi I have watched every “wars” film, I prefer Trek. This move – to Direct a Star Wars film in 2015 (when his exclusive Paramount contract runs out) feels like the truest example of a “Conflict of Interest” – and would even more so if he were to work both franchises…

I am happy for him, he’s extremely talented – but I somehow (in-explicably) feel betrayed.

1048. Craiger - January 27, 2013

MJ, this may be a dumb question but without the Supreme Court on the third one would they still keep the same look and feel? I guess maybe they would since the sets would still be their. Or unless they wanted to create new sets with the same cast? Maybe they would do something like how the original 1701 got upgraded in TMP with the third movie?

1049. Jack - January 27, 2013

If all of our ideas of what Trek should have were applied to the next incarnation, we’d be lucky if we got Of Gods and Men calibre. We know what we like, but that’s pretty much it.

1050. Craiger - January 27, 2013

The question with the new SW films will they be sequels or a reboot? What if they used the Trek reboot cast in the new SW film? :)

1051. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1048. I felt that way too af first. However, I am now into the “acceptance” stage now and wish JJ the best.

I really think all of us fans should now get behind Orci to take over the franchise.

1052. Craiger - January 27, 2013

Jack I don’t think they would ever go with want Trek fans want. If they did we would get a Trek/SW crossover. Or a Trek/SG1 crossover. Or a Trek/BSG crossover. LOL. Which I think would be cool but would never happen.

1053. ORAC - January 27, 2013

MJ why don’t you take what has been said about you, your comments and attitude towards people in this forum and stop alienaiting people.There was no sh-t storm no one attacked you that’s just your overinflated sense of your own importance to this forum. And if you had enough common decency and respect for other people’s input and comments (which you clearly don’t) and read what is written and not your personal daydream of what is said you may yet become someone who isn’t an overly defensive Bully. Who’s only skill seems to be overeacting to some imagined slight against you. Listen and read before you speak and you wont come across as such a fool.

1054. Fanboy - January 27, 2013

I want to direct the next Star Trek movie! I’ve been a fan since TOS was on NBC, so I think I’m elligible. No one knows TOS better than I do.

No one.

1055. Craiger - January 27, 2013

MJ, I would like that, Orci knows Trek. He even admits to the Delta Vega mistake. LOL. I am also a fan of his Hawaii 5-0. Hey Bob will their be another NCIS LA or NCIS/ Hawaii 5-0 crossover?

1056. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1049. Well, I think it would be cool anyway if the third movie ended up being more of an intense scifi approach versus another revenge-action movie, so for me, having a bit of a different focus for movie #3 might be needed in any case. And I think this can be done best with Bob leading a new production team that comes in with a new approach to the story, but keeping continuity as well with the first two movies.

1057. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 27, 2013

Unfortunately not much more is known or being publicized about the movie STID at the moment and so people tend to focus on other things and nothing seems to make some people as keen as ever to be able to talk about Star Wars, bash JJ Abrams, crystall ball gaze and catastrophize. Quite strange really but not unexpected really, given the history of postings to this site over time.

I do agree that it is time for people who have been unable to see the STID preview for whatever the reason get the opportunity to do so, as they have done with the trailers. I managed to get a look at a bootleg copy of the preview, but of course, the video has now been removed by the copyright owners. The visual and audio were not good at all but I am glad I got to see as much as I did.

Damn it, Paramount – do you want to promote STID or not? Do you want people to go see the film? Do you want to recoup the investment of $170-$200 million, at the very least?

Hopefully, even this site will stop talking Star Wars (yawn…) and start talking Kirk practise his skills at being able to talk a computer to death…:)

Brea Tonnica – I agree that MJ could be nice(r) with some of his replies and, as MJ will attest, MJ and I have had our disagreements.

However I do not like someone who claims they have been reading but never posting to suddenly post negative putdowns about a poster who does contribute to the conversation, whether or not there is always agreement. I have had one or two people do to me what you just did to MJ and it is not nice at all. It feels like an ambush. It is insulting and demeaning.

It would better if you are able to make a contribution to the topics under discussion and try to discuss/debate/argue ideas, rather than ONLY just criticize someone who has no idea who you are.

1058. Craiger - January 27, 2013

Rose I do think their is such a thing as over promotion like I think they did with the last movie. By the time we saw we knew most of what was going to happen. I think something in the middle would be cool.

1059. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1054. I hear you and realize that I could behave better. But seriously,dude, there seems to be a bit of an amazing coincidence to me that these people coming out of the woodwork that past couple of weeks to criticize me are new posters. No one here had ever heard of Son of Jello before he showed up to criticize me??? No one here had ever heard of Brea Tonnika here before she showed up to criticize me???

I will try to behave better, but seriously, if having a little fun with some smart-pants quips here is going to constantly piss people off, then those people don’t really have as thick a skin as they should have to be posting in internet.

I don’t take myself very seriously, and neither should you or others. If things I say here are “ruining your day” or something, then that is your problem not mine. People that “hate me” here need to either ignore me or “get a life” — I am not very important nor worth their trouble — I am just a guy posting on an anonymous Trek web site…big deal!

Sheesh!!!

1060. The Optimist - January 27, 2013

I think Orci should be made executive producer of the whole franchise, like Harve Bennett or Chris Berman. He loves Star Trek, he’s earned it. I would feel comfortable having JJ hand over the captains chair to him!

1061. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1058 Keachick (Rose), I appreciate very much your support and understanding — Thanks!

1062. Craiger - January 27, 2013

MJ, it seems strange when Anthony’s away new posters show up that we have never heard of. I find it funny that they get insulted by you just giving your opinion on Trek and SW.

1063. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

I would love it if Bob took over the franchise! He’s made some cryptic comments before on TV related ST projects. Does Bob have any cryptic comment to make tonight on the subject? :-)

1064. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

I can’t think of many film series that was very good their third time out. Especially with the same director. I think it would be very wise for the creative team to step away and let somebody else have a crack at it.

Abrams might just make the first Star Wars film I like. I think his style is much more in tune with that universe. That being said, I DO like his Star Trek, though it was far from perfect. But there never has been a perfect Trek film.

1065. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

Would Bob WANT the job? Would Bob be interested in running that show?

1066. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1063. Yep!

Hey though, it it takes me to get them involved and actively posting on this site, even if the reasons are not positive towards me, then at least I guess I am helping in a sort of twisted way to bring more participants and more discussion to this great website!

1067. boborci - January 27, 2013

1045. The Optimist – January 27, 2013
Bob, would you still write for a third movie even if JJ can’t direct it? Also would you still be involved with the comics? Thanks.

———

At this moment in time, while we are still working on STID, and before it is even released, I honestly don’t know. It’s not a no. Even if JJ were committed to ST3, it would not mean that Alex and I would be back. As I have always said, I only wanna be around as long as i feel I can help Star Trek. The next few months will tell us all much.

1068. Barney Fife - January 27, 2013

Bob, Can you comment at all regarding a new Trek TV series? Is it a serios or semi-serious topic of discussion with the powers that be (CBS & Paramount)?

1069. NuWisdom - January 27, 2013

1065: The Dark Knight Rises. Nuff said. As for a successor, how about Joss Whedon, who more than proved his feature film skill with The Avengers?

1070. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

Yeah Bob, what about TV? Does JJ have a rear naked choke hold on that possibility as well?

1071. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1065

Shilliam,

The biggest challenge JJ will have is in reconnecting fans of the orginal trilolgy to the new movie. I mean, seriously, excepting Harrison Ford, have you seen photos lately of Hammil and Fischer? I mean, come on, I hat to pick on older stars, but they don’t look like what we would hope and older Luke and Leia would like like.

I think they might be better to recast the big 3 in SW and pick up right after ROTJ left off. Seeing a bunch of 70-year olds not looking so hot is going to be depressing.

1072. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1065 “1065: The Dark Knight Rises. Nuff said.”

Agreed. That movie puts to rest the idea that a trilogy can’t end very successfully.

1073. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

#973.

Brea Tonnika

I didn’t sling any insults towards you. Stop with the false accusations!

1074. st09 - January 27, 2013

i don’t think Star Trek could realistically become a tv show again now. First off, the production cost for a decent scifi cgi would be too high.
Second, the revival of interest in ST in 2009 was brought on by the new cast, whether old time Trekkies like it or not…many (MANY) of the new ST audience are non scifi fans who will go see the movies just for Pine etc. Not many of said moviegoers would care for a new show with new unknown actors and characters. and few if any of the current actors would sign on for a tv show now.

1075. Craiger - January 27, 2013

MJ, what about rebooting SW? Could they do a different twist on them so we don’t know how it all ends? Imagine the same hype of who would play the new Trek cast and who would be the new SW cast. Speculating on who would replace Hamill, Ford and Fischer.

1076. Red Shirt Diaries - January 27, 2013

#1065. Return of the King — 13 Oscars.

1077. Barney Fife - January 27, 2013

@1072 I agree. As much as I would love to see the original cast, he almost has no choice but to go with a new cast. And he certainly can’t do a timeline thingy like Trek 09…been there, done that. Besides, Star Wars doesn’t deal with timelines, time-travel, etc.

1078. porthoses bitch - January 27, 2013

1/28/86 “Sometimes when we reach for the stars we fall short”………..Space Shuttle Challenger……pause, reflect, remember.

1079. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1076. Well that would be preferable to the concept of old farts handing the baton off to young guns that we have never heard of — unfortunately, that’s the approach that I sense they are going with for Ep 7.

1080. Barney Fife - January 27, 2013

1075: Couldn’t they use the CGI files from Trek 09/13? That would certainly save a lot of money. But I’m not sure if that can be done….not sure of the CBS/Paramount relationship.

1081. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1075 @1081

Barney, st09,

I’ve posted before here on this in detail — I think after this trilogy is complete, nuTrek lends itself nicely to moving to HBO or Showtime with 10-episodes produced per year with a story arc each season, etc.

1082. Disinvited - January 27, 2013

#962. BulletinTheFace

I was correcting my own mistake.

#966. sean

Paramount does NOT own all distribution rights to STAR TREK. Only the motion pictures’ archive. Moonves himself got the current reboot rolling by ordering the person in charge of movie Trek at Paramount at the time to get the ball rolling or lose all license to make Trek.

CBS can make whatever Trek it wants outside of what license it gave Paramount. The main reason Trek is not on tv is Moonves hates it as a television phenomena and prefers to keep it at arms length. But of course, he is constantly scheming to reunite Paramount and CBS with him at the head, so Lord only knows what happens to Trek, if that comes to pass.

#978. LtHumphry

At least the yeast in the engines could be full of The Force and that would make some sort of sense.

1083. Craiger - January 27, 2013

#1083 – Wrong, Moonves said he liked the way Enterprise was going under Coto but ultimately had to cancel it because of the ratings. In the TV business its all about money and not what fans want. Just look at Jericho. fans got another season by writing in and it still tanked in the ratings. Same with Chuck.

1084. Craiger - January 27, 2013

If Moonves saw another Trek series could make CBS money he would green light it. In this economy you can’t take a chance on expensive TV shows anymore. They would have to get at least 10 million viewers or more per week and hold it for the whole series to keep it on the air. Sometimes even 10 million viewers isn’t enough.

1085. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

1072. MJ – I don’t want to see any of the original cast. No way. New guys, please.

I don’t agree that the third Batman and Lord of the Rings films hold up to third film scrutiny. Dark Knight Rises, while being the largest spectacle, was the weakest film of all three, in my opinion.

Same for Return of the King. Again, in my opinion. Oscars notwithstanding, I think they were really rewarding the whole trilogy there.

Again, just my opinion. I WILL say that they are much stronger third films than many other trilogies have had, and I still think they’re great movies. Just weaker than their predecessors.

1086. MJ - January 27, 2013

Shilliam, It’s all personal opinion of course, but I thought Dark Knight Rises was the best of the three. And although The Two Towers was my favorite LOTR film, one can hardly argue that the quality was consistent across all three movies — it was basically one 10 hour film with two intermissions.

1087. Trek in a Cafe - January 27, 2013

I think that the Supreme Court has a kind of storytelling logic to it, especially in the way we are being led into hints for STID. So even though I think done things are “wrong” — like the destruction of Vulcan — I strongly support Bob and anyone else from this team hat hoped to continue as director or with another director. While big budget tent pole films tend to also be standalone if they are excellent, a case can be made that this version of the crew really isn’t Star Trek yet, but becoming Trek. So they have a responsibility to finish the job.

But if you’re looking for a director, contact me off list…. !!
:)

1088. MJ - January 27, 2013

Also, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade ended that trilogy on a very strong note, given the weak 2nd movie.

1089. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

1089. MJ – Yes, definitely a matter of opinion. Unless we’re talking Robocop and Terminator ;-) Fellowship was my favorite Rings film. It had the most heart to me. The other two just seem like one long battle to me. Gorgeous to look at, for sure, and still amazing to watch, but it grows tedious.

Speaking of opinions, Last Crusade WAS better than Temple of Doom, but far inferior still to Raiders. I sometimes wish they’d only made the first film. And they NEVER should have made that last one. Even without Shia the Beef it would have been awful.

In my opinion. I keep repeating that because people here are so quick to attack when somebody criticizes something they love. Especially when Anthony goes missing. That’s when the psychos come out of the shadows for longer periods of time, blinking in the harsh light of day, pissed at their long exile in the dark and ready to spit their disdain at the first passerby.

1090. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

Of course, that passerby is often MJ…

1091. MJ - January 27, 2013

Shilliam, another one is The Man with no Name triology, in which the final movie, The Good, The Bad and Ugly is unquestionable the best of the three.

1092. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1091. Yes, exactly. LOL

1093. Doug Haffner - January 27, 2013

This just in: J.J. Abrams slated to direct and produce all studio films and television shows from this point forward. Directors across the globe scrambling to Indy films and weddings. “I’m doing college graduations and Survivor: The Next Generation for now. If J.J. adds reality television, I don’t know what I’ll do. Word on the street is next year he’s doing a re-boot of Buffy. What’s left for the rest of us?” says a drunken and despondent Josh Whedon. Jon Favreau simply lifted a bottle of 60 year old Mccutcheon and waved his middle finger as he packaged his notes from 3 Iron Man movies into a box headed for Abrams.

1094. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1094. LOL

HILARIOUS !!!!!!!!!!

1095. Romulus - January 27, 2013

JJ is jumping a sinking ship, and without him Trek franchise is D E A D!
Look at the facts, to jump start Trek JJ had to take it to an alt reality….DO YOU REALLY THINK HE WILL HAVE TO PULL THAT CONVOLUTED PIECE OF CRAP TO CONTINUE STAR WARS??

TREK TV SERIES? CBS have no finance to carry it
STAR WARS SERIES, Disney has a hard on for the force and it could well happen.

Point is Trek is dust and the force is strong

1096. Jim Nightshade - January 27, 2013

I disagree about temple of doom….sillier in tone on purpose…yet still eexciting….great action and sets….Indy heroic having to rescue the kids and save the people….I find the third one although great similar to the first one…..

1097. K-7 - January 27, 2013

#1096 F-off and go away, jackass.

1098. Horta - January 27, 2013

3rd Star Trek Director Wishlist

Tarantino
McFarlane

There is no one else. These two love Star Trek and would really make it happen for us.

We need a real Trekkie running this thing

1099. F4 - January 27, 2013

@852. Red Dead Ryan – January 26, 2013

“True fan” my green-blooded ass!”

This happens in all fandoms when some new incarnation is created and will continue to happen in all fandoms until the end of time. boborci might remember that it was especially bad when Michael Bay’s first Transformers movie was announced and released. You had thousands of people come out of the wood works and declared that they were the True Fans because they only followed the Generation 1 cartoon.

At least in the Trek fandom these sorts of people presumably remember Star Trek. The problem for the Transformers people were these sorts of people tended to *not* remember anything about Transformers and hadn’t paid any attention to it for 20 years! Not saying to be a fan one need to be some sort of walking wiki of facts, but really, such people shouldn’t charge into forums and websites and declare other people traitors because they dared to be fans of later incarnations/other continuities of the franchise.

It got bad enough that TRUE FAN became a form of derisive in-joke on forums and anybody who turned up declaring they were such were mocked.

Oh, the internet.

1100. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1096 Gotta love it — this aggressive and asinine Star Wars fan, whose franchise’s last great movie was 33 years ago, is trash-talking here? We are the franchise that has had several great movies since his franchise had their last good one.

Romulus, I’m watching The Phantom Menace while “laughing at the superior intellect.”

@1098. K-7, by making that statement, you are insulting all great jackasses throughout time. This dude is doesn’t even qualify to be a jackass apprentice.

1101. Doug Haffner - January 27, 2013

When asked about the package from Favreau, Abrams indicated that he’d already thrown the package away. “As you know, I prefer not to know the content of any of my boxes. I can’t imagine Jon had any ideas that didn’t already end up on the screen.”
Bill Murray indicated that while J.J. had an ambitious schedule for Ghostbusters 3-5 (November 2013), He didn’t see any way around doing them. “Look, at this point it’s J.J. or what? M. Night Shyamalan? Please. ”
When asked what he thought about the whole thing, Greg Grunberg smiled quietly and said “What’s it mean to me? I got one word for you- Rosebud.”

1102. F4 - January 27, 2013

1099. Horta – January 27, 2013

“3rd Star Trek Director Wishlist

Tarantino
McFarlane

There is no one else. These two love Star Trek and would really make it happen for us.

We need a real Trekkie running this thing”

Seth McFarlane? Ew. No. Just no.

I think you’re forgetting that neither Harve Bennet nor Nicholas Meyer were fans of Star Trek and they delivered what is still considered to be Star Trek’s finest movie, that Roddenberry had absolutely nothing to do with. It doesn’t matter how much of a fan you are of a property to do a good job, what matters is your talent and drive, and that of the team you work with.

I find it a problem that these days whenever a remake or movie version of an older franchise is announced, the creative team have to declare that they are TOTALLY FANS, JUST LIKE YOU. In some cases, it’s true. But really, I don’t care if they are fans or not, but rather how much effort and good work they put into the project for which they were hired. That’s what really matters.

1103. sean - January 27, 2013

#1083

I can’t speak to any of the personality/gossip stuff, but as I understand it, Paramount does in fact control the distribution of all existing TV shows (you’ll see their logo on every Bluray/DVD of every series). CBS has exclusive rights to produce *new* television content, however.

1104. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

A love is Star Trek isn’t necessarily the best qualification to be a writer or director of Star Trek. What if Brett Ratner loves Star Trek? Should he get to direct it?

I’d much rather have talented people who love their Star Trek movie.

1105. sean - January 27, 2013

#1094

Someone actually is doing a Buffy reboot sans Joss Whedon, sad as that is.

1106. AyanEva - January 27, 2013

1090. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader’s zipper)

I just had to click on that link. LOL! I couldn’t resist it.

(sorry, completely off-topic)

1107. sean - January 27, 2013

#1105

To be fair, Brett Ratner shouldn’t be allowed to direct anything.

1108. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

1107. AyanEva – You’re not supposed to resist ;-)

1106. sean – I’m a huge fan of Whedon’s Buffy, but I don’t mind seeing somebody else take a whack at it. Whedon’s already done over 250 episodes of Buffy and Angel, and is too busy to do it anyway, so why not? I love seeing another person’s interpretation of things. It might be crap, but that’s a risk I’ll take. I still have Whedon’s vision tucked safely away on disc.

1109. Disinvited - January 27, 2013

#1038 Mad Mann

It’s fairly standard in Hollywood for director’s to have First Look options in these deals. Mr. Orci could give the answer to what the chain is for the script. I imagine the legal chain is he has to submit the finished script to Paramount and once Paramount endorses it, they officially hand it to Mr. Abrams to exercise his options?

1110. Doug Haffner - January 27, 2013

#1106

That’s too bad. Sorry I mis-spelled Joss. In other news regarding the J.J. Abrams announcement:

“Look, when you think of a re-boot for Scientology…your first thought might not be someone jewish, but I think that’s what I love about it” indicated Tom Cruise. When told Scientology wasn’t a movie or tv show, Mr. Cruise simply laughed then switched to his serious face.

1111. Romulus - January 27, 2013

To MJ and all

Take a long hard look at that Enterprise come May because it’s the last your going to see it for a very long time. I’m not trolling, just stating how the financial wind is blowing .

1112. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

“The Dark Knight Rises” wasn’t quite as good as the first two, but it still was a great ending to a great trilogy.

I like all three “Lord Of The Rings” movies equally.

“The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly” was easily the best of the “Man With No Name Trilogy”. “A Fistful Of Dollars” and “For A Few Dollars More” were good, but pale in comparison.

“Star Trek III: The Search For Spock” is my second favorite Trek movie of the original six. A great, and very underrated and underappreciated third chapter in the big screen adventures of the original cast.

The whole “Toy Story” trilogy is great, with the third one being the best, in my opinion.

“Goldfinger” is a pretty good #3 as well.

1113. Romulus - January 27, 2013

btw 1101. MJ

go climb a rock

1114. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

1113. Red Dead Ryan – at first I thought you typed “Godfather” and my head began to swim. I nearly passed out.

1115. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

Romulus,

Your condescending, arrogant attitude on this thread is uncalled for. You really need to calm down.

Paramount, in no way whatsoever, is going to let “Star Trek” just roll over and die because J.J Abrams is going to do “Star Wars”. On the contrary, the studio is going to have to make sure that the third movie is in production a lot sooner than STID was after the first movie.

1116. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

1113. Red Dead Ryan – Goldfinger might be my favorite Bond film with Connery. Toy Story 3 WAS indeed the best. TSFS would be my third favorite TOS Trek film.

But for every Toy Story 3 we seem to get two or three Robocop 3s. But I’m not saying definitively that Abrams and Orci couldn’t do it. I’m trying to put a positive spin on the situation. And I really WOULD like to see another creative team’s attempt at Trek.

1117. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

#1115.

It’s just not possible to consider “Godfather 3″ a good film. Not at all.

I think you might need glasses, my friend! ;-)

1118. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

#1117.

I think decent “third films” is going to become more and more commonplace. I think, for the most part, studios and producers have more at their disposal, plus movie-making is under so much more scrutiny these days.

Sure, we’ll still see crappy sequels and threequels every so often, but as long as the direct-to-home video sequel/threequel making is kept to a minimum, I think we’ll be seeing more critically successful threequels in the near future.

Oh yeah, “The Bourne Trilogy” is great too. The third one, “Ultimatum” is the best of the bunch.

“Back To The Future, Pt. III” is pretty good too.

1119. Doug Haffner - January 27, 2013

Fall 2013:
Television Drama
Title: 6925
Each week, cabdriver Ferrell Manion (L.O.S.T. actor Michael Emerson) picks up individuals in front of a famous L.A. Landmark. It quickly becomes clear that Manion only picks up actors…out of work actors…known primarily for one famous role. Over the course of the hour he asks questions about choices the actor made regarding the character. The questions are uncomfortable and passengers begin to realize that life depends on what they say. Some will live, some will die…the audience decides.
Emerson indicated that while he wasn’t particularly happy about what happens to Adam West in the pilot, he understands that a show has to find it’s legs. “If Adam had to lose his so we could find ours, I suppose that’s a fair trade” said the wide eyed star.
Producer: J.J. Abrams.

1120. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

1119. Red Dead Ryan – I hope you’re right. And the other films you cite are indeed strong third parts, but neither is better than the first and second films, and that’s what I want. A series should go out with its strongest film.

We don’t want Trek 3 to be like Spiderman 3.

1121. John - January 27, 2013

All this thread needs is one more post making it 1121.

1122. sean - January 27, 2013

#1109

Normally I’d be open to it, but it’s being made by the Kazuis, who were responsible for the heavily compromised film version. They had absolutely no creative input into Buffy or Angel, but because Joss was a young, inexperienced creator they happen to own the rights to the character.

I also think it’s just too soon for a remake.

1123. John - January 27, 2013

Ok 1123!

1124. John - January 27, 2013

Damn!

1125. Romulus - January 27, 2013

@ 1116. Red Dead Ryan

JJ will not have the time to complete a trek trilogy on Treks 50th anniversary because he is directing SW

now you and MJ can call me all the names under the sun, but those are the facts.

1126. sean - January 27, 2013

#1126

JJ will produce Trek 3, but my guess is we’ll likely see a different director.

1127. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1112 “Take a long hard look at that Enterprise come May because it’s the last your going to see it for a very long time. I’m not trolling, just stating how the financial wind is blowing.”

Yes, you are trolling,because Trek movies were coming out at the same time of the original SW trilogy, so this statement is completely without merit other than a lame attempt to bait many of us here.

And I hate to break it to you, dude, but when you see SW7 in 2015, Luke, Leia, and Solo (the young ones) are not going to be in; neither is Alec Guinness, neither is Darth Vader…it is going to be fat old Hamill and ugly old fat Leia handing the baton off to their supposed new Jedi children, who are going to be some lame “young jedi” bunch, to fight some lame new darth ___fill in the blank___ thing. Ouch! JJ is a good director though, so I think the movie will be better received than the sequels, but there is no way even JJ can create what can no longer be created — a great original star wars story with the cast from the original trilogy, and a great story that makes sense given evertyhing was wrapped up at the conclusion of ROTJ.

Dream on dude…dream on!!!!!

1128. Romulus - January 27, 2013

@1127. sean and your happy with that?

1129. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

1123. sean – I forgot the Kazuis are doing it. Well, let’s hope they can find talented people this time. I should think they’d have a better appreciation for it’s possibilities now.

1127. sean – Another director does seem to be a real possibility. But starting dates are always projections and you never know what could happen. Still, the only people under contract for #3 is the cast, at least as far as I know. Nobody can day anything definitive at this point.

1130. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1126 “JJ will not have the time to complete a trek trilogy on Treks 50th anniversary because he is directing SW. now you and MJ can call me all the names under the sun, but those are the facts.”

Actually I agree with you. JJ will not be directing Trek 2016.

You got something right finally — congrats!

1131. Jack - January 27, 2013

Romulus. What financial wind? Star Wars doing well? Trek films have been made while Star Wars films were in production before.

If Into Darkness does well, why wouldn’t there be another? And why shouldn’t it do well?

We’re kind of acting like somebody has died…

1132. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1127 “JJ will produce Trek 3, but my guess is we’ll likely see a different director.”

Exactly. I predict Bob Orci will direct.

1133. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

I thought Bob once said that he wasn’t interested in directing?

Alex Kurtzman did direct “People Like Us” (which I haven’t seen yet) so I would think he’d be the more likely candidate. Brad Bird is a possibility.

1134. K-7 - January 27, 2013

#1128 “And I hate to break it to you, dude, but when you see SW7 in 2015, Luke, Leia, and Solo (the young ones) are not going to be in; neither is Alec Guinness, neither is Darth Vader…it is going to be fat old Hamill and ugly old fat Leia handing the baton off to their supposed new Jedi children, who are going to be some lame “young jedi” bunch, to fight some lame new darth ___fill in the blank___ thing. Ouch! JJ is a good director though, so I think the movie will be better received than the sequels, but there is no way even JJ can create what can no longer be created — a great original star wars story with the cast from the original trilogy, and a great story that makes sense given evertyhing was wrapped up at the conclusion of ROTJ.”

Well said, MJ. Well said.

1135. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

1128. MJ – You just described the Smallville-ification of Star Wars. The images made me shudder. Mark Hamill as Pa Kent, wizened and unconvincing as a Jedi, imparting wisdom to his burgeoning Jedi son. Leia,
looking like a bedraggled Cabbage Patch doll, opening her mouth to croak out sarcastic, but loving, comments.

I really hope they don’t include anybody from the originals. Not even Harrison Ford.

1136. Jack - January 27, 2013

“it is going to be fat old Hamill and ugly old fat Leia”

Ouch!

1137. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1134. RDR, please see Bobs post from last night with me. He seems more open to it now — that was my read of what he said; he didn’t directly say it.

1138. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1137. Well we are all thinking that after seeing recent pictures of both actors, aren’t we? Come on, be honest?

1139. Disinvited - January 27, 2013

#1084. Craiger

Wrong, network execs have been guilty of hiding behind numbers to implement their whim from the days of radio on. Read up on Paley’s purge of television’s Henning comedies – all with good ratings.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Disraeli

“Figures dont lie, but liars will figure.” – Samuel Langhorne Clemens (aka Mark Twain)

#1104. sean

You are confusing CBS using the PARAMOUNT DVD pressing business with distribution rights – two completely separate things.

1140. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

You can bet that if J.J Abrams casts old farts Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher, he’ll be getting some nasty emails and voicemail messages from William Shatner about not being cast in either of Abrams’ two “Star Trek” movies.

1141. Romulus - January 27, 2013

@1128. MJ
“Trek movies were coming out at the same time of the original SW trilogy, so this statement is completely without merit other than a lame attempt to bait many of us here.”

what statement?

1142. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

I see no reason to preach the end of Trek at this point. It has made enough money and been a big enough success for the studio to want to continue earning money from it. If Into Darkness performs well, there is no doubt there will be another Trek, no matter if JJ is available or not.

1143. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

Both Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher have not aged well. Fisher’s voice is shot, and Hamill is fat.

1144. Romulus - January 27, 2013

1131. MJ
“Actually I agree with you. JJ will not be directing Trek 2016.”

how does it feel to be a sub-prime franchise?

1145. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1142 “what statement?”

your statement: “Take a long hard look at that Enterprise come May because it’s the last your going to see it for a very long time. I’m not trolling, just stating how the financial wind is blowing.”

This statement is completely bogus — there is nothing logical at all behind it. ST and SW movies coexisted easily before, and you know it. You pulled this statement out of your ass to bait us. IT HAS NOT MERIT WHATSOVER.

Kappish, bubbie?

1146. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 27, 2013

Hey Red Dead I hope you look half as good as hamil and fisher when you are their age.

1147. MJ - January 27, 2013

“how does it feel to be a sub-prime franchise?”

Again, I agree completely with you. Yea, my friend, how does it feel? Your franchise had to to raid Trek’s talent base to make up for clusterfuk that was The Phantom Menace, Jar Jar, Midachorlians and Hayden Christensen debacles.

I happy though that we could throw a bone to you all…hopefully Jar Jar likes bones; but if not, maybe we can mix in a trip to Hometown Buffet for an all-you-can-eat dinner for Carrie and Mark, so that they can start prepping for the new movie. ;-)

Please let us know if you need any more help to resurrect your franchise.

1148. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

Romulus is still bitter about his planetary namesake getting destroyed in the first “Countdown” comics.

Either that, or he’s still in feud with his brother Remus, and is taking it out on us instead of manning up and dealing with it. :-)

1149. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 27, 2013

1145. Romulus – I don’t know you very well here, but I don’t see the benefit of declaring Star Trek a “sub-prime” franchise, mainly because your opinion seems to ignore the fact that over 700 episodes of Star Trek were produced, and Eleven movies.

I would never call that sub-prime. It seems to me the only way you can judge Star Trek inferior would be to go solely by box office earnings. If that is the case, well then, you have us. Star Wars films have indeed earned more than Star Trek films.

1150. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

#1147.

This is about credibility here. Neither Hamill nor Fisher are fit enough to be in the next “Star Wars” movie and still maintain credibility as actors portraying older versions of the characters they originally played over thirty years ago.

Actors are different from the rest of us. They also get paid big bucks. And one of the conditions for most actors is that they be in shape because fat, over the hill actors don’t bring in the masses. They just become punchlines.

1151. MJ - January 27, 2013

@1147. Well if Red Dead was going to play a leading role in a major action scifi, movie, then sure, I would hope he would stay in good enough shape and appearance to play whatever role he was offered. Leonard Nimoy and Alec Guinness come to mind as great examples. And many actors utilize plastic surgery and personal trainers to “look good” for major parts — there is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, the recent photos I have seen of Carrie and Mark make them look like they were hangers-on at a trailer park.

1152. MJ - January 27, 2013

Luke 2012:
http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Mark+Hamill/Comic+Con+International+2012+Stan+Lee+World/JOmswuvjMeG

Leia 2012:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2140770/Carrie-Fisher-appears-losing-battle-bulge-regains-50lb-weightloss.html

It is what it is. There is not getting around it.

1153. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

1144. Red Dead Ryan – January 27, 2013

Both Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher have not aged well. Fisher’s voice is shot, and Hamill is fat.

***

Nonsense. They are going to be perfect.

The scene where old Luke pushes the ON button without correctly remembering which is the business end of his dusty old lightsaber is going to put the Vader death scene to shame.

1154. dmduncan - January 27, 2013

Hearing Luke’s last words — WTF? — are going to be an odd mixture of humor and horror.

1155. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

#1152.

Agreed! I would gladly go to the gym to buff up a bit if I was earning million dollar paychecks as an actor. Getting in shape in exchange for the big bucks doing a glamourous job is a fair trade off.

Any actor in Hollywood not willing to do that should look for another line of work instead of being a prima donna.

How unreasonable is that to expect? Its not like we’re suggesting actresses get breast implants, or go rail-thin skinny.

With that said, I am already in decent shape as it is. A fairly flat stomach, and moderate weight. Medium build. And I do eat a fair amount of junk food.

1156. MJ - January 27, 2013

Seriously, if SW episode 7 were mine, I would recast the big 3, and then bring back only Harrison Ford to serve as kind of a narrator/intro version of an older Solo to look back at the events of the new trilogy. Having Ford/Solo involve would provide some continuity, without having to awkwardly bring back all three and depress the fan base.

1157. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2013

#1157.

Harrison Ford’s role would serve the same purpose as Leonard Nimoy’s appearance in J.J Abrams’ “Star Trek”.

A passing-of-the-torch scenario from one generation to another.

1158. Australia Trek - January 27, 2013

Mr. Orci. I am a fan from Australia. I have been a Star Trek fan since I can remember. I think the current group involved in bringing us the new Star Trek have done a fantastic job. I cannot help but feel a liitle sad now that it may not continue as it has. To you personally Mr. Bob Orci, you have bought the regular fan into the inner sanctum of Star Trek (especially from so far away as myself) – I thank you very, very much and wish you all the best. Here’s hoping you will write ST3 no matter who ends up directing. Although I hope its JJ Abrams.

1159. JohnRambo - January 27, 2013

As a Star Wars Fan i couldn’t be happier.
As a Star Trek Fan….well…..it hurts

Star Trek without Abrams……….I DON’T WANT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

1160. Harry Ballz - January 27, 2013

Since Star Wars IS about the Jedi, that would involve Luke, not Han.

Hire Mark Hamill for, what, 5 million? Harrison Ford would cost at least 10 times that.

Tell Hamill to start working out NOW, lose all the weight, get a facelift and wait for the call.

Nah, that makes too much f*cking sense.

1161. Disinvited - January 27, 2013

“The TV side is now technically in control of the franchise’s future, and Les Moonves (the UPN head who cancelled Enterprise) hates all things sci-fi.” – Doug Mirabello, (then) assistant to Trek producer Rick Berman, DREAMWATCH, 2006

http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=2286

“I don’t think Les Moonves, who has essentially now taken over both UPN and Paramount, is a big fan of the show [ENTERPRISE]. And I’m not entirely sure he’s a big fan of the franchise [STAR TREK].” – John Billingsley

http://www.trektoday.com/interviews/billingsley1004.shtml

And for anyone still on the conspiracy track:

“On the one hand, you have the ruthless dictator surrounded by sniveling ‘yes’ men, and then on the other hand, of course, you have Fidel Castro.” – David Letterman

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB105001943152577000.html

1162. MJ - January 28, 2013

All,

Looks like JJ is already balking at a 2015 release date for SW7:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Wars-2015-Release-Date-May-Happen-With-J-J-Abrams-35341.html

1163. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1162. In the end, Enterprise sucked because not enough people were watching it. Case closed.

1164. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

1153. MJ – January 27, 2013

I think you are forgetting the Benjamin Button technology. There’s a way. Not that I think Mr. Abrams is liable to use it, nor Ms. Fisher interested in going to the trouble.

1165. Son of Jello - January 28, 2013

Here is a link to Mr Plinkets review of Star Trek 2009 and TNG Movies
if you haven’t seen them already. The Star Wars one’s are funny too.

Star Trek 2009
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/

TNG Movies
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/

1166. Rank_Zero - January 28, 2013

1163 MJ “Looks like JJ is already balking at a 2015 release date for SW7″

damn, he’s rubbing it in our little “trek-shaped federation-like” face…

1167. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1164. MJ – January 28, 2013

I respectfully disagree that there’s a direct correlation between those two properties. Plenty of sucky shows have enough people watching.

Not that I’m casting aspersions but in its 4th year ENT had better numbers than the 2 STARGATE series that were on at the time and were renewed.

When it sucked, it sucked because it sucked – not because of its numbers.

1168. Son Of MJ - January 28, 2013

BobOrci
Can I make a suggestion?

For the Bluray 3D/Bluray release of star trek into darkness, perhaps Countdown to Darkness can be made into one of those motion comic features like the watchmen or Buffy season 8 motion comics.

complete with the cast doing the voices would be a cool special feature or heck even a stand alone bluray/DVD release

Something to think about anyways.

A little off topic I know but the comic thread seems to have quieted down in the last few days.

1169. Jack - January 28, 2013

People age in 36 years. Although, oddly, Kirstie Alley is a few years older than Fisher. Her weight’s (Fisher’s) yo-yo-ed, but whatever. But I get what you’re saying. Also, I’d argue that Hamill was cast more for his youth than for any great charisma or acting ability. Although, it’s tough to tell — Portman and even Christensen are decent actors, but you couldn’t tell from Star Wars.

Anybody here read the SW novels? I’m wondering whether they have any canonicity at all. Their kids (Han and Leia’s) have a pretty crazy time. It seems kind of cumbersome and restricting for creating a new franchise, but what do I know?

1170. Chang's gang - January 28, 2013

JJ has likely known about this possibility for over a year…and I think we’ll see him do a third Trek film, to complete his series. Let’s not forget about the pro team at Bad Robot, certainly capable of doing both movie franchises. I’d rather see JJ at the helm of these projects than anyone in Hollywood.

I am certainly happy to see both Wars and Trek alive and well!

1171. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1168. Yea, good point, Disinvited. I stand corrected.

1172. Mark Lynch - January 28, 2013

I would like to hereby cast my official vote for Bob Orci to take over stewardship of Star Trek and to direct the 3rd Trek installment, making sure it comes out during 2016, the shows 50th anniversary.

He’s the best man for the job.

1173. Mark Lynch - January 28, 2013

Where the hell is Anthony? Not one word or comment from him on this…

1174. Aurore - January 28, 2013

“Looks like JJ is already balking at a 2015 release date for SW7…”
______

Some time ago, when the “surprise deal” was announced, a handful of people on this site stated that they believed “2015″ wasn’t realistic, in the first place.

….He probably wants do do things right… as he did so far with this other science fiction franchise I love so much…

:)

1175. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

Here’s old news that I didn’t know:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/companies/cbs_themeparks/

CBS owned “Star Trek: The Experience attraction at the Las Vegas Hilton.” and Moonves decided to sell it in 2006 because he thought it didn’t fit.

1176. st09 - January 28, 2013

god, i hope Orci and other no names stay away from Trek 3. I’d really like to see an actual good director take it over.

1177. Cygnus-X1 - January 28, 2013

987. Khan 2.0 – January 27, 2013

—-my top choices for ST3 director

Spielberg – yeah that wont happen but wouldnt it be cool if it did

Singer – ive a feeling this will happen

Shatner – cmon give the guy a break—-

Spielberg doesn’t direct much any more, and when he does, he doesn’t do action or sci-fi.

Bryan Singer is doing a Battlestar Galactica movie. Adding Trek to that seems like a violation of the sort that JJ has now decided to commit.

And Shatner WAS given a break when Paramount let him direct STV. The result was awful.

1178. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

I would really really dig Roberto Orci taking over as executive producer. There are some pluses to that too, he is more of a Star Trek fan than Abrams, he’s still a major part of Bad Robot who I still believe can be instrumental in producing Star Trek, he currently consults and helps with the Trek comic and video games so has already taken the role of executive producer on much of what we’ve seen beyond the Trek movie.

Who ever said that whilst Abrams is busy on Star Wars that someone else like Roberto Orci can’t man the wheel.

1179. Jemini - January 28, 2013

I understand JJ and I’m even happy for him because he’s a star wars fan himself but I’m concerned about what this means for star trek.
I will be honest here, when I heard about Disney and them wanting to make more movies about star wars my first thought had been that they wanted to copy Abrams’ star trek in the hope that just because people liked the latter they would automatically love (and buy) their thing too ^.
I’m a fan of both, I love star wars too but I’m not sure that it needs more movies especially right now .. I really don’t know what they can do with it tbh. Kudos to JJ for trying but he’s taking a big risk here and personally I would have firstly completed my journey with ST (that is already successful) and then direct one of the movies about star wars when, in case of failure, I wouldn’t get the blame for trying. It feels a bit like if he’s giving up a good thing for something that he doesn’t even know if it will work. I also see a bit of conflict here.

I doubt that he will direct the third movie now and tbh I don’t trust a new director with the last movie that is the conclusion of the whole trilogy.

1180. Hat Rick - January 28, 2013

Look, in the largest possible sense, que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. To coin a phrase.

I’m getting a bit old for this prediction stuff. All I know is, it’ll be a sad day when they screw around with Trek just so someone gets to direct a movie.

Hurry up and make the next sequel already.

Is it 2017 yet?

1181. T'Cal - January 28, 2013

Trek will go on in spite of (or maybe because of) this because SW will be so much better under JJA. Even the last three SW films made money despite their suckiness and on his watch it will be much better. As for Trek, I have no problem with someone else directing or writing it as long as the final product is a quality one with a story that is consistent with the Trek philosophy. Quite frankly, I don’t care what era it covers and what characters are depicted, again as long as it’s a quality Trek movie or series.

1182. The Electric Body - January 28, 2013

Hopes are only hopes. But bussines is bussines. Abrams can’t be Director and co-writer of SW and executive producer of ST at the same time. In Wonderland, yes. In our world, not. Paramount and Disney are huge rivals, and SW and ST are rival franchises.

The martketing of ST into the Darknest has turned into Marketing of SW ep. VII. This is a big trouble for Paramount. Abrams right now is SW and SW overshadows ST because of Abrams. Paramount can’t permit Disney -Abrams-SW agenda overshadows its own agenda with ST for years and years….. Bussines is bussines. And without Abrams and Burke, Bad Robot is Weak Robot.
Paramount can’t permit ST to be the eternal second choice…

The word is: incompatibility.
In my opinión this is the last ST movie of Bad Robot. Paramount -Bad Robot contract ends in 2015…So, wait, and see

1183. Mad Mann - January 28, 2013

1049. Craiger – January 27, 2013
MJ, this may be a dumb question but without the Supreme Court on the third one would they still keep the same look and feel? I guess maybe they would since the sets would still be their. Or unless they wanted to create new sets with the same cast? Maybe they would do something like how the original 1701 got upgraded in TMP with the third movie?

___________________________________________________________

Yep. And then it would be terrible.
Exhibit A: X-Men 3. Brett Ratner comes in after Bryan Singer left to “try to keep the same look and feel” of the X-men movies series and ends up with huge steaming turd of a movie.

Exhibit B: Superman Returns. Bryan Singer tried to carbon copy the “look and feel” of the OG Donner Superman movie, and yet creates another turd of a movie.

A new director should not try to copy exactly what was done before in a franchise, but should bring their own talents and do what they feel is right. A good, recent example would be Joss Whedon’s Avengers. He did his own thing rather than copy the mold of the previous Marvel movies. It turned out pretty well.

1184. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

@1183′ The Electric Body.

Dude, that made no sense, it’s just words thrown at a screen!

Star Wars and Star Trek may be rival franchises but they really shouldn’t be. One deals in fantasy, the other in hard science, one is set in a far far away kingdom, the other is set in our world, one commentates on social and ethical issues, the other is good vs evil and whilst both are set in space, neither share anything in common so perhaps although its surreal having a Star Trek director help out Star Wars, having Abrams possibly do both may just allow for everyone to realise they are not the same thing.

1185. Mad Mann - January 28, 2013

1068. boborci – January 27, 2013

At this moment in time, while we are still working on STID, and before it is even released, I honestly don’t know. It’s not a no. Even if JJ were committed to ST3, it would not mean that Alex and I would be back. As I have always said, I only wanna be around as long as i feel I can help Star Trek. The next few months will tell us all much.

_________________________________________________________

So, it looks like there’s our answer. Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, etc., will most likely NOT be involved with the writing of ST3. They might be involved as a producer or consulting credit, but that’s it.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Nothing against them, it might be good to get some fresh blood. If Abrams still produces, he will have input in the movie, so there will still be that “JJ feel” even with lens flares.

1186. The Electric Body - January 28, 2013

1185@

I’m a huge fans of Abrams, but i’m not blind. CBS-Paramount can’t permit ST to be a second choice for Abrams for years and years…a they can’t permit ST date of premier should be subordinate to the date of the premier of ST VII, ST VIII or ST IX.
Bussines is bussines.
And SW ep vii is a huge huge huge work. . And remember: Bad Robot-Paramount contract end in 2015. No time for making more trek films. And maybe , no more desire.

1187. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

Prediction:

Star Trek Into Darkness opens well, makes in the region of 1bn at box office and becomes one of the biggest grossing films ever.

JJ Abrams begins work on Star Wars as Paramount Pictures green lights Star Trek 3.

Paramount announce that a new Star Trek Animated series will launch in the fall of 2013 with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman staying on as executive consultants. Based on Captain Kirk et al after the events of Star Trek Into Darkness…

Star Trek 3 is announced as being produced by Bad Robot and JJ Abrams. Writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindeloff begin working on Star Trek 3 script in 2014.

Throughout 2014 and 15, the Star Trek writing team continues to develop story for Trek 3 with input from Abrams.

2015 Star Wars opens

Abrams decides whether or not to direct Star Trek 3. If not then hopfuls include Brad Bird and Joss Whedon.

JJ Abrams and Bryan Burke then join Writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindeloff to continuely develop Star Trek 3 and begin casting process.

In early 2016 Star Trek 3 begins principle photography and filming begins on JJ Abrams final Star Trek feature film. Cast includes all the Abrams regulars plus new additions, none of which appeared in Star Wars.

In the fall of 2016 and with the 50th anniversary of Star Trek well underway. JJ Abrams releases Star Trek 3 teaser trailer for Star Trek 3

A huge celebration takes place celebrations Star Trek and its influence over 50 years. Celebrations involve fans from around the world, Star Trek alumni, NASA and other technology and scientific companies and groups that have been inspired by Star Trek.

Paramount and CBS announce that a new team will come together to develop a new Star Trek TV series based within the universe JJ Abrams set up to continue the Star Trek legacy into the future and beyond…

May 2017… Star Trek 3 opens and with that, JJ Abrams involvement in Star Trek ends.

1188. The Electric Body - January 28, 2013

Er, sorry, SW VII, SW VIII or SW IX…

1189. AJ - January 28, 2013

JJ admits his true feelings about Trek:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/jj-abrams-stops-pretending-to-like-star-trek-2013012857560

1190. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

So, it looks like there’s our answer. Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, etc., will most likely NOT be involved with the writing of ST3. They might be involved as a producer or consulting credit, but that’s it.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Nothing against them, it might be good to get some fresh blood. If Abrams still produces, he will have input in the movie, so there will still be that “JJ feel” even with lens flares.

——————————————————————————————————

I don’t think our answer is there… As I understand it, the Supreme Court had this mind set when approaching a sequel to Star Trek 2009. Orci even said “it’s not a no”.

I really don’t think the news of Abrams doing SW changes anything with Star Trek. If Star Trek Into Darkness does well and the Supreme Court feel they have another story to tell they will be bad, JJ and all. Whether Abrams role will be just producer or director depends on his involvement with Star Wars.

1191. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

“Enterprise never had really bad ratings. It actually was pulling better numbers than Galactica, which was a hit for Sci Fi. What really killed it [ENTERPRISE], IMO, was Les Moonves, the head over there. He didin’t get Star Trek, didn’t care for sci-fi, and there was no love loss between him and Mr. Berman (or so I’ve heard).” – Doug Drexler

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Doug_Drexler

The content filter’s been giving me heck about some character sequence in this post. I’m apologizing in advance if it decides to spit them all out as is occasionally its wont. Apparently doesn’t like the link to his blog where he made these remarks.

1192. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

I meant they will be back not bad lol

1193. Aurore - January 28, 2013

1175.

wants do = wants to

1194. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

@1190

Lol funny, although, you do get a feeling that that is how the mainstream view this news…

1195. Killamarshtrek - January 28, 2013

BREAKING NEWS:

An early testshot has already been leaked from JJ’s new Star Wars film. Anthony Daniels reportedly “Not Happy”!

http://s1354.beta.photobucket.com/user/Killamarshtrek/library/

1196. Rank_Zero - January 28, 2013

@1190

LOLOLOLOL

1197. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

@1192 Disinvited,

Why are you posting old articles about Les Moonves? We all know the guy is an expletive that can’t be repeated here however, he hasn’t done much wrong with Star Trek so far with CBS converting TNG and now Enterprise into blu ray and CBS Consumer Products continuing to sell licenses to quality (sometimes crap) companies who have produced merchandise.

Moonves obviously knows Star Trek can make money but I think it’s better for Star Trek and CBS if the way they make the money off of it is left to a production company like Bad Robot.

1198. The Electric Body - January 28, 2013

@1991
“I really don’t think the news of Abrams doing SW changes anything with ST…”

Wow, you are the only one, my pal. Everybody knows this stuff changes all.

Well, Wait and see,
My prediction:
December 2015: Bad Robot Paramount contract ends
(No more Bad robot’s ST movies, because no time for making them)
2016: a new tv series in the original time line (because CBS bussines, and great bussines, is the original time line, not the new timeline. Producer: Seth Mac Farlane)
2018: Reboot of the next generation with other team and actors…Maybe Nolan or Whedon.

1199. Jeyl - January 28, 2013

JJ on Star Trek
“I’m not making this for Star Trek fans.”

JJ on Star Wars
“I want to do the fans proud.”

1200. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

1198. Picard, Jean-Luc – January 28, 2013

Craiger and Sean, apparently didn’t know.

And others keep posting about Paramount putting live and animated series on the broadcast air which they have no rights to so do. Also others were asking for a break from STAR WARS – I know it was a silly to make such a request in the comment section of an article about Mr. Abrams taking the SW gig, but I thought some would appreciate the break, if not the education.

My last Moonves post was going to be how he killed using the same 3D conversion process being used for STID on those TNG and ENT conversions.

1201. Killamarshtrek - January 28, 2013

GUYS, GUYS, lighten up!

So Abrams produces ST3 & brings someone else into the directors chair, so what?! That’s exactly what happened to the last Mission Impossible film and that was even better than the previous one! Who’s to say that isn’t gonna happen here!?

1202. Khan 2.0 - January 28, 2013

@1011 – indeed. my apoligies i miscalucated some of those estimates

amended:

2016 – Star Wars VII: A New Dawn released – critics are divided. some love it some think it too referential to the original trilogy. only does a disappointing $791m ww while Avengers 2 takes home $2b in the same month.

2016: Star Trek Revolutions released. directed by Brett Ratner – like SW7 reviews are fairly mixed. this time too much action at the expense of story, but amazingly does slightly better box office than Star Wars 7 – $860m ww (thanks in part to the 50th anniversary) Another movie is commissioned despite the definitive end to the trilogy (timeline is restored:)

2019 – Star Trek Origins: Khan – a standalone film starring a CG Richardo Montalban.

2021 – Star Trek First Generation – TNG prequel (with elements of a reboot) starring James McAvoy as Picard. directed by Matthew Vaughn

2023 – ‘The Star Wars’ – Reboot directed by Zack Synder, produced by Christopher Nolan

2024 – Star Trek Futures Past – directed by Bryan Singer. Time travel crossover movie with the Nu TNG and original TNG casts (Patrick Stewart etc). William Shatner finally guest stars :)

1203. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1201.

“live” should be “filmed live actor”

1204. Khan 2.0 - January 28, 2013

thing i could never quite figure out about star wars (maybe some can shed some light on this) was Luke, Han and all the humans are obviously our human forefathers right?

Its never mentioned in any of the movies but that’s what Lucas must’ve been (silently) intending right? “A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away” is obviously a spin on fairy tales but it certainly hints that the humans in the movies are mankinds ancestors (like Battlestar)

The Force could be todays psychic phenomena- people who bend spoons, ghosts etc…..and ET appearing in the senate in Phantom Menace could be a tie into to earth (i know it was only meant as a fun thing but still)

maybe JJ will address this….

Are there any Star Wars novels or comics that have any connection to this theory? The only one I know of is the Star Wars Tales comic of Indy finding the Millennium Falcon in the jungle that crashed 200 years earlier (Solo and chewie crash the MF in the year 1800 and Indy uncovers it in 1936…which could mean ‘A Long Time Ago’ wasnt that long at all…unless you account for the light speed time travel etc )

1205. Mel - January 28, 2013

I want the 3rd Star Trek movie in 2016 or even better earlier. I don’t want to wait 4 or more years again. Paramount should hire people, who have time for Star Trek.

1206. Khan 2.0 - January 28, 2013

what is everyones fave SW homage in ST09? (beyond the obvious similarities of the story)

mine was the shot of Darth Nero waiting for Kirk on the narada – similar to Vader waiting for Luke in Empire Strikes Back…love that shot

1207. Khan 2.0 - January 28, 2013

i hope there are plenty more SW homages in STID!! (im liking Coruscant San Fran for starters)

1208. RobSeverson - January 28, 2013

I’ll say this much. I an a Trek fan first, but am also an Abrams fan. I have long been bored to moribund tears by Star Wars. Boring archetypical stories, forced and transparent marketing/toy selling, and for the most late, acting so god-awful that it sometimes felt like watching an episode of the Love Boat in space.

But if anyone can drag Star Wars out of the morass of mediocrity, It’s JJA.

1209. drumvan - January 28, 2013

with the latest news regarding j.j. and the subsequent comments from bob orci, i have to say my excitement for “into darkness” went from about a 9.5 down to a 3. everything about this movie event now feels like a “lame duck” production.

do i think another new team can make a great star trek movie? sure. but this just feels like bailing out in mid stream. i worry that that cast, who has said countless times, what a great environment it is to be part of, will loose their enthusiasm. ya they’re under contract for a 3rd but that only covers the logistical & financial aspects of showing up and doing the work. not the joy or magic that a cohesive energized team can produce.

as a 50 yr old fan of both trek and wars, i always felt myself emotionally gravitating more towards trek. maybe it was because it came first. maybe it was because the cast seemed a bit more like family. maybe it was because trek always seemed to be the underdog based on financial and critical acclaim.

trek ’09 raised the bar for me. it was fresh, hip, exciting, looked and sounded state of the art and still managed to be emotional and thought provoking. now i feel like the team that brought that excitement has decided to head off for greener pastures before the paint is even dry on the new fence. it just makes me sad.

1210. Moputo Jones - January 28, 2013

Everyone should savor STID when it comes out in May, because that’s probably the last live-action Trek we’ll be seeing in a long, long time.

1211. DisgruntledTrekkie - January 28, 2013

1200. Yeah, I saw that quote.
What a d___.

1212. msn1701 - January 28, 2013

Good for you, JJ! I truly believe you are the best man for the job. Keep following your fanboy dream! :)

1213. Efren - January 28, 2013

bob orci- you and Alex are great and i know you will like to get involved in this in some capacity if you can. What you did for Teansformers Cartoon universe and all your projects you guys are amazing and in some form you can do both hopefully if your requested to work on SW as well.

1214. BulletInTheFace - January 28, 2013

#1211: Ridiculous. Obviously, new films will be made. Abrams is just one man. What is with you people, blowing this so hugely out of proportion??

1215. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

MJ,

To paraphrase Nicholas Meyer, “There he is! There he is!”:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1700868/jj-abrams-star-wars-star-trek-fan-reactions.jhtml

Pascale!

1216. Gary S. - January 28, 2013

1200 JJ didnt say he wasnt making the movies for Trek fans ,
He said he wasnt making them for Trek fans alone.
Big difference.

1217. Uberbot - January 28, 2013

Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher would make a great Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru in a re imagining…lol

1218. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

I don’t really care either way. A 3rd movie will get made if the 2nd movie is successful. If it is not, then no movie will get made (that is why these films are NOT made for Trek fans alone).

On a side note, I do think it was a douche move to say one week that you would NOT do the films out of loyalty to a fan base only to change your mind because of money. Loyalty my @$$….just be a man and say it was because of the amount of money offered.

That’s about it

1219. Uberbot - January 28, 2013

Maaaan…why is Pascale considered the Trek “superfan” all of a freak an sudden?! I’ve been a Trek fan since the original series/original NBC run days — ergo, in diapers. Got picked on for being a nerd and liking Star Trek in grade school. You know — back when it was NOT COOL to like sci fi!!

Went to my first convention in freakin 1973 — back when they were GOOD!! I know conventions!! I’ve interviewed and dug up info on ST:TMPs visuals that NO ONE reported on and I scored pre production art and set blueprints no one had seen before from that film from a contact who worked for Robert Abel and Associates! I’m a veritable walking encyclopedia of Trek. Not only that, but i know a shitload about FILM and film making. I know visual effects and CGI out the ass! Nobody asks for MY opinion on anything Trek!

Then this Pascale kid pops up out of nowhere and suddenly he’s the go-to guy on all things Trek! Why? Does he have naked pictures of people?

It just freakin drives me bananas!!! :-/

1220. Allenburch - January 28, 2013

This room is always a crazy party.

I wonder how you would all react if J.J. is called to direct Indy V?

[ Runs out of the room with arms flailing ]

1221. Uberbot - January 28, 2013

#1219 — I agree! Douche move by JJ!! Lol!!!

Guess he just changed his mind…it happens ya know!

1222. Bamasi - January 28, 2013

1220 I think he is considered a Trek superfan, as in one of many, not “the” Trek superfan, as it would be hard to quantify among those who qualify. Anyway, he does a great job of running this site, so good for him if he’s mentioned in an article on the internet.

1223. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1218. Uberbot – January 28, 2013

You mean this?:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1698753/star-trek-into-darkness-villain-jj-abrams.jhtml

“This movie was not made for STAR TREK fans; it was made for movie fans. But if you’re a STAR TREK fan, I think you’ll be really happy. There’s a lot of stuff in here for you, but we couldn’t just make the movie only for fans of STAR TREK. The thing about the movie that I love also is that we didn’t even make it for fans of the first movie we did. A lot of sequels I’ve seen tend to assume you love the characters and know them really well and get things off to a fast start where you don’t have any sense of investing in the characters in the beginning, so we tried to treat this as a movie that works on its own. Certainly it’s a sequel, certainly if you saw the first movie, great. You don’t have to have seen the first film. This movie is its own thing, and there are definitely nods to prior TREK lore in the film.” – J.J. Abrams

1224. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 28, 2013

Sure, Anthony P. knows that all this has hurt us a bit … ouch

;-) :-)

1225. Hat Rick - January 28, 2013

@DeeIvsmoon’surface (1225) — I know; I do feel a bit hurt. Fans don’t like to be told “A” and then have “not-A” happen. In my opinion, tthat’s why JJ “owes” us a Trek/Wars crossover. Again, make it a short feature. It’s the least he could do. ;-)

Ideas:

1. Enterprise confronts Death Star III. Enterprise destroys DSIII. The End.

Or,

2. Enterprise goes back in time and kills Anakin while he was still on that lava planet. The End.

Or,

3. Enterprise asks Q to delete Jar Jar Binks from existence. Q complies. The End.

And those are just three possible plot ideas!

I got a million of ‘em!

1226. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

The thing with Star Trek was that JJ Abrams did need to make a movie for more than just the fans, with Star Wars he doesn’t because Star Wars has that mainstream popularity already which Trek didn’t and still doesn’t to the extent that Star Wars does.

Abrams could make the biggest fanboy movie and still make Disney over 1bn with Star Wars. Star Trek was a different matter.

1227. Moputo Jones - January 28, 2013

# 1215: Considering how long it took between ST09 and STID, just imagine how much longer it’s going to take before a whole new “Supreme Court” gets things up and going.

1228. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

1220. Uberbot – January 28, 2013

OK, I’ll bite. Apparently there were a lot of different film stocks used in filming TMP. One report was that Wise had to use 65mm for any of the live actor shots that would require FX to be added later. Some say that it all got dumped with Abel and never used in the master print. I seem to remember an old ad were Wise was extolling using SuperPanavision in TMP. Did he?

Is it true the Klingon ships were on 16mm for some of the FX transfer process?

Why do some critics say his favored use of the diopter lens wasn’t as artful as in his earlier works?

1229. gingerly - January 28, 2013

OH SNAP!!

Over a thousand posts on this??

Let me guess…

Speculations about where his loyalties lie,
Proclamations about him being a hack,
Jokes about lensflares in Star Wars??

1230. Jefferies Tuber - January 28, 2013

Bottom line:

1. JJ’s better for SW than Trek. He did what needed to do, but Keenser is a gd muppet with absolutely no place in Trek. At best, we’re left with the idea that JJ depicted our characters’ foreshortened arcs prior to the whole ‘seek out new life…’ thing that didn’t fit in his mystery box. If he moves on now, it’s an ideal time to get a director who loves Star Trek and sees it as a ten year residency, the way Nolan treated Batman, rather than a stepping stone he’s entitled to use.

2. The reason to be justifiably angry about this is that the selfish little imp made us wait and wait and wait… for a stupid film called SUPER 8, and some other forgettable crap.

3. All things being equal, the idea of Bob Orci or some expression of the KO partnership directing the third film is actually pretty damn exciting. Orci clearly loves Trek and knows his way around expensive effects films. The IDW work has been nuanced and his presence on this site a real blessing.

4. If the little imp doesn’t set Trek free for another director, the combination of directing Star Wars and holding up Star Trek will turn the geek intelligentsia against JJ.

1231. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1224.

Sorry Uberbot post 1224 was meant for:

1217. Gary S. – January 28, 2013

1232. Cheve - January 28, 2013

@Boborci

Whatever the future brings, make sure JJ watches the intros from the Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic Videogame http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyYbvVAtlWk

They are the most dramatic and cinematic Starwars experience of the last decade, and the action coreography is something to look up to, leaving every lightsaber duel ever filmed in shame.

1233. Killamarshtrek - January 28, 2013

OK the link’s correct this time (what can I say, I’ve got manflu!).

BREAKING NEWS:

An early testshot has already been leaked from JJ’s new Star Wars film. Anthony Daniels reportedly “Not Happy”

http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q689/Killamarshtrek/star-wars_lensflare_zps613fc3bf.jpg

1234. Jefferies Tuber - January 28, 2013

Come on, people! I know I’m not alone, and now that JJ’s out – it’s time to speak.

Keenser was a ‘Jar Jar.’ He’s a ‘Cousin Oliver.’ He’s a f ‘Scrappy-Doo.’

In any kind of just and moral universe, boborci will either take responsibility for Keenser or become a witness for the prosecution against the individual responsible.

Funny thing about Keenser: he made me realize what a complicated and empathetic character Wesley Crusher was. In retrospect, the poor kid was way over his head, a pawn in his mom’s weird relationship with Picard, and is such a galactic nerd that I can’t help liking him 25 years later. We thought Wesley was a Cousin Oliver, but WW turned out to be a real dude, an Original Geekster. I may watch Wesley’s episodes in the rainbow unitard through my fingers, but WW had a level of sincerity that was evident in STAND BY ME, and he brought it to nearly every episode.

Keenser on the other hand will rot like soft fruit. Star Trek went forty proud years without a comedic muppet–he denim minidress of slutty/insecure science fiction. Thanks JJ.

Keenser has gots to go.

1235. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

Seriously, Keenser was a “Jar-Jar”…wow, really? Love that melodrama comin from ya. Keenser was not an issue in the fim. He didn’t detract nor did he enhance. He was simple another unique alien life form.

Wesley Crusher did far more damage then Keener did. Keenser was in, what..like 2 minutes of total film footage…he had ZERO lines.

Seriously…I’m beginning to understand why JJ would wanna get far away from the Trek fan base. While I thought saying one thing and doing another was lacking in integrity, dealing with overly dramatic, my way or the highway Trek fan boy tools is enough for anyone to wanna “jump ship”

Shatner said “Get a life”…how appropriate based on some of these comments.

1236. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@ 1228. Moputo Jones

I’m pretty sure if Into Darkness makes a ton of bank, Paramount won’t indulge JJ and will want a film in 2-3 years. Paramount was making alot of money on the films made between “1 and 2″ but this is different. He’ll be making money for Disney, so Paramount won’t be so gracious with 3.

I’m hoping they can pull of a good stunt and get someone like Christopher Nolan or even Sam Mendez to direct 3….I could see a great film being done by Quinten Tarrintino as well.

1237. mr mugato - January 28, 2013

Jar Jar doesn’t like lens flares.

1238. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1236. Robman007 – January 28, 2013

Shatner recited it, for his role as a fictional Shatner in an SNL skit. Robert Smigel of Triumph, The Insult Comic Dog fame wrote it and therefore was the one “saying” it.

1239. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 28, 2013

1235. Jefferies Tuber – Keenser is the offspring of a Jawa and an Ewok. A Jawok.

1240. Adam - January 28, 2013

@1200 and 1212

If only he had made the same comment out of respect for Trek and its fans. Oh well – we’ll just have to wait and see if he delays Star Wars for any other pet projects. Disney must have a finished script as we know he doesnt take directing assignments without one.

It’s nice that he’s earned himself the chance to take on something he really cares about but it’s understandable that it makes people worry about the future of the Star Trek movies, particularly with the 50th anniversary on the horizon. I guess if all goes well it means a 3rd film from Bad Robot in 2016, just with a new director. Otherwise, 2018 here we come

1241. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 28, 2013

1236. Robman007 – I agree that Keenser isn’t Jar-Jar, but he DID seem kind of Star Wars-ian to me, too. But yeah, no Jar-Jar. He was a film killer.

1242. sean - January 28, 2013

Keenser was in what, 5 minutes of the movie? Let it go, people. I’d much rather have Keenser than that kid from Insurrection. At least he was an alien alien, and not a human with a paper plate stapled to his forehead.

1243. SecretProject - January 28, 2013

Well, i guess there EXISTS a sufficient amount of money to buy yor secrecy plan about jumping ship in the middle of the ocean, but it’s cool leaving the fans speculate about the STID villain, the plot or any other detail concerning the movie for months because you’re too secretive about it and you don’t want to spoil it and you want the audience to find out at the right moment (laughing tons over here, sorry).

Yes, very convergent, very appropriate. Indicative of one’s respect for the audience, the final and more critical judge of one’s project.

1244. AJ - January 28, 2013

I agree with the speculation that if STID pulls major coin, Paramount will not sit around waiting for JJ to finish ep.7, especially knowing his propensity to miss launch deadlines.

A successful film in North America and internationally will keep all stakeholders (including Bad Robot) hungry for more. Also, as we move closer and closer to opening night, the STID marketing machine will head into full swing, and we will all forget about Star Wars until the final dollars are counted. Then we’ll have director speculation, just as we’ve had with SW7 (Favreau? Bird? Singer? etc.). All will be well.

Just don’t filch the actors.

1245. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

Eh, I didn’t feel he was too star wars-ian….you know what felt like Star Wars-ian to me….the Breen. Yeah, the Breen. Carbon Copy of Leia’s bounty hunter get up from Jedi.

THAT was Star Wars. Keenser was no big deal. I just saw him as Scotty’s co-worker who got a position on the Enterprise at the end of the film at the request of the ships chief engineer…

…although if Scotty needs an assistant they should go hire Nick Frost to play the character. THAT would be epic. Have them munchin on some Cornetto ice cream in the mess hall.

1246. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1245…thats IF this film manages to pull in some coin. It will have some tough competetion from Iron Man (2 weeks before, but still, those films make some coin) and Fast and Furious 6 (if given a choice of Trek or Fast..the mindless masses will choose the film with fast cars)…

So, we could be looking at a film that makes the same amount or less then the last…the lack of marketing can and might play a factor into that.

1247. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

Actually, I’d love to see them get Tom Hanks to direct the 3rd. Sounds odd, but his name does bring something to the table with audiences and he is a HUGE fan of the series….hmm…

1248. sean - January 28, 2013

#1201

I guess I should make it clear – I really don’t care about Les Moonves. I have no interest in the man or how he feels about Star Trek. I was simply addressing the distribution/ownership aspect.

1249. sean - January 28, 2013

#1246

RE: The Breen. Visually? Yes (the helmet, not the costume). Contextually? No.

1250. MJ - January 28, 2013

I am Trek Fan, and I would have cancelled Enterprise.

1251. AJ - January 28, 2013

1247: Robman007

I see the Cumberbatch Factor as being instrumental in getting a higher international turnout. He has instant recognition across Europe and Asia, and he brings in female filmgoers. In fact, whereas ST09 was a bunch of unknown young actors + Simon Pegg, Eric Bana and Leonard Nimoy, in STID, they are all now quite well-known.

My hunch is that Star Trek will be alive and well come the end of 2013.

1252. PaulB - January 28, 2013

#1247 – “So, we could be looking at a film that makes the same amount or less then the last…the lack of marketing can and might play a factor into that.”

First, there’s been no ‘lack of marketing’ for STID, and there’s no reason to think there will be a lack of marketing. Second, you’re right, we could be looking at a film that makes less, or the same, or more.

Enough with the pointless prognostications! STID is alive and well, on schedule, with marketing on schedule, and nothing to even remotely suggest that your prediction is right.

1253. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1249. sean – January 28, 2013

That’s fine. But you and everyone else should know he’s still a factor in the movie timetables. Moonves gave Paramount 18 months to get the ball rolling when he got the Trek rights. I doubt he’ll wait 7 years.

1254. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

@1247

Iron Man is released more or less 4 weeks before Star Trek Into Darkness and Man Of Steel is released just under 4 weeks after Star Trek Into Darkness…

Iron Man 3: 24th April international release date
Star Trek Into Darkness: 17th May
Man of Steel: 14th June

Plenty of room for Star Trek to make possibly its first billion dollar movie at the box office and don’t be so sure labelling every mainstream movie goer with the same brush, I wouldn’t be so sure that they’d rather go watch the F&F movie over Trek…. Not to mention all those Wars fans going to see Trek now to find out if Abrams will be worth it.

1255. LaForge_To_Bridge - January 28, 2013

I’m glad this is true. JJ has consistently described himself as more of a Star Wars fan and Trek 11 was essentially Star Wars with Trek names. The Star Wars films now have an excellent and enthusiastic director in Abrams, someone who can do that franchise justice. Now if only Star Trek can be so lucky.

And no, I am not a fan of Trek 11. It plays like a parody of the franchise, a mean-spirited one that uses narrative shortcuts and pretty lights to stroke the egos of jaded/nostalgic fans who want things to be a certain way no matter how it comes to be. Celebrating a cartoonishly high and genocidal death toll (Vulcan, Romulus, etc.) and giving a cheating punk command of the Federation’s pride and joy does not a good Trek make.

Excusing it all just because it made serious bank is worse. By this standard Transformers is the better franchise.

You know what? Since bank is all that matters, Michael Bay should be pulled to direct Trek. He’s playing with giant robots right now, but the right offer…

After all, no matter what he does, he makes BANK.

1256. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1251. MJ – January 28, 2013

And before Coto, I’d have been right there with you. After, not so much. But I’d have to be honest that as long as Berman was lurking around that I wouldn’t have expected much.

I bemoaned what became for me the BB gun (Berman and Braga) and often accused them of using one on the scripts that came their way, i.e. shot full of holes

1257. Uberbot - January 28, 2013

#1229 –

My discussions on the subject of Abel’s work on TMP was more with regard to planned visuals that were scrapped.

I didn’t get into a discussion of cameras and film stock, however, I can’t see any feature film using 16mm — unless, maybe, in a pre-vis capacity. LOL!!

1258. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1258. Uberbot – January 28, 2013

I suspect if the 16mm was used it was for the space station’s background monitiors’ fx with Klingon ships on them.

1259. K-7 - January 28, 2013

@1256. Please don’t attend STID on opening weekend. I wouldn’t want my experience to be soiled by knowing that their is a condescending hateful little prik like you in attendance.

1260. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@ 1256…please refer to comment 1236 in regards to that overly dramatic fan boy stuff…it’s obnoxious. The last film was not a parody of what came before. You want parody, go watch Insurrection and Nemesis. Data a floatation device…big Klingon zits, a late 1990′s PC joy stick piloting the Enterprise, a “picard clone” a dune buggy that has it’s own shuttlecraft…TNG Seasons 1-2, most of Voyage and Enterprise….those are parodies of the worse type.

Sure they took some creative liberties, but everyone’s favorite film, Trek 2, established that Kirk was rewarded for…you guessed it..CHEATING. This “alternate” Kirk just misses the parental guidence that his father provided, but the personality seeds of the “alternate” Kirk were in the Shatner Kirk LONG before Trek 11.

Blowing up Vulcan? Brilliant. Provides some interesting ideas for future UNIQUE stories. It was a ballsy risk considering how Trek fans are known to be quite dramatic over such fictional events. Also takes Trek in a different direction then the politically correct nonsensical society that was created in TNG.

Don’t get me started on the “narrative shortcuts” in regards to the character ages and promotions. Fans here would have b!tched and moaned if it took 3 movies and 8+ years to get Kirk and Spock and the rest on the bridge. I’m glad they spared us the “Anakin to Vader” garbage of the prequel trilogy (which could have resolved that one in 1 film or a film and a half)…

It’s ultra fan boys like some here on why this whole “alternate universe” crap was created in the first place. A total reboot would have caused some to jump off bridges and declare their DVD’s to be “obsolete because they don’t exist anymore!!! THE HORROR!!”

You just…can’t…..win somtimes

1261. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

#1255

With Iron Man coming out just before and Supes coming out just after, there is absolutely NO WAY that STID makes a billion dollars. None. Not gonna happen.

Iron Man might under perform and it will probably out pace STID. And I get the feeling that Supes might just eat everyone’s lunch at the BO.

With JJ gone I predict he abandons Trek in all but the most cursory of positions. Also with all of this talk about how STID is going to be some sort of tear jerking event, then someone important is going to die, since that was one of JJ’s reasons to set it in the AU: so that nobody’s future could be predicted. I also prognosticate that it might mean that movie 3 (if it happens) could be a push of the old “reset” button. Ya’ know, in order to bring back from the dead one of our heroes that isn’t supposed to die. Because we know he’s not dead in the Prime timeline. Of course he may no longer “reside” in the Prime timeline. Because there are two of him in this AU. And his planet has been blowed up and he wants to fix it. And go home. To the Prime timeline.

Was that subtle?

1262. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1260..no, his types will attend the movie. Secretly they will love it and download the bootleg copy the minute it’s posted online. Then they will go on Trekmovie and complain about the film and how JJ “took advantage” of their childhood memories and crapped all over the good name of Star Trek.

News flash, the “good name” of Star Trek was dragged thru the mud by years of nonsense and political correctness…all JJ’s films have done is give the franchise a fighthing chance to survive and gain some new fans.

1263. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 28, 2013

Everyone here – Just to be clear -

My last post was #1058. The post at #1147 is NOT MINE. It was written by an imposter. Moderator(s)?

1264. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1258. Uberbot – January 28, 2013

In those plans was there anything about what was expected to be working with in regards to film when adding effects to live actor shots?

1265. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1262..naw, I don’t see the “pointed eared one” dying in this film…maybe “the good captain” or “red shirted ensign in the preview”…but that’s about it….or someone won’t get to attend that future meeting on Talos.

1266. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@boborci…

I know this is a long shot, but is there ANY POSSIBLE WAY you guys can get ahold of “The X-Files” and help finish that story? Seriously, 9 seasons and 2 movies and they still have not concluded that story. One of the biggest shames outside of the fact that Crusade was supposed to resolve missing plot threads from B5…that worked out well.

1267. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

Any time I read a post from one of the “dramatic ones” in regards to how Trek 11 and Into Darkness (despite not being released yet) made a mockery of Star Trek..I can’t help but summon the voice of “The Comic Book Guy” from the Simpsons and image him typing and reading those comments.

Makes the stupidity funny to read

1268. Uberbot - January 28, 2013

#1259 — That may be. That would be…logical.

It’s my understanding that only the visual effects of ST:TMP were shot in 65mm (70mm) using the VistaVision camera — also known as the Dykstraflex camera. This is what Apogee (at least) used for their work on the film.

1269. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1269..it’s quite fascinating to read about the difficulties ILM had with working with the Enterprise refit in Trek 2. So much damage was done to that model as a result of it’s time on Trek 2-4..

1270. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

#1266

Either way. I still think greenblood would want to do something to prevent his ENTIRE CIVILIZATION AND HOME PLANET from being destroyed. I don’t think wheels get’s offed because there just isn’t enough emotional attachment to him from any but the most hard core fans. Anyone outside the trifecta would have to die in multiples. Scotty and Sulu, or Uhura and Chekov and Keenser, or other such combinations.

Kirk dies and Prime Spock will want to fix it. Young Spock dies and obviously Old Spock will find that illogical. And want to fix it.

In any case I think JJ is done with Trek. My hope is for a return to TV. In the Prime universe.

1271. STAR WARS FOREVER - January 28, 2013

OH YEAH! OH YEAH!! star trek IS GOING DOWN!! FEEL IT COMING!! YOU AINT GOT A CHANCE star trek!! HERE WE GO EPISODE 7! HERE WE GO! UGH! UGH!

THERE AINT NO WAY SOME LITTLE star trek FILM CAN BEAT EPISODE 7! NOT NOW WE GOT YOUR JJ ON SECOND BASE!

1272. sean - January 28, 2013

#1267

Chris Carter still controls the X-Files, and is in fact developing a 3rd movie.

I really feel like that story has been told, though. X-Files season 1-6 are solid, but those last 3 seasons are really rough.

1273. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

#1272

You sound like quite the expert on “going down” and the feeling of something “coming”.

We will all look to you when that sort of input is necessary. Until then, back to your room.

1274. STAR WARS FOREVER - January 28, 2013

WHO WANTS TO HEAR ABOUT A star trek MOVIE NOW?! EPISODE 7 IS THE ULTIMATE FILM OF THE DECADE! EPISODE 7 WILL BE THE THIRD REVELATION!!!

EPISODE 7 KNOWS NO FEAR!! EPISODE 7 KNOWS NO PAIN!!

stid PREPARE TO BE EPISODE 7ED!!

1275. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1273…he has been trying, but Fox has not been willing to green light a 3rd movie.

I felt that the story really came to an end with that 2 parter in Season 6. That should have been the end of The X-Files on TV….but they had to go further and the season finale talked about the pending invasion and there was supposed to be a film last year….but Fox screwed that up with the lack of support for the last film.

One last film to end it all is needed to fix the disaster of seasons 7-9

1276. dub - January 28, 2013

Perhaps in JJ’s first Star Wars movie, Spock could go back further in time and stop George Lucas from making the special editions and episodes I through III.

1277. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

“One last film to end it all is needed to fix the disaster of seasons 7-9″

As a TNG fan, this would be my hope for a TNG movie. Just a proper send off. Have Q come back around one last time to test the crew and humanity. Make it big. Make it fun. Make it thought provoking. And make it without an adversary bent on revenge/domination/whatever.

1278. sean - January 28, 2013

#1276

I can’t blame them, though. The 2nd movie wasn’t bad, but it did cover well-worn territory. It might have made an interesting episode, but was a bad choice for a comeback after 6 years.

1279. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1275..you sound like one of those Wars fans that was not even alive when the original trilogy was in theaters. That crap on TV and in theaters now does not even come close to passing for what Star Wars used to be…besides, Star Wars was at its best when Star Trek was at its best…so stop with the “Wars is going to kill Trek” nonsense…the only thing Wars has killed lately has been it’s own fan base with the bile being released by Lucas.

1280. sean - January 28, 2013

#1278

We had that, though, It was called ‘All Good Things’ and was a great way to end the TNG era.

1281. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

#1275

Hey Timmy, your caps lock is stuck. I think some of your Hot Pockets filling dripped on your keyboard.

1282. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

Episode 7 will be nothing more than a fanboys wildest dream to make a Star Wars movie and a chance for Disney to sell more Star Wars toys, and lets face it Disney had to look to Star Trek for its director… Star Wars is hardly going to be the film of the decade, Avengers 2 will wipe the floor with Star Wars.

1283. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@ 1278…I would have liked that as well. I was the biggest TNG fan, I loathed Generations (they killed the good Captain…you don’t do that) but I felt they deserved a better send off then what they got. Even TOS got a better send off after doing Trek 5.

@1279..I enjoyed the 2nd movie, except for Scully. She didn’t seem well written and was not the same strong woman from the show. First she pulls Mulder into that crap and gets him involved in that stuff once again, then she complains because HE’S MULDER (obsessed with the case, unable to get over Samantha)…

Yeah, for a come back film, they should have done the alien invasion story…even brought back Cancer Man (alien human hybrid clone..that was my theory on him in the later parts of the show)…

1284. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

Does anyone think now it seems that maybe JJ Abrams may not hit the 2015 release Disney wanted for SW, that we may see Abrams do another Star Trek movie before he begins on Star Wars? Possibly for a 2016 release with Star Wars being released in 2017?

Could happen?

1285. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

#1281

But it didn’t end the TNG era. It just ended the TV series. And then we got another good movie, two average episodes on the big screen, and something awful, which, unfortunately, was the last thing we all saw.

It’s OK for people to like NuTrek. It’s OK for people to like Star Wars. And it’s OK for me to want a better send off.

1286. sean - January 28, 2013

#1283

You realize Avengers is made by Disney, right?

1287. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1283…Wars 7 will make alot of money, I think it could even make Avengers level loot.

I admire JJ Abrams and his crew (especially Bob Orci) for taking Trek in that direction. They have set out to make Trek a big franchise and I think over time, it can pull in that type of dollar (not as high, but good enough)..as long as it does not retread back into “classic” trek mode just to appease fans. Having a film in which Kirk and Spock set out to find the Holy Grail or Search for God will only drive the audience away…unless they hire an archeologist named Jones….

1288. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

The mistake of the TNG movie era was not capitalizing on the Dominion War plot from DS9. They could have made a wicked movie about the horrors of war in such a way that TV can’t….and it could have had some DS9 crossovers. Instead we got the crapsicle films of Insurrection and Nemesis (insurrection being a terrible remake of “Omega Glory” with an idiotic group of plastic surgery obsessed mafioso and the ever so bad attempt to remake Wrath of Khan and mix in some Attack of the Clones)

1289. sean - January 28, 2013

#1286

I understand, I’m just saying it’s not going to happen. I love TNG. I too was disappointed in Insurrection and Nemesis (Insurrection being the worse of the two, IMHO). But it’s done, and we may as well get used to that. Unless we’re talking about a reboot 15 years from now.

1290. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1285..

I read an article on IGN about that possiblity….I don’t think that paramount is willing to wait on him to finish Star Wars and his other “speilberg homage” films to direct Trek 3 in 2018-2020…then the actors would be getting old enough to do a reboot of the movie era adventures…

1291. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

The faster that folks realize that Star Trek will NEVER go back to being what it was in the TNG era (TNG-Enterprise) the better off they will be. If Trek gets back on TV it will likely be an action based show similar to TOS then anything Trek was in the TNG Era.

1292. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

I would have loved to see JMS get his remake of Trek done on TV. Granted it was very simliar to his Babylon 5 story, but that would have been a killer reboot of TOS.

1293. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

@ Sean, I do realise Avengers is made by Marvel and Disney so the two wont be in direct competition but if they are to be released in the same year then I would think Avengers would make more money. Regardless of this being Star Wars, I think Superheroes have a bigger attraction to people who aren’t fanboys of either and aren’t bothered about anything but being entertained at the movies. Personally I won’t be going to see Star Wars simply because that universe hasn’t ever really appealed to me but I’ll be first in line to see Avengers 2. Marvel have just been amazing I think at capturing the spirit of each of their superheroes on screen.

1294. Uberbot - January 28, 2013

#1270 –

I really hated what ILM did to the E model for Star Trek 2. As you may know, the model had a subtle pearlescent finish originally, but because ILM shot against blue instead of black (as Trumbull did), they were getting a lot of blue spill on the model. Their “solution” was to spray the model with dullcote.

I remember reading Bran Ferren (Star Trek V FX supervisor) found a rubber lizard inside the secondary hull! So yeah…the poor girl suffered a lot of abuse….:-/

1295. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1295…yeah, and that before 5, they found out that a Universal Studio’s employee sprayed one ENTIRE side matte grey to block out blue spill for some special they did on movie fx. Then ILM did another paint job on the model for 6 that further destroyed the pearlescent finish of the ship.

I live near Seattle so I thought about taking a trip up to the Sci-Fi Museum to check the ship out in person.

1296. Uberbot - January 28, 2013

#1292 — I hope it does come back to TV as action adventure. That’s what it should be!

1297. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1297…TOS was and is still the best Trek ever. Equal parts action and intelligence without getting too full of technobabble (Cross circuiting to B..hahaha!)

1298. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

Trek on TV i can see being a mixture of TNG/DS9 and Doctor Who, probably more Doctor Who.

1299. VOODOO - January 28, 2013

1283

“Avengers 2 will wipe the floor with Star Wars”

I don’t know about that. Avengers was a mediocre film at best that doesn’t have anywhere near the iconic status that the original Star Wars films do. There will be a media frenzy built up around Epiosde VII like nothing we have ever seen before.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Avengers 2 box office drops off significantly from part 1.

1300. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

@1298, nahhh TNG and DS9 were the best Star Treks

1301. MoeP - January 28, 2013

I have never seen any Star Wars movie so this news is of little interest to me. It has always been Trek for me since way back to TOS.

1302. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 28, 2013

This all cracks me up. The facts are two -

a) JJ Abrams has signed on to direct ONE movie – Star Wars Episode VII

b) Paramount has said that JJ Abrams will be involved with the Star Trek franchise, being producer, of any third movie, at the VERY LEAST.

Therefore, JJ Abrams has not left anything/anyone. As for directing, JJ Abrams decides on whether to direct a movie or not on a case by case, script by script, movie by movie basis. There was/is never any guarantee that JJ Abrams will direct anything. However, it is clear that he will remain a Star Trek producer, which is what he has been all along.

*A rose for remembrance

Oh and Star Wars Forever – stop shouting your inane spluttering. We get it already!

Another of my names – a tagline.

1303. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

“@1298, nahhh TNG and DS9 were the best Star Treks”

While I agree with the DS9 comment (DS9 was awesome and about as close to TOS as you can get)..TNG was too politically correct and plot resolutions depended on technology rather then ingenuity. The Enterprise was more like the Love Boat in space. It was weak as crap half the time and looked ugly as sin. Good show, better then Voyager and Enterprise, but not as good as the Original..although Season 3 was pretty terrible most the time…

1304. K-7 - January 28, 2013

# 1263. Robman007 – January 28, 2013 “@1260..no, his types will attend the movie. Secretly they will love it and download the bootleg copy the minute it’s posted online. Then they will go on Trekmovie and complain about the film and how JJ “took advantage” of their childhood memories and crapped all over the good name of Star Trek. News flash, the “good name” of Star Trek was dragged thru the mud by years of nonsense and political correctness…all JJ’s films have done is give the franchise a fighthing chance to survive and gain some new fans.”

Well said, Roboman. I agree. And it’s interesting, isn’t it, how the great “LaForge_To_Bridge” is too much of a wuss apparently to respond and defend himself here. I guess he simply dropped his little bomb here and then went back to re watching his TNG Season 1 Blu-Ray collection for the 27th time. LOL

1305. Gary S. - January 28, 2013

1256″Cheating Punk?”
Kirk Cheated in TWOK too.

1306. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Avengers 2 box office drops off significantly from part 1.”

Back in the day, I’d agree with you…but with today’s dense as can be youth, Avengers 2 will make a ton more money then Star Wars 7. Star Wars will require kids to think, Avengers (even the first) did not. The lead in films did and were good flicks (at least the Iron Man ones were), but Avengers was so mindless that I thought Michael Bay was involved.

1307. Bill Peters - January 28, 2013

I hope that someone from Bad Robot get the Chance to Direct Star Trek 3 if it happens, which i hope it does, Bad Robot is in a contract for 3 movies, it doesn’t mean JJ has to Direct all 3 and Parmount will keep trek with who ever has it making the most money for it though the Star Trek Name, you have to remember fans to Parmount are a Source of Income but they have to make a Healthy Profit from General audances so they will use Big names like JJ and Bad Robot to make new Trek that a new Generation of movie goers will Emrace, the days of old trek might work for fans who have been here all along but to get new Trek we also have to get a new fan base.

1308. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

@1300

I dunno, I think Star Wars will do well but I think it’s rep isn’t as it used to be. Sure the fans will be there lining up, lightsabers in hand but the prequel trilogy did nothing to help the franchise and since then its been surviving on a kids cartoon and toy sales as well as constant tweaking from Lucas on DVD and blu ray releases.

Beyond its fan base, who cares about Star Wars anymore?

1309. Jefferies Tuber - January 28, 2013

Robman007 – I was being hyperbolic about Keenser, but he does suck and it is a Scrappy Doo/Cousin Oliver pathetic move on JJ’s part. The presence of Keenser compromises Pegg’s performance, reducing him to Dennis the Menace-style exclamations. [Shudder]

I’ll grant you that he didn’t shit the bed like Jar Jar. The TNG movies are pathetic, beneath commentary. And I still maintain that Trek never stooped to cute sidekick until ST09.

Though Christopher Nolan is an overused citation, I’d be most excited by that type of name coming on board Star Trek… someone like Duncan Jones. Plan on Adam Goodman naming someone safe, like Stephen Sommers or Joe Johnston.

1310. K-7 - January 28, 2013

#1305. Yea, DS9 was great because they actually did stuff and behaved like real humans — just like in the TOS — whereas TNG was typically like something a UN focus group would have come up with had they been asked to define a Trek series.

1311. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1306…yeah, someone got pissy about that “plot detail”….last time I checked Wrath of Khan made it a plot point to show that Kirk got by for years by simply pulling a trick here and there and “cheating” his way past death, all while patting himself on the back and laughing his way into the next adventure…identical to the behavior pattern of “nu” Kirk.

1312. Gary S. - January 28, 2013

1232.
Yep.
That is what I was referring to.
Thanks for the Uberpost, I dont get a lot of those!

1313. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1310. Jefferies Tuber …gotcha.

I dunno, I thought that dumb chick friend of Nelix’s was a side kick. She was worthless and about as obnoxious as Jar Jar Binks….

I’d go with Nolan, Tarintino, Tom Hanks or even Leonard Nimoy. Let him do it…or get JMS…

1314. K-7 - January 28, 2013

@1310 “And I still maintain that Trek never stooped to cute sidekick until ST09.”

Dude, just what you think Wesley Crusher was? He was a kid sidekick for the adult crew to bring in younger fans. Come on!

1315. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

I’ll reserve my judgement on Keenser until these films are done. He could do something good for the story like save the ship, or save scotty…or he could just continue to get into trouble for climbing up stuff…either way, give him something great to do or replace him with Nick Frost

1316. DiscoSpock - January 28, 2013

Didn’t Quark have a brother-sidekick on DS9?

1317. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 28, 2013

1303
a) JJ Abrams has signed on to direct ONE movie – Star Wars Episode VII

b) Paramount has said that JJ Abrams will be involved with the Star Trek franchise, being producer, of any third movie, at the VERY LEAST.

Therefore, JJ Abrams has not left anything/anyone. As for directing, JJ Abrams decides on whether to direct a movie or not on a case by case, script by script, movie by movie basis. There was/is never any guarantee that JJ Abrams will direct anything. However, it is clear that he will remain a Star Trek producer, which is what he has been all along.

——————————————————————————————————

Well said!

——————————————————————————————————

@1304

I think it depends on what Star Trek you grew up on, I grew up on TNG and DS9 and I felt that both of them reflected the eras they were made in, TNG had that 80′s vibe and DS9 that 90′s vibe.

1318. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

1315…very true. Very true. He does get cool points…dude got to make out with Ashley Judd. Can’t hate on that….

TNG was full of side kicks. Troi was a side kick in the first few years (and there just to c**k-block the good commander) and Wesley was there to remind us that this Trek was not TOS Trek.

The best “side kick” was Nog…before he joined Star Fleet. That conversation he had during the “double date” that he and Jake went on with that girl from Saved by the Bell and her friend…priceless and one of the greatest set of lines in all of Trek. Captain Kirk would have been proud.

1319. K-7 - January 28, 2013

#1317. Yep, another previous sidekick in Trek.

1320. sean - January 28, 2013

#1294

My point being there’s no reason they won’t make a good Star Wars movie, given the nice job they’ve done with the Marvel stuff. In fact, as derided as John Carter was, I think it shows they could definitely do a decent SW movie.

1321. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

@1318..That’s true….I grew up with TOS (not when it aired…I was not around until a few months before Khan), but I’ve always been partial to the good Captain Kirk and his trusty pal Spock then anything…and I loved DS9 cause they repected TOS instead of changing it (TNG made klingons honorable, gave Romulans headridges and turned the Enterprise from a bad mofo ship to the weak love boat)….

1322. K-7 - January 28, 2013

#1321. Plus, the bar was set so low by the prequels that it would be hard for JJ to not be able to improve on that just by showing up and going through his usual best practices, including casting good actors — something that Lucas completely dropped the ball on for the prequels.

1323. K-7 - January 28, 2013

meant to be responding to #1322

1324. The Walking Phobia - January 28, 2013

@1275…

Ok… You are the reason that certain medications were created. You do realize how stupid your statement is don’t you? STID comes out this year, in 4 months time, 4 MONTHS!!! Ep. VII comes out 2 years later. So how exactly does it trounce STID?? I would tell you to do the math, but I have a sinking feeling that coherent thought is not a strong suit with you.

Anyways…

I have to admit I don’t particularly care whether J.J. Abrams is directing SW or not, or if he ever directs another ST film. I wish him well in his new ventures and I thank him and Bad Robot for bringing us ST, but he isn’t the reason I’m going to see STID come May. He’s not the star of movie, and while the director of course is a huge part of the process, he/she is just part of the creative team. I am one of those people who really doesn’t take much notice of who directs what. It’s not my main motivation for seeing a movie.

Nope, I’m going to see STID because I want to see my heroes onscreen once again. I want to see Kirk, Spock and Bones and the rest of the crew (Uhura, Scotty, Sulu and Chekov) and of course the beloved Enterprise continue to boldly go. Almost 50 years, wow, what a legacy! Remember, ST was instrumental in some way for SW, BSG etc… And ST will be celebrated for years to come. Us fans made sure of that all those years ago and to this day.

Don’t get me wrong, I like SW, I do. I remember gasping along with the audience when Darth Vader spoke those immortal lines to Luke in Empire Strikes Back. Or when Hans Solo was put into Carbonite…yikes! But I cried during TWOK, my heart broke for Spock and Kirk and even now I will tear up watching Spock’s death. The ST universe and the characters within it, are to me, what the future can aspire to (and has already, how many inventions that we use now can trace their origins back to ST?) ST feels more real, whereas SW is darn good whomping fun to watch, but it doesn’t challenge me. ST at its best, holds a mirror up to society and makes us think, it makes us challenge our ideas and outlook. It has longevity and substance. SW is stylish, baby! And I’ll probably go and see the new movie. But in all honesty, I will take substance over style any day.

1325. Gary S - January 28, 2013

1303 . Well said indeed, Rose.
There really is nothing to worry about.

1326. Emperor Mike of the Empire - January 28, 2013

I wish J.J would direct Spaceballs. The Search for more money.
May the Schwartz be with you.

1327. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1325, Well said, The Walking Phobia. You’ve put into words how I feel about Trek versus SW. The Empire Strikes Back was the only SW movie that I would rate as good as some of the best Trek movies — it is the only SW movie that really got to me personally.

1328. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1323 “Plus, the bar was set so low by the prequels that it would be hard for JJ to not be able to improve on that just by showing up and going through his usual best practices, including casting good actors — something that Lucas completely dropped the ball on for the prequels.”

Yep!

1329. AJ - January 28, 2013

1307/Robman007

“Star Wars will require kids to think”

Is that a spoiler for ep7?

Or do you actually think the last six films did so?

Eps IV, V & VI were pure, splendid eye/ear-candy, and as a teenager, I happily left my brain at the door of the cinema for each one. Joseph Campbell and the ‘hero’s journey’ was shit we all read about later, and thought “who cares?” Just like most fans.

I, II & III made me think Lucas had jumped the shark, imbuing the films with more offensive racism than anything Tarantino has done, as well as a psycho mass murderer of children and adults who was supposed to be the guy ‘redeemed’ by the end of ‘Jedi.’ Epic Fail.

I’d do anything to be that 13 year old who caught “A New Hope” in 1977 again. What a ride.

1330. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1256. / LaForge_To_Bridge

LOL — are your serious??? Really???

:-)))

1331. Robman007 - January 28, 2013

Yeah, my comment of “Star Wars will require kids to think” does seem a bit silly now…..it will require a tad more thought then Avengers managed.

1332. MJ - January 28, 2013

Jefferies Tuber,

There have been multiple sidekicks throughout Trek, including:

Nog
Crusher
Kes
joachim
Keiko

1333. Phil - January 28, 2013

@1333.

Dont forget Spock and Riker…

1334. The Walking Phobia - January 28, 2013

@1328

I agree with you MJ :-) Though I did go and see Return of the Jedi a few times, but that was more my crush on Harrison Ford rather than it being a SW film. Trust me, Raiders of the Lost Ark made a mint off of me because of that too! LOL

Naa, this lady is counting down to May 17th, saving her pennies so she can buy the big popcorn and gulpy drink and wait for the magic to unfold. :-)

1335. Jefferies Tuber - January 28, 2013

Crusher was not a sidekick and he wasn’t cute. He was earnest and weak, never funny. He was discomfiting in many ways, but his presence was nothing like the ‘Cousin Oliver/Scrappy Doo Maneuver,’ whereby a smaller, cuter character is consistently used for ‘aw shucks’ comic relief.

The typical response to a Wesley scene in TNG was not a giggle or an ‘aw shucks,’ — it was to be embarrassed for everyone involved and the desire to scratch ones own eyes out in the Traveller episodes.

Roddenberry’s whole idea of a starship with a city attached to it was abandoned. The ship hardly ever separated. The civilians were never explored meaningfully. Wesley was the embodiment of that failed concept. Totally different from the Scrappy Doo/Artoo/Keenser thing.

1336. Cervantes - January 28, 2013

As a movie fan in general, I happen to like BOTH franchises…even though there’s been some awful moments/dialogue in both of them at times.

Although J.J. wasn’t on my personal list of hoped-for directors for the next Star Wars movie, I’m confident he may turn out something that looks good. I just hope his design choices are better than some of those he opted for on his 1st Trek reboot.

But I’ve just realised the one big thing that would really spoil both his franchise efforts for me – if he ends up casting fellow Star Wars fan Simon Pegg as a character that is not heavily disguised in make-up… Seeing nu-’Scotty’ in J.J.’s nu-Wars movie too would end ‘taking me out’ of both his sci-fi franchises quicker than Jar Jar and Keenser ever did! Sorry Simon, but seeing you in BOTH of these sagas would seem jarring and ridiculous to me.

1337. dmduncan - January 28, 2013

Nevermind. Came back again. Once more betrayed by the bizarre functionality of this place once it goes over 1000 posts!

1338. LaForge_To_Bridge - January 28, 2013

@1260 (K-7) Too late then. Film reviewers, wannabe film-reviewers, smartass nerds will be attending Trek12 opening weekend.

@1261 (Rodman007) And let’s not forget TOS Season 3, and a few episodes from Seasons 1 and 2. I consider Insurrection to be FAR WORSE than Nemesis. Bringing up examples of previous idiocy within the franchise’s past does not absolve or excuse Trek 11 of its own idiocies, which at present I care about more since the franchise currently revolves around this movie.

I really don’t care about creative liberties taken. I didn’t really care what the Enterprise looked like or other visual differences and they they didn’t have to justify any changes to me with time-traveling alternative universe bullsh*t. I get it. I know what it takes to look cool to outsiders/non-nerds/everybody else (I just don’t care, the same way they feel about me). Using a genre trope (time-travel/alternate universe) to telegraph the obliteration of 40+ years of franchise history is cynical, and insulting. Just do it and be done with it. Batman made no apologies and look at how well that worked out.

Anyway, The Wrath of Khan portrayed the KM test as a desperate situation that Kirk went above and beyond to win the no-win test. Cheating was the best answer. He wouldn’t give up, long after other cadets did. It’s just that the best answer was to cheat. Kirkwad (Trek11) just does it (we never see how) just to show the world how awesome he is. The same film also shows Kirk ignoring or forgetting directives that could save lives in battle. Whatever.

You know what would have been brilliant AND ballsy? Killing one of the seven (Uhura, Chekov, Sulu or Scott), or hell, even one of the three (Kirk, Spock or McCoy). It would have provided some interesting ideas for future UNIQUE stories. It would have been a ballsy risk considering how Trek fans are known to be quite dramatic over such fictional events AND characters. It also would have taken Trek in a different direction then the politically correct (among fans/studio-heads/other suits) nonsensical template of immortal crew + expendable redshirts + semi-dangerous ship with famous name that was created in TOS and copied ad-infinitum in subsequent spinoffs.

TNG showed (well tried to) a humanity that curbed its most dangerous and self-destructive impulses and strove to better themselves as a civilization, as a species. Why is this uncool? Why is this mocked? Why is it that any display and celebration of good human virtues are mocked and derided by modern media (and then lavishly praised).

Instead Vulcan bites it as a cop out, a way for the Supreme Court to show how “dangerous” their AU is. It’s a bird-flip to older fans, because they risk something precious to fans without truly risking anything deemed important to the larger audience base (the brand name of Kirk + Enterprise and the the other people). Why not blow up Earth? That was supposed to be where the real stakes are. So the bad guy gets everything he wants, and Old Spock (who swung around a star for some whales) couldn’t really give a damn. Yet he waves a magic wand and *poofs* Kirk and Scotty to the Enterprise because the Supreme Court couldn’t think of a better way to put them there. This is after being LET GO RIGHT AFTER CAPTURE by a man who obsessed over him for 20+ years (wouldn’t Nero’s bridge have been a better place to see Vulcan’s destruction? So he can watch Spock’s his anguish?).

There are too many examples of shortcuts like that in this film and that bothers me.

And that’s the rub. Trek11 started off so well (the opening was awesome, and a tearjerker, despite the whole kids on starship thing – have we have learned nothing from TNG). Spock’s childhood and his dad were awesome. The special effects were cool. But bullshit is bullshit no matter when it appears or how shiny it is.

I don’t think JJ is a bad filmmaker. I just think he’s better for Star Wars. That’s where his storytelling sensibilities lie. And finally, we’ll get a great Star Wars movie (I hope, the best laid plans…). I just don’t think he was right for Trek.

But it doesn’t matter. Trek11 made bank. But if that’s all that matters shoot for the moon and go for James Cameron, Spielberg, Bay, etc.?

Just saying.

1339. Gary S. - January 28, 2013

I think it is possible one of the seven main characters might die in STID
You never know.

1340. boborci - January 28, 2013

I am not Roberto Orci, but I’m posting this as proof that anyone can post with the name “boborci”. TrekMovie.com and Anthony need to confirm and perhaps prohibited the use of the boborci username from those that are not Orci himself.

That being said, Mr. Orci, I greatly appreciate that you take your time to post with us. I look forward to you and the supreme court giving us a Star Trek 3… if the Force is with us. ;)

1341. K-7 - January 28, 2013

@1341. What a dick, whoever you are. Go away, moron.

1342. K-7 - January 28, 2013

might response was for fake orci.

1343. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

#1339

I have to say that I agree with most of what you said. I’m just more of a TNG apologist.

I love Star Wars and I think JJ is a perfect fit. I don’t think Trek was his thing and to me it sorta showed.

And I absolutely do hope that one of the trifecta bites it in STID. You want “edgy”? You want “controversy”? You want “pathos”? You want some buzz in the fanbase? Then nut-up and kill off a main character. You already (effectively) killed off two civilizations.

1344. K-7 - January 28, 2013

@1339 “But bullshit is bullshit no matter when it appears or how shiny it is.”

Which is what 99% of us here think of your Trek 09 hate posts.

You are Captain Neill, aren’t you? Come on, fess up. I recognize the style of his posts.

1345. Craiger - January 28, 2013

#1341 – It really more of the site being updated and monitored. It seems these forums goes to the crapper when its not because then we have people who have never posted in here before be one time posters when Anthony and the staff take these month long breaks which now seem like that the new SOP. Anthony would automatically ban a fake BobOrci because he can verify who the real BobOrci is.

1346. MJ - January 28, 2013

Craiger, K-7, I agreed. Another sock-puppet at work here. Just did a search — LaForge_To_Bridge has NEVER posted here before today.

1347. Ahmed - January 28, 2013

Craiger, What Anthony needs to do is create a unique sign-in for Bob to prevent any imposters posting under that name.
And there always should be someone moderating when the Anthony is away or something.

1348. AJ - January 28, 2013

1344:

THX:

Nick Meyer killed Spock in TWOK, and look what happened….Money talks, and bullshit walks.

Besides, the ‘trifecta’ in Star Trek 1970s bell-bottom lore was supposed to be the ‘three that make one:” Logic, Reason/Conscience, and a hyper-active schlong. Don’t wanna kill any of those off.

1349. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

If you don’t like LaForge_To_Bridge why don’t you just click his name and leave a post on his wordpress blog? That way you could debate on his site. I don’t happen to think his post above was too far off base. Does that make me a target for villification? I don’t think JJ’s a bad film maker either. I just think his style is better suited for Star Wars. His writers, on the other hand, leave me a bit cold.

Don’t allow yourself to be bullied. By equal measure, don’t bully anybody else. But I think everyone should be able to post their opinion, and have it discussed or debated rationally. Sometimes these comments can get heated and sometimes idiots need to be slapped down. But if someone is stating their point coherently it shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.

1350. Craiger - January 28, 2013

I say at the main page you sign in with your email and password. However I wonder if that would be worth it with this site not being updated that much anymore. It doesn’t even seem like Anthony cares about running this site anymore since it looks like he has moved on to other projects, like being the creative consultant on that Star Trek Into Darkness Prequel Comic. I am not jealous of that I think its cool the success he has gotten with this site but if he doesn’t care about running it full time anymore he should let us know that.

1351. K-7 - January 28, 2013

Ahmed,

We need to be able to all register here so that there can be no sock-puppets anymore.

I am sick of these malcontents, who lose their audience here because of their crap opinions, who then just reinvent themselves in a new name to keep up their negativity and nonsense. . LaForge_To_Bridge is just the latest of these losers.

1352. PEB - January 28, 2013

And this is what I was afraid of… I did an internet search for Star Trek and all I got were articles about JJ directing Star Wars and the only mention in those articles about Star Trek was “and what about Star Trek 3? JJ will stay on as Producer.” WTF??? JJ I’ve loved your work since Felicity and this has nothing to do you or your creative genius but all of this puts a bad taste in my mouth. I get it, you’ve been vocal about your genuine love for Star Wars for a VERY long time. I never expected you to show up with Trek09 being a fan of the series. You (or any director for that matter) doesn’t have to. You grew to understand it and appreciate it for the legacy that it has mantained for over 40years. But now, on top of crossing over to that Galaxy far far away, any press event done for Into Darkness is going to be bombarded with questions not about Trek but about Star Wars. Every red carpet, every television or print interview is going to press you so hard on Star Wars while leaving Trek as an after thought. That’s what pisses me off. I have no issues what-so-ever with JJ directing Star Wars. It’s the thing that he’s loved and inspired for..well..forever. He out of every other director out there deserved the job and I know he’s going to do a hell of a job. But I’m sick and tired of Trek taking a back seat and ALREADY it’s happening. Again, JJ I love you and work and I’m even a massive Star Wars fan but dude you just broke this little Trekkie’s heart.

1353. K-7 - January 28, 2013

THX-1138,

If you go to his Worldpress Blog site, you will notice that their is NO ACTIVITY OR POSTS THERE.

This is just a very clever diversion by another sockpuppet here. If that blog site had real posts and activity, you might have a point, but given it is a shell/fake site, this only confirms that this is all a sham.

1354. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

#1349 AJ

It became the most popular Star Trek movie in the history of the franchise.

My point being that JJ himself stated that one of the reasons for going the “AU route” was to add the element of danger and unpredictability to stories where the audience knew the main characters were in no real danger. I’m just suggesting that it be put to practice. Of course if Cumberbatch turns out to be Khan then all of that talk about setting NuTrek in the AU so that new stories could be told AND the element of danger was in play was just that. Talk.

I make no bones about it: I don’t like the AU concept. I never have. What works for me is to kill a main character and then have the whole thing get reset just to bring the main character back. In the Prime timeline.

But maybe that’s just me. Different strokes and all. Hey, what do I know. Some people like 1933 King Kong. Some like Dino de Laurentis’ 70′s man in a monkey suit King Kong. And some prefer PJ’s King Kong. Don’t make them bad people.

1355. Ahmed - January 28, 2013

Craiger & K-7, I like the idea but I’m not sure if Anthony will bother to make these changes & as Craiger said, what would be the point if the site is not updated regularly ?

I just wish if the site will return to its glory days, where we used to get these weekly sci-fi news & other Trek related news.

1356. Craiger - January 28, 2013

THX – They either had to do the AU or truly reboot it because you were never going to see the Enterprise look the way it did in TOS. I think doing the AU was a to show how the Enterprise got updated from TOS. I think Bob once said that when the shuttles were leaving the Kelvin they took scans of the Narada and backward engineered the Narada’s technology.

1357. Craiger - January 28, 2013

Me too Ahmed. I am not complaining about Trekmovie I just care about getting it back to its glory days which doesn’t some possible anymore. We didn’t even have a chat with JJ, Bob and crew from the STID set like we did last time with ST 09. We don’t even chat with people involved with Trek anymore because they don’t even hang out here anymore, except for Bob.

1358. LaForge_to_Bridge - January 28, 2013

@1345. (K-7) I’m not Captain Neil. I don’t even know who he is. I read this blog from time to time and started posting on something that really grabbed my interest. I am stating (and defending) an opinion. It’s in the minority, that’s fine. Doesn’t invalidate it, make it wrong, or right. Won’t stop me from sharing.

@1350. (THX-1138) Thank you. I’ve taken your suggestion and words to heart.

1359. AJ - January 28, 2013

Anyone heard of this?

BOBW two-parter on blu-ray.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00B5A1VY8/thedigitalbit-20

1360. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

Like I said, different strokes.

Besides, you don’t have to kill off Romulus or Vulcan because you don’t want the Enterprise to look like it did in the 60′s. There have been some darn nice examples of how a Constitution Class (i.e. “classic”) starship could look in HD. To my ears and eyes changes were made in order to put one’s own stamp on the franchise. Which is all fine.

I mean, to some extent I wanted to see something I recognized in JJ’s Trek and I just haven’t seen enough to be comfortable. The tone just wasn’t the same (again, to me) as TOS. I am fully aware that an obvious majority does not agree with me. It won’t stop me from proclaiming that all of you are wrong and I am right. (That last bit is a joke so don’t nobody get their panties in a bunch).

Besides, with all the dang DVD’s and Blurays I have plenty to occupy my time.

1361. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1357 @1358

Guys, I agree with you. I don’t want to be really cynical here, but:

(1) Anthony briefly returns in October through December 2012 to “his old self,” with several articles and updates by him each week, and being generally very involved like he used to be — this site briefly thus coming close to what we loved in its old glory days.

(2) Based on #1, we’ve all seen the traffic and participation on this site increase significantly now — thus this site probably getting ten time the hits at least before Anthony reinvigorated it, and this has continued through now, even with Anthony on his extended leave again.

(3). Based on #2, the internet ad revenue that Anthony collects from this sites I would bet is 10 times the amount before he reinvigorated the site. Let’s say it had dropped to maybe $150 per month during the slow period last year — well now its $1500 per month.

You see where I am going with this. $1500 per month pays about half a typical monthly mortgage in SoCal.

1362. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 28, 2013

The new trailer of Into Darkness is awesome and funny… I love Kirk’s wig… guy looks like a Benicio del Toro more young, I think… LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeHVNzZyaSE

;-) :-)

1363. THX-1138 - January 28, 2013

#1360 AJ

Oh heck yeah! I’ll buy that, since I can’t really afford (both financially and relationship-wise) to purchase all of TNG on Blu. I have been hoping that there might be opportunities like this to become available. Maybe they can do something like those “Captain’s Logs” compilations, too.

1364. Craiger - January 28, 2013

MJ, so I guess what you are saying is maybe Anthony sees he can just make money off this site by the number of clicks its gets by us just chatting here and he doesn’t really need to update it that much because of that? If that is the case then he really isn’t sticking to this sites tagline anymore.

1365. Rose (as in sillygirl) - January 28, 2013

MJ should be freaking banned for the type of attacks he makes against anthony seriously What does it matter to you how frequently and infrequently he posts.

I seriously find your accusations that he is using us readers as shills to get site hits to pay his mortage is disqusting.

1366. Basement Blogger - January 28, 2013

@ 1339; 1344

La Forge to the Bridge,

I agree with some of your points regarding Star Trek 2009, especially the parts you liked. The opening was great, and Vulcan was a place I wanted to spend more time on. Then they blew it up. :-) Let’s hope we get the positives of Vulcans in the future. After all, Roddenberry created them because humans too often let their emotions get in the way. Look, I liked the 2009 movie move than you. It’s not a perfect Star Trek movie but an entertaining and well produced film.

TNG at times gets attacked on this site. Yet it was a successful series. It was an evolution to the TOS. Abrams thought Star Trek was talky but there is no doubt that TNG WAS STAR TREK, not Star Wars. The Inner Light is a beloved episode of Star Trek. Throw in DS9′s The Visitor. TOS’s The City on the Edge of Forever. What made these shows beloved by Trekkers? They asked you to think. There was heart and intelligence. Rick Berman is a hated phrase around here. He did not create global warming, people. :-) But he did produce three successful series and helped to create DS9 and Voyager.

The Supreme Court wants to go deeper ala The Dark Knight. We’ll see. STID has a very good start with its discussion of the Prime Directive. I hope everybody including non-Trekkers think about the need for such a policy. Let me paraphrase Roger Ebert. Star Trek is about ideas. Scientific. Philosophical. Roddenberry wanted a show that was entertaining and also thought provoking. Link.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/30/letter-of-note-gene-roddenberry-defends-star-trek-the-cage-pilot/

1367. Craiger - January 28, 2013

#1366 – What wrong with using this site to make money? Don’t all blogs do that?

1368. AJ - January 28, 2013

The article says ‘postponed,’ while the headline says
‘canceled.’

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/28/star-wars-3d-releases-reportedly-cancelled

Also, note JJ is looking to delay ST7. Typical.

1369. Phil - January 28, 2013

@1368. It’s up to AP how he chooses to run his site, just as it’s up to me if I choose to participate. The wife and I helped a friend moderate his site a few years back, and we had to stop as the level of childishness from the adults was just off the charts. It was driving my wife nuts, and gave me an appreication for what it takes to pull something like this off. If AP can make a few bucks off of this, more power to him. And for the next person who wants to mouth off about how ‘they’ would do this, go start your own site. I’d give the effort six weeks or so before you come to your senses on how difficult it is to be ringmaster of a three ring circus where everyone is bitching unendingly about anything and everything.

1370. AJ - January 28, 2013

1369: I mean SW7.

1371. Craiger - January 28, 2013

AJ, that could be a good thing, that means he could be wanting to really work on ST3 and get the Trek movies series done before he starts on SW.

1372. Basement Blogger - January 28, 2013

Look, if you want Abrams to direct Star Trek III, it’s going to take longer than the usual sequel. Think about the delay of STID because of Abrams’ Super 8. Star Trek III for 2020, And let’s face it, I believe that Abrams will put more attention to Star Wars than Star Trek. After all, he’s more of a Star Wars guy than Star Trek. He’s a big fan of Star Wars. It’s the bigger franchise.

If Abrams is too busy, there should be a new director for Star Trek III. How about Quentin Tarantino’s Star Trek? :-) (QT did have a part in Bad Robot’s Alias and Star Trek was his favorite 2009 movie.) Just think of it. Klingons and Andorians in a Mexican standoff. Samuel L. Jackson playing a Klingon. Says to the Andorian, “Move a mother bleeping antenna and I’ll blow your blue bleeping head all over the place.” There might even be a discussion of replicated quarter pounders or whatever the Klingons use to say quarter pounder.

But seriously, Star Trek needs a new captain. I’m talking about a guy who will oversee Star Trek. Someone who understands it. Someone who will take it back to where it belongs. It’s a place where more sophisticated stories can be told. It’s TV. The guy I nominate is Bob Orci. He knows the difference between tranya and the green stuff Scotty has in his room. Bob knows why we loved the episode Arena so much. Hint to non-Trekkers. Action plus thought provoking morality questions. I believe Bob will lead Star Trek back to greatness.

1373. BulletInTheFace - January 28, 2013

I’ll never understand why some of you harp on Anthony so much. He owes his readership nothing–and the amount of money he makes from ad revenue is not only irrelevant to this discussion, but also no one’s business but Anthony. No one is forcing any of you to come here. If you hate the site’s current state so much, then do yourself and everyone else a favor and leave; the five or six of you won’t be missed.

1374. MJ - January 28, 2013

Craiger and Phil,

I never said there was anything wrong with it, I am just attempting to determine why the site is the way it is today, and this conjecture of mine fits the data. I am not making a moral judgment here — just being real.

1375. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1374. Don’t hate the site or Anthony at all. Please see my post above.

Heck, if I was him, I could see myself becoming jaded and doing exactly what he is doing.

1376. dmduncan - January 28, 2013

1373: “But seriously, Star Trek needs a new captain. I’m talking about a guy who will oversee Star Trek. Someone who understands it. Someone who will take it back to where it belongs. It’s a place where more sophisticated stories can be told. It’s TV. The guy I nominate is Bob Orci.”

Oh I nominate him too. Now when our votes actually count for something we’ll be in good shape.

And that presumes Bob would accept the nomination. He may want to be free of this nuttiness.

1377. FSL - January 28, 2013

JJ’s a SW fan. Let him do the things that he love. Maybe with a new creative team, we’ll finally have some sort of on-screen reset back to prime universe.

1378. Craiger - January 28, 2013

#1374 – Again we don’t hate this site we are just concerned about getting it back to it glory days when it first started. I don’t really care for the name you use to post on here and I am surprised Anthony hasn’t banned it.

1379. Craiger - January 28, 2013

DmDuncan – Bob Orci makes his directorial debut with ST 3.

1380. PEB - January 28, 2013

@1378 a reset to the prime universe would be so messy. there’s just so much to keep up with and it was partially the reason the franchise was becoming bloated. the ships were poorer and poorer in design as were the costumes and stories. star trek is supposed to be advanced but to shoot so far into the future past tng era just becomes…too messy (if only because of prime universe cannon).

1381. Ahmed - January 28, 2013

Alex Kurtzman made “People Like Us”, guess it is time for Roberto Orci to make his own movie as well, maybe a little indie movie, preferably a conspiracy one.

1382. The Great Bird Lives - January 28, 2013

Has Bob Orci ever directed before? If not, I would like to see him either work as an Assistant Director, or at least get some directorial experience before taking the reins. But I also agree that he may be destined for that job, or another prominent role- bigger than his current role in the world of Star Trek.

1383. Bob Tompkins - January 28, 2013

LMAO style hilarious.
Get ready for delays, delays, delays and lame excuses, Star Wars fans. JJ Abrams is already talking about delaying the 2015 release date.
That means look for it in 2017.
We Star Trek fans have had to put up with this prima donna behavior since 2008, when the first Star Trek was supposed to be released. I guess it’s only fair that Star Wars fans get a taste of JJ’s recalcitrance to do what he was contracted to do.
Any director’s reputation would be sooooo tarnished if he/she pulled this sort of nonsense. Imagine if Steven Spielberg had pulled this crapola year after year….but I guess JJ Abrams is the Teflon director.

1384. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1382. I would be Orci is killing himself right now that he didn’t get his feet wet doing a little film like Kurtzman did. Orci is my recommendation for the Directors seat on Trek 3 (I was the first person on Trekmovie.com to nominate/recommend Orci following the Lucas news last week), but I could see it going to Kurtzman for this “directors experience” reason.

1385. Craiger - January 28, 2013

Ahmed I have suggested to Bob if that was the real one, to rebooting The Final Countdown he could try out directing that one before directing ST 3.

1386. Craiger - January 28, 2013

Ahmed I have suggested to Bob if that was the real one, to rebooting The Final Countdown he could try out directing that one before directing ST 3.

1387. Craiger - January 28, 2013

Sorry, for the double post.

1388. Dappy Napper - January 28, 2013

LOL, man, nerd rage is hilarious. Dweebs and dorks, take up your arms against the dreaded JJ Abrams – delayer of nerd cinema and keeper of the lens flare flame – slay the beast with your mighty magic sword. . .

. . . and then get to bed, its past your bedtime.

1389. Ahmed - January 28, 2013

Craiger & MJ. According to IMDB, Bob didn’t direct anything yet, not even TV episodes. Perhaps, he can start directing some of Hawaii Five-0 episodes & then ask Paramount to allow him to make Star Trek 3.

IIRC that how Jonathan Frakes got to direct Star Trek:First Contact

1390. Craiger - January 28, 2013

#1389 – I like JJ I think we are just putting out alternatives in case he passes on ST 3 for SW 7.

1391. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1389. But nerd rage is nothing compared to the sycophantic nature of sociopathic behavior of trolls like you, my unstable friend.

1392. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1227,1255,1283,1285, and 1294. Picard, Jean-Luc

I doubt Disney dropped 4Bs on Lucas and who knows how muDch on Abrams only to tell JJ “Don’t bother aiming for the widest market imaginable;we’re not trying to break records here.”

Anything is possible, but I think Red Robot is going to be under tremendous pressure from both camps to GET IT OUT, GET IT OUT NOW come 2015.
#1262 THX-1138

Well, there is one way. Unlikely, but it has been done before: Paramount could bump the release date. However, if they are mulling over this option they are going to have to decide quick before The Super Bowl.

1393. Red Dead Ryan - January 28, 2013

Guys, those newcomers to this site are probably just more of Stunkill’s sockpuppets.

Stunkill did this routine before during Anthony’s previous absenses and now he’s doing it again.

There is no question the “LaForge to bridge” loser is in actuality Stunkill.

1394. Bob Tompkins - January 28, 2013

I believe Bob Orci was mistaken when he shot down a fan using inflation adjusted figures and then claiming their Trek was the number one grossing Trek movie….
I have no idea where he got his inflation figures, but mine are derived from using Box Office Mojo’s grosses for the Star Trek movies and the U. S. Government’s inflation index calculators, which puts Star Trek: The Motion Picture’s grosses worldwide at $489,471,787 and change adjusted versus Star Trek 2009 at $412,985,288……insofar as profitability at the theaters, TMP was likely also the winner calculating solely by 50% [gross minus theater fees] of adjusted gross minus alleged adjusted budget and adjusting those figures. It’s probably even worse than that since advertising wasn’t nearly as costly in 1979/1980 as it is today…
It’s all actually apples and oranges since the 2009 effort opened in 3849 theaters vs 689 for 1979/1980′s effort..

Just put the rounded figures [formula does not take anything over $10m and the years into the calculator….
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

1395. Bob Tompkins - January 28, 2013

Star Trek 1979s worldwide was $139m

1396. Ahmed - January 28, 2013

Who Is Stunkill and Why Is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Us? :)

1397. BulletInTheFace - January 28, 2013

#1379: I really don’t care whether or not you like my screen-name since you’re a complete stranger whose opinion of me is absolutely irrelevant. Furthermore, there’s no reason whatsoever for Anthony to ban me because of that screen-name, since it’s not an offensive name and it violates no Terms of Service. It’s the name of a TV show. It would be like banning someone for having the screen-name DukesOfHazzard or BionicWoman. That you’d actually call for banning someone for having a screen-name based on a TV show says a lot about you… and none of what it says is positive.

1398. BulletInTheFace - January 28, 2013

Sorry, that should have been #1380, not #1379.

1399. Bob Tompkins - January 28, 2013

TMP ww gross from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture
just to have all sources validated…

1400. Craiger - January 28, 2013

#1398 – Sorry I didn’t know it was TV series.

1401. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1394 “There is no question the “LaForge to bridge” loser is in actuality Stunkill.”

I think so. Did you see the fake blog site he had with no posts? Stuntill gets more tricky, but he’s still lazy, and we can usually catch him in the act still.

1402. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1398. Dude, I always like your posts, and agree with you frequently on stuff, but with all the gun violence right now, you perhaps might want to consider changing your name at some point.

1403. Craiger - January 28, 2013

What MJ said.

1404. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1395 “It’s all actually apples and oranges since the 2009 effort opened in 3849 theaters vs 689 for 1979/1980′s effort..”

Yea, but TMP had a guarantee that any theater that ran it had to show it for at least 14 weeks. That’s right! 14 weeks.

1405. Red Dead Ryan - January 28, 2013

Yeah, I noticed that on his own website, LaForge To Bridge goes by the name “Lazer Brain”. LOL!

Yep, its Stunkill alright!

1406. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1380. MJ

Based on that MTV Interview link I found for you, I think it is more likely that Anthony is being swamped with media requests the world over for sound bites on the state of Trek fandom over Disney’s STAR WARS coup.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Paramount PR unbeknownst to him are funneling some of it his way because they are getting fed up with all these questions publicizing Disney.

1407. BatlethInTheGroin - January 28, 2013

#1403:

Hmmm….

OK, you make a fair point, actually. I hadn’t thought about that. Henceforth, instead of BulletintheFace, I’ll go by the name BatlethInTheGroin.

1408. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 28, 2013

#1339 – “Anyway, The Wrath of Khan portrayed the KM test as a desperate situation that Kirk went above and beyond to win the no-win test. Cheating was the best answer. He wouldn’t give up, long after other cadets did. It’s just that the best answer was to cheat. Kirkwad (Trek11) just does it (we never see how) just to show the world how awesome he is.”

Both KM test simulations were taken by Starfleet cadets in their final year of training. The conditions were no different. If you had paid attention, Dr (Karl Urban) McCoy told James (Chris Pine) Kirk that no one had beaten the Kobyiashi Maru test and nobody was meant to. (CP) Kirk asked (KU) McCoy, “Doesn’t that bother you?” in a serious tone. (CP) Kirk had already sat the test twice and to sit the KM test for a third time had not been done before.

Therefore, how can you say that the conditions were different from what we were told about Kirk and KM test in TWOK? The fact is – they weren’t! Alt Kirk saw the test as being a cheat in itself. I guess you missed that bit as well. If this alt.Kirk only cheated on the test to show how awesome he was, then there is no reason to believe that the prime Kirk did not cheat for the very same reasons. Another aspect is while the two Kirk’s had different upbringings, they both decided to *cheat* on the same test. This leads one to believe that, (a) while growing up in different circumstances, they are still fundamentally the same person and/or (b) in both timelines, the test itself may well be, as (CP) Kirk described it, a cheat and both called it out.

BTW, prime Kirk (the older, more experienced and mature) often ignored the Prime Directive and other regulations if and when he deemed it necessary/OK and was sometimes challenged by Spock/McCoy on the decisions he made. Alt. Kirk did not ignore any prime directive because there was no prime directive in place. Vulcan needed Starfleet’s assistance. Starfleet vessel, the Enterprise, gave it.

1409. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 28, 2013

I think the character of Kirk was written very well. You have to consider his age. He’s not acting any different from other young twenty-something folk I know. Especially considering his upbringing.

We’re witnessing the birth of the adult Captain Kirk. I’m betting he gets a bit more mature in the next film. At least, he better, because that’s what good writing would dictate. Kirk must become a real leader, and his friendships must become more solidified by the end of the film.

If they don’t do that, I’ll probably be ultimately disappointed with the film. But I think they’ll do it. Two films of him being a somewhat callow whelp might be too much for me, and hopefully it would be too much for Orci & co.

1410. Shilliam Watner (Click to see Darth Vader's zipper) - January 28, 2013

Rose is right. The circumstances surrounding Kirk’s KM experience totally jibed between both universes. And let’s not forget, they didn’t have to, seeing as how the universe has been reset.

1411. MJ - January 28, 2013

Rose and Shilliam,

I agree with your posts above 100%

1412. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1408. LOL – I like it!

1413. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1407. Perhaps?

1414. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1405. Bob Tompkins

If you check out my posts here:

http://www.trekmovie.com/2010/06/02/star-

I dug up newsprint of the era that said TMP’s US and Worldwide total was an even greater $170 million figure.

1415. MJ - January 28, 2013

Bob, I don’t doubt you. I think the real story here is that Trek has finally recovered from the post-TMP box office slide owing to the fact that TMP, perceive by the masses to be boring, turned off an entire generation of potential new fans.

1416. The Walking Phobia - January 28, 2013

I agree too with both Rose and Shilliam.

Shilliam, I do think the writers are heading Kirk into that maturity level that brings him closer to Prime Kirk when he became Captain of the Enterprise. Like you, I think they handled Kirk’s character just fine in ST 2009. As the trailer for STID shows, where Pike berates Kirk for having ‘not an ounce of humility’ and how that could seriously affect his crew, that Kirk is going to have to grow and mature and ‘earn’ the big chair. And Chris Pine has already stated in interviews about having to ‘earn’ the Captaincy in this new film. So I’m with you in that I don’t think Orci and Co. will regress Kirk’s character, it makes no sense and does a disservice to Kirk and ultimately the other characters too.

1417. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 28, 2013

My post of mine has disappeared, while posts accusing other posters of being sockpuppets etc remain. My vanished post simply sought moderation because there appears to be an imposter or two now posting on this site as regular posters.

This is a really weird site sometimes – weird!

1418. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 28, 2013

If only we had a delete option – Please delete my post at #1419.

Apologies to all.

1419. Exverlobter - January 28, 2013

@1373. Basement Blogger
“He’s a big fan of Star Wars. It’s the bigger franchise. ”

I seriously doubt that Star Wars is the “bigger franchise”.
Until now, there are 6 Star Wars-films, and 11 Trek-films.
Until now, there is 1 animated Star Wars- TV series, but 6 Trek-series.

So what is the bigger franchise!

1420. Captain Jerk - January 28, 2013

Bob T

Grosses adjusted for inflation.

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

Star Trek 09 number 1

1421. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1420 Come on now, I prefer Trek as well, but Star Wars is unquestionably a bigger franchise. Its like comparing Ford to Mercedes. Ford is bigger, but Mercedes is better.

1422. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1421. MJ

As I recall TMP was considered something along the lines of 2001:ASO, i.e. something to blow your mind in sight and sound for inflated ticket prices at the CINERAMADOME. It was very much appreciated among the young as a “trip” film. I believe that sensibility, being able to mellow-out and enjoy tripping for an extended period of time, has been lost in subsequent generations along with the optically blown up prints.

1423. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1421. TMP did a lot better overseas than Trek 09 — and that is not captured in the BoMojo tables.

1424. MJ - January 28, 2013

@1423. I think it is just the opposite. The opinion of it has improved over time, whereas it was not appreciated when it came out. I was around in 79 and saw it multiple times in the theater, so I am not just making this opinion up. People said it looked and sounded great, but was boring and missing the heart of the TV show.

1425. MJ - January 28, 2013

…..I had a friend who called it “the motion sickness.” LOL

1426. Captain Jerk - January 28, 2013

1424 MJ

Nor is the fact that TMP was in theaters for a year.

1427. MJ - January 28, 2013

Check this out — Christopher Nolan’s next film:

“The new film, titled Interstellar, is said to be based on scientific theories developed by Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicist, gravitational physicist and astrophysicist at Caltech, the California Institute of Technology. Described as complex and multilayered, it will centre on a group of space explorers who travel through a wormhole.”

WOW !!!!!

1428. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1428. MJ

Indeed, and I suspect it might have been because the international market largely being ESL appreciated it more as an “art” film. Either that or the translations must have been bitchin’ dialogue changes that really punched it up?

1429. Disinvited - January 28, 2013

#1425. Exverbloter

Trek had an animated series too.

1430. Basement Blogger - January 28, 2013

@ 1420

Exverlobter says, “I seriously doubt that Star Wars is the “bigger franchise.
Until now, there are 6 Star Wars-films, and 11 Trek-films.
Until now, there is 1 animated Star Wars- TV series, but 6 Trek-series.”So what is the bigger franchise!”

This is what I hate about the Internet People post without any idea of what is true. What I meant about Star Wars being bigger is not the amount of films or TV series. By your definition, Charlie Chan is the bigger franchise since it has over 48 movies. Link. I’m talking money and that means box office. Box office means eyes on the screen.

So where does Star Trek stand to Star Wars as far as box office in terms of franchise movies? Star Wars is number three. Harry Potter is number one. James Bond is number two. Star Trek? It unfortunately is number twenty three. It gets beat by, get this, The Madagascar series! Link.

By the way if you add merchandising, Star Wars is number one.

1. By Exverlobter’s definition, Charlie Chan is the bigger franchise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Chan

2. Film franchises. Harry Potter is number one. Star Trek is number 23.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_franchises_and_film_series

1431. Historian_Levi - January 28, 2013

1423 TMP opened at The Chinese not at the Cinerama Dome.
And it Broke box office records at The Chinese

1432. Disinvited - January 29, 2013

#1437. Historian_Levi

I don’t doubt it. But I wasn’t talking about opening night. was talking about the 70mm print with the thick magnetic stripe that provided 6 discrete audio surrounds. Which, if I recall didn’t run for at least the first 2 opening weeks because of that blind bid Paramount used to raise money with the regular theaters, and the fact that the whole thing was rushed so there was no chance 70mm prints were ready even if they wanted to.

My recollection is there were limited venues for that format and if not asap it did at some time eventually run in 70mm at the Cinerama Dome and did well there.

1433. The Sisko - January 29, 2013

So it’s Sydney Solo, The Red Sphere of Death and all the cantina’s serve Sluggo. Great, LOL

1434. Calastir - January 29, 2013

Did someone yell ‘traitor’?

Set phasers to stun!

1435. oliver - January 29, 2013

I think everyone was taken aback by Cumberbatch’s popularity in the far east. He certainly was based on his reaction at Tokyo airport. Korea seems particularly taken by him based on online responses. I think the STID producers need to twist his arm to do more promotion out there as thats a huge revenue source and could push STID’s figures sky high.

1436. Disinvited - January 29, 2013

#1430 MJ

No doubt as I said above there was no way the 70mm prints were ready on premiere and I was waxing nostalgic about people viewing the ultimate experience.

Look, a lot around here use NEMESIS as a measure of the core fanatical Trek fans that are going to see anything with the name Trek plastered on it. Even ignoring the fact that that base must have grown since 1979-1980 TMP bests NEMESIS numbers. Someone outside of the fanbase had to be going to see TMP. Not SW numbers but average popcorn munchers must have been going to see it. Sure it had a longer run but in fewer theaters. I think it would tend to balance out.

I know you believe in this slide but you also focused on TMP’s 14 weeks. Do you honestly think that if ST:NEMESIS had a 14 week run that it would have bested TMP’s take?

I was in my 20s in a college town when TMP opened so I suspect my experiences were colored by that.

1437. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 29, 2013

All of this what franchise is bigger is fascinating but seriously…. WHO CARES!!!! Star Trek makes its money and is making more now than ever. Lets not forget the Trek movies before 2009 were low budget niche Sci Fi flicks, extended TV episodes ideal for fans, less ideal for mainstream and kids. That said, for low budget movies they did extreeamly well against the likes of Independance Day and other of the day movies.

There’s a reason it’s number 23 on a list of over bloated movie franchises, its not a movie franchise, its a TV franchise. The movies how ever well they do are a happy little by accidents between TV series.

The Trek will continue as it always has, under new direction, this time due to Abrams success the movies will be bigger budget affairs and susiquently movies that pull in a bigger audience, despite fans negativity there really is no reason why Star Trek Into Darkness couldn’t pull in the studios first 1bn dollar Star Trek movie, regardless of Iron Man or Superman. If Abrams chooses not to direct the next one then the job will undoubtably fall to another director of the same calibour. From Trek 3, to paraphrase Captain Picard, the sky’s the limit….

1438. EM - January 29, 2013

Here’s the thing about this internet stuff. Way back in the day, before the internet is what it is now, say up to the late ’80sor early ’90s, there wasn’t much news in advance of a new movie. Sure, there were entertainment shows and magazines, but noone was immersed, 24/7, in the latest on the who, what, when, where and why of movie news. Now – a – days, I have to anticipate a movie for up to 4 years or more before it comes out! Arrrrrgggh!
Anyway, looking forward to JJ’s Star Wars movie as much as I am his new Star Trek movie!

1439. Spockchick - January 29, 2013

1428. MJ. If you like wormhole sci-fi I can’t recommend ‘Century Rain’ by Alastair Reynolds high enough. I think Ahmed is also a Reynolds fan. I read it a long time ago but it is Noirish sci-fi with wormholes. I like the fact that Reynolds has a PhD in Astronomy and knows his way around physics. He (like me) was born the year of Trek :-)

1440. BatlethInTheGroin - January 29, 2013

#1431: Just for the sake of accuracy, Star Wars has actually had four television series (Ewoks, Droids, the first Clone Wars and the second Clone Wars), as well as four TV movies (Holiday Special, Great Heep and the two Ewok films).

1441. Aurore - January 29, 2013

“The Star Wars franchise people were desperate to get people interested in their planned sequels nobody cared about.
People only talk about their next movie, now, thanks to Mr. Abrams.
They needed him….”
___________

Yeah…Kathy Kennedy , her “remarkable group of people”, and George Lucas might have already watched Star Trek Into Darkness.*

They were impressed by it.

Impressed beyond belief , and, decided to grant Mr. Abrams some concessions about creative control**, perhaps mucho dinero, as well.
And now, with this announcement….NOW….and, especially in May, people will have to bear in mind that this talented man is going to do for them what he has done for Star Trek : “revive” the franchise, make fans and “non-fans” care about it (again).

His task?

Amongst other things, make some people forget about the very existence of the prequels.

Can he do it?
OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:))

*Nonsense. The movie opens May 17, 2013. June for you….REMEMBER?!

** That would be nice.

1442. SoonerDave - January 29, 2013

@1437

There’s a substantial slice of the population here who are either too young or just weren’t around when TMP came out in 1979, and thus don’t appreciate the groundswell of anticipation that surrounded the movie.

Think about a few things. First, there was no such thing as the Internet, no Twitter, no Facebook, none of that. There was no 24-hour news cycle. There was no widespread cable TV in the commodity form in which it exists today. People sometimes got two newspapers *per day*, morning and evening. Most folks had TV from the Big 3 networks, maybe an educational channel and a few independents, and that was it. Now, factor in the post-TV popularity of Trek, with *none* of those assists, *reinvented how TV in general and the Nielsens in general* mesaured their audiences. Trek TOS arguably ushered in the generation of targeted age-range demographics.

This was one marginally watched (by contemporary standards) TV show that was perceived, right or wrong, as another sci-fi thing that most didn’t “get” or “like,” and once it was cancelled, that was it, done, poof, gone. There wasn’t even the most remote concept of moving to a different network, or going first-run syndication. It was toast. Finis.

That this groundswell of support for a dead TV show literally led to a network revisiting a cancellation decision in that era was nothing short of stupefying. And when Trek TOS went into strip syndication in the 70′s, it blew up the ratings books. And when rumblings and rumors of a new Trek TV series cropped up, the rumor mills went ballistic, until Paramount announced its plans for a new TV network with Trek II as its anchor.

…and then came something called “Star Wars.”

That put Paramount into a state of apoplexy. They didn’t know what to do with Trek, so they decided to make it a movie. And when it finally released, amid all the production problems, there were lines up and down the streets of movie theaters everywhere – and I was one of those 15-year-olds at the front of the line.

The expectation was astounding.

The delivery was, well, less so. I remembered enjoying the movie immensely, loved to see a great rendering of the Enterprise, but also thinking at times, man, when is someone gonna *do* something. It was a lumbering movie with an unsatisfying finish.

Why all this history lesson that some know, and some don’t? To point out the fact that there was most certainly a *tremendous* rollup of anticipation and excitement for TMP, and the result didn’t begin to match the expectation – not that any movie likely could have. Even Roger Ebert made reference to this at one point – saying “What were people expecting?” Even with the bad reviews and bad word of mouth, TMP still made a small fortune for its time, albeit likely stunted.

And TMP’s perceived failure unquestionably placed a permanent glass ceiling on Trek’s future. It took TWoK to get a fraction of it back. And heaven only knows how Trek’s future would have unfolded if TWoK had been the reunion movie rather than TMP.

The deterioration of expectations between TMP and Nemesis was the difference between the top of Mount Whitney and the bottom of the Grand Canyon. And there’s just a phenomenal irony for those of us who grew up in the TOS-TMP era to have seen how Star Wars took all that franchise energy away, to see such a similar bit of history unfold with SW, again, taking away the creative energy amid such strong expectations created with the reboot. And now the expectations for STID have inevitably been muted, at least a bit, because we know any third part of a prospective trilogy treatment will be given only a half-effort by Abrams, regardless of what he or Paramount may opine. That’s not a criticism, its just how the world works. Everyone wants a dream job, and Abrams got his. It’s just an unfortunate irony that Trek loses in the exchange.

Sorry for what will be seen as historical rehash for some, but I think a bunch here don’t really know or appreciate that history, just how much energy really was behind TOS return to TV in the 70′s, how unheard of such a return was back in that era, and the attendant buildup to TMP. That ramp-up was in the news, in magazines, newspapers, heck, even Paul Harvey rolled it into his news commentary. We hear about new big movies every day, but the expectation for Trek was immense for the era. To compare that to the expectations of the franchise by the time Nemesis rolled around doesn’t even pass the sniff test.

1443. Hugh Hoyland - January 29, 2013

I watched TMP twice in theaters when I was 9. I remember finding it both boring (the plot) and mesmerizing (visually) as did a lot of people back then did I think. I used to “bash” TMP’s plot but after reading its back story and script and re-watching it again my stance has changed over the years. I really love the attention to detail that was put into that movie, especially its visuals and FX.

But anyone that says TMP “flopped” or “set Trek back” or something either wasnt around back then or are just talking through their hat. TMP made just slightly less the equivalent of Star Trek 09 at the domestic BO and WW made approx. 400+ million (adjusted for inflation). It did very well at the box office and got the attention of a lot of people. Granted some of the talk was about the “dull” plot, but it still got a lot of people talking either way. A lot of the disapointment about the box office results actually came from the studio who thought it was going to be the next ‘ Star Wars’ and so make Star Wars type money.

But actually TMP took a dime store budget 60′s TV show and remade it into a cinematic and visually stunning Sci-fi motion picture elevating the franchise to a new level. Maybe the story could have been “better” (its basically a remake of the episode “The Changeling”) but it did its job IMO and trust me the studio realized this as well or there NEVER would have been Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan”.

1444. jesustrek - January 29, 2013

Good bye JJ Abrams…..PLASE Orci Jonathan Frakes return Directing Star Trek …is Great Director.

Saludos

1445. BatlethInTheGroin - January 29, 2013

Yeah, it makes little sense when people claim TPM was a flop or somehow set Trek back. The film was hugely successful and made it possible for everything that has come since. Despite being a slow-paced retread of “The Changeling,” TPM remains one of the best films in the series, as far as I’m concerned.

1446. Aurore - January 29, 2013

1443. SoonerDave – January 29, 2013

“Sorry for what will be seen as historical rehash for some…..”
_______

“Rehash” any time you deem necessary.

Thank you for your post.

1447. Hugh Hoyland - January 29, 2013

#1446

Agreed because it was a big success in actual fact. And I also agree it has become one of my favs as well. Stunning score, stunning visuals.

1448. ME!! - January 29, 2013

There’d better be NO lense flares (at least not like in Star Trek) and NO redesigns of the ships (improved detail is fine), etc and the man BETTER respect EVERY aspect of the Original Trilogy.

I know he’s a fan, but there’ve been fans of properties before who went on to work on future installments of those properties and they either introduced questionable material, altered a major aspect of it, or ruined in entirely.

1449. AJ - January 29, 2013

I hope SW7 begins with some bright spark on Endor saying, “Dude…destroying the Death Star, the Emperor and Darth Vader doesn’t actually mean the Empire is defeated. The government on Coruscant still controls thousands of planets by brute force, and, well, maybe someone on the Death Star actually called for reinforcements….”

Cue fleet of freshly-out-of-warp Star Destoyers laying waste to the remaining rebel fleet, the Ewoks’ party, a couple of clueless heroes and the whole freaking moon.

THE END

1450. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 29, 2013

@1443

You just blew my mind, very well written post.

If I may ask, what do you think should happen with Star Trek now by the powers that be at Paramount and CBS?

1451. Aurore - January 29, 2013

“His task?
Amongst other things, make some people forget about the very existence of the prequels.

Can he do it?
OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

________

Not so fast.
Let us keep it real.

He’ll probably do fine, but, making ME forget about the only prequel I saw might be…”Mission Impossible”…alas…

1452. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 29, 2013

I actually think the way Star Trek is going to be defined now Star Wars is back is how Paramount and CBS deal with Star Trek between Star Trek Into Darkness and a third Star Trek movie.

If Into Darkness does well there will be a third movie and people will undoubtably go and see it as I’m sure it will tie up story lines left hanging in Darkness but the key to keeping Star Trek from falling into Star Wars shadow is to keep it in the public eye between movies, something that didn’t entirely happen between 2009 and this year. A new animated series and live action series plus a huge 50th world wide Trek celebration would go a long way in keeping the brand out there.

It doesn’t have to compete with Star Wars, but this would be a bad time to put Star Trek on the back burner, especially if Star Trek Into Darkness is well received.

1453. Phil - January 29, 2013

@1453. Well, we probably need to quit living the fantasy this is a reboot, or a revitalization of the franchise. Three movies over an eighteen year span isn’t a reboot. Especially considering there is little other content or merchindising in that time frame. Trek isn’t going to compete with Star Wars, but if it weren’t for JJ Star Trek would have died with Enterprise. If there is going to be life breathed back into it, I agree that there needs to be more content created then what we have so far. There are stories to be told, someone needs to tell them.

1454. Phil - January 29, 2013

@1449. Respect every single aspect of the origonal trilogy? Yeah, lets see…

Obi-Wan Kenobi – “These blast-points… Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise”.
Reality. Imperial Stormtroopers can’t seem to hit the floor with a hat.

Yoda – Ready are you? What know you of ready? For eight hundred years have I trained Jedi. My own counsel will I keep on who is to be trained…..
Reality…He spends a few weeks with Yoda, and wadda ya know, he’s a Jedi.

I could go on. Don’t be so quick to deman JJ not mess with SW’s, the previous movies did plenty of that on their own…

1455. BatlethInTheGroin - January 29, 2013

“Three movies over an eighteen year span isn’t a reboot.”

Where are you coming up with that figure? 2009 to 2013 is four years. Are you expecting to wait another 14 years before we get another film?

1456. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 29, 2013

Haha yeah I don’t think we’ll be waiting 14 years between this and the next Trek

I wouldn’t be surprised if in 4 years we’re all excited over JJ Abrams final Star Trek movie as producer AND director, according to Paramount, nothing has changed from when Abrams wasn’t involved in Star Wars and why should it. These are two different franchises with two different stories and time scale wise, Abrams could indeed to both BUT Paramount and CBS need to do more with Star Trek between movies for it to build on its own success, forget Star Wars and focus on our own franchise

1457. Disinvited - January 29, 2013

#1446BatlethInTheGroin

Don’t forget Trek had TV specials too. I remember two built around restored editions of THE CAGE. First was restoring most of the color with B/W footage used for the “lost” color segments. The second was a full color restoration with some seconds trimmed because while more was found not every second of color existed.

#1447. Aurore

There are ways around it but I doubt very seriously that Paramount (not to mention CBS) signed-off on letting a major competitor sneak a peak at their movie.
If this actually happened there would be serious repercussions if it could be documented (And quickly dropped if the sequel makes serious coin but why risk it?).

#1448. soonerdave

Your basic premise is sound but don’t oversell it with gross exagerations to the point that you won’t be believed.

Yes we were stuck with snailmail but we did manage to network with newsletters that we propogated in chain mail fashion via cheap postage and the office copier. We had telephones which rightly or wrongly were being seriously hacked such that spreading the word was easy (blueboxes, hotline{different thing than what it means now}, etc.) We had AM radio that we could hear news far from outside our state’s borders. An FM 3 hour science-fiction weekly radio talk show, HOUR 25, that we’d tape and snail mail to our friends out of market via that newsletter net. Cable TV in my west coast abode had “nickelodeon” and WGN. Conventions too.

You are right: it was slower and a lot more work than it is today – but we made do.

1458. Phil - January 29, 2013

@1456. From Nemesis, and assuming four years between Trek 12 and Trek 13. Assuming Trek 13 gets made at all. Actually, that would be 17 years…..or 15, if you start from the end of Enterprise. The point being that there has been little new content in a long time frame – all the more reason to be supportive of building a new audience that DOES seem interested in these characters….

1459. F4 - January 29, 2013

@1455. Phil – January 29, 2013

“Yoda – Ready are you? What know you of ready? For eight hundred years have I trained Jedi. My own counsel will I keep on who is to be trained…..
Reality…He spends a few weeks with Yoda, and wadda ya know, he’s a Jedi.”

In Empire, Luke was never ready. Obi-Wan and Yoda seemed to be teaching Luke with what little they had on hand, and then Luke ran off to Cloud City against their advice. In Jedi, Luke’s training was “complete” as it could be seeing as Yoda was dying. There was nothing left to do, and both Yoda and Obi-Wan were essentially gambling on Luke being able to take down the Emperor.

It helped that Luke, like his father, was unnaturally gifted in the Force.

1460. SoonerDave - January 29, 2013

@1451 Picard, Jean-Luc @1452 Aurore

Thanks for the kind words! I even lose sight of the fact that lots of people here weren’t even around in that time frame, so I thought perhaps that background might be worth reiterating.

As far as what I think should be done with it by CBS/Paramount? I wish I had a great answer for that, because it’s an incredibly difficult question. I think STID will be very successful, which means *someone* will get the stick to make a third film. I think a new TV series *after* Trek “3″ is possible, but its going to have to be done with *exactly* the right team in charge, because *their* job will now be to turn the *movie* form of Trek Abrams has created and rebuild that *back* into a marketable TV series!! How’s that for irony? And I would be very, very surprised if there were any long-term interest on the part of the current cast in any series TV project.

@1446 BatlethInTheGroin @1448 HughHoyland

You are absolutely right in stating that TMP was a success and made a phenomenal amount of money for the era. But it’s important to point out that success was muted – as was noted, it wasn’t “Star Wars” kind of money. And, for all the money it did make, a better-received movie (heck, even a better edited/polished one) would probably have made even more. I was heartsick as a kid back then to realize that the word of mouth for TMP was, honestly, terrible. I remember to this day the headline in the movie section of our local newspaper for the TMP review – “Star Trek Flashy, But Flawed.”

From the *studio’s* point of view the notion of TMP’s success was a bit tempered. They thought they’d shot the wad on Trek, it was a qualified success, but not to the extent they’d hoped or predicted, so the notion of a sequel was anything but assured. That’s why, once they opted to do a sequel, to make it a non-sequel-sequel :). They bailed on the epic story notion, and turned the role of producer over to a proven *TV* guy in Harve Bennett to helm it, and who, in turn, got an unknown guy by the name of Nick Meyer to direct it. Brilliantly enough, Bennett took his TV roots to heart, watched all the original eps, and thought a sequel to “Space Seed” would have the best shot at getting the Trek franchise back on its feet in theaters. And he would be proven spectacularly right. But make no mistake – Trek was on a short leash; minimal budgets, lots of re-used sets, lots of economy. So, yes, TMP made “Wrath of Khan” possible, but not really in a traditional sequel way of thinking. More in line of a “Well, that was good, but we can do a *lot* better.” One could argue from a creative point of view that “Khan” was made *in spite* of TMP, and its success vindicated the notion of TMP’s underlying flaws.

All that is to say, yes, TMP was successful, but not nearly as much as expected, and the studio’s enthusiasm for any kind of sequel was tepid at best. Paramount remained forever gunshy about Trek, and it took a successful three-story arc (TWoK, TSFS, TVH) to restore the enthusiasm to perhaps 70% of its pre-TMP level – only to have it crushed and melted by ST V, which is another story entirely.

I love watching TMP every once in a while, but part of me can’t help but wonder “what might have been” had the film not seemed to so consciously distance itself from the crew in light of a too-Kubrickesque, abstract resolution.

Going forward, and given Abrams departure (practical, if not literal) I think the current Trek franchise desperately needs a Harve Bennett type who “gets” Trek, and has the savvy to make the transition back to TV. I think Trek’s movie future after this cast may be limited, *especially* if its seen as going up as a competitor to Abrams new vision for Star Wars.

1461. cpelc - January 29, 2013

Has anyone gone to the Esurance facebook page yet and watched the behind the scenes featurette for STID?

I can’t because i’m at work.

1462. Aurore - January 29, 2013

“There are ways around it but I doubt very seriously that Paramount (not to mention CBS) signed-off on letting a major competitor sneak a peak at their movie.
If this actually happened there would be serious repercussions if it could be documented (And quickly dropped if the sequel makes serious coin but why risk it?).”
_________

” *Signed-off* “… on letting a major competitor sneak a peak at their movie….?

No.

That is not what I had in mind….

(And, I wasn’t being…entirely… serious, on that front. Besides, from what I’ve read, the nine minute preview might have been enough to impress… anybody….)

1463. Colinar - January 29, 2013

Watching Star Trek 2009. I think i have something in my eye…

1464. Disinvited - January 29, 2013

#1448 soonerdave

I don’t know who was comparing TMP to the expectations of NEMESIS but I introduced it because some say its gross rpresents a baseline consisting of the core fans that are going to see any sort of movie with STAR TREK plastered on it even if it’s just a guy flipping pages to show his animated movie. I just wanted MJ to get a sense that TMP drew people outside that baseline – planetary wide.

I agree it was a success. And I thank you for helping me to make that point.

1465. drumvan - January 29, 2013

@1462 Has anyone gone to the Esurance facebook page yet and watched the behind the scenes featurette for STID?
__________________________________________________

it’s just footage from the trailer. nothing new. a few clips from the actors about it being “relentless, made for 3d” and j.j. spewing his love for trek. 1:22 of been there, done that.

1466. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

@ 1446.

Yes, TMP was not a “financial” flop, but it did the series no favors. One common comment from everyone involved in the film series has said that TMP practically killed Star Trek until Harve Bennett came around. It sure killed Gene’s participation. Trek films never recieved a great budget or much appriciation from Paramount until the JJ Abrams reboot..that you can trace that back to the fiasco of TMP.

1467. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

“There was nothing left to do, and both Yoda and Obi-Wan were essentially gambling on Luke being able to take down the Emperor.

It helped that Luke, like his father, was unnaturally gifted in the Force.”

So, essentially we could say that Abrams went the “Empire-Jedi” route and made Kirk captain…Pike and the command saw that Kirk was naturally gifted in the area of being a leader of men and commander of a starship and are taking a gamble (being that Kirk had nothing more to learn except gain some experience and humility).

1468. SoonerDave - January 29, 2013

@1467 Robman007

From everything I’ve read, Gene had so thoroughly alienated/infuriated most of the folks at Paramount that I think they’d have yanked him as EP even if TMP had made $1 billion in 1980 dollars. For all the benefit of GR having created Star Trek, he was very often its own worst enemy.

1469. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

@ 1469. SoonerDave

It does seem that way. I found it really facinating that Paramount refused to allow him to keep the 11′ filming model, yet they would have given it away for next to nothing until the Smithsonian picked it up. I still remember reading some comments from film production staff about how they suspected he leaked all sorts of spoilers regarding Trek 2 and 3 as a result of being locked out of them, as well as promoting the “Spock kills Kennedy” story

1470. The Sinfonian - January 29, 2013

@1469. The hemming and hawing and delays of the PTN network, were also partly attributable to the horrible development of Star Trek: Phase 2. GR was phoning it in: read the “scripts” they were preparing…. yikes, Space: 1999 had better storylines developed than what Phase 2 would have been. Had Paramount bought him off, and had DC Fontana and David Gerrold executive produce both Phase 2 and/or TNG would have been so much better.

GR reminds me of the parody of Mike Brady in _A Very Brady Movie_, the Brady Bunch parody that was made. He could keep designing all sorts of things, but it always looked like his house. Genesis 2, Planet Earth, both were TOS redone on a planet. Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda was Planet Earth reset into space. (Hence all having Dylan Hunt.) Phase 2 was turned into TMP was turned into TNG. Decker-Ryker (the original spelling), ILIA (from Ilion, ancient Troy)-Deanna TROI. Xon, the Vulcan trying to understand human emotions-Data, the Android trying to understand human emotions. Older Wiser J.T.Kirk – Older Wiser J.L.Picard. Real-world mid-70′s disabled Star Trek fan George LaForge – Engineer Geordi LaForge, with a disability.

And people mock George Lucas.

1471. LaForge_to_Bridge - January 29, 2013

@1367 (Basement Blogger)
Thank you for the reply. You enjoyed Trek11, I’m happy for you. It is a slick, well produced movie. It’s not

perfect, and I personally didn’t need it to be, but some of its issues REALLY bothered me, so the bad outweighed the

good for me (genocide or close to it really freaks me out). I also want to see more positives about Vulcans as well.

They can’t all be racist xenophobes. I should have said this earlier, but one thing JJ did better than some of the

other Trek movies is make a film that’s a lot of fun to watch.

TNG doesn’t just get attacked on this site, it gets reamed. HARD. I don’t know or care why. Rick Berman is made

out to be the devil (he’s not even close). Despite his shortcomings at least his heart was consistently in the right

place. The episodes you mentioned are not just beloved by trekkers, but by anyone who appreciates great TV.

It seems the franchise is evaluated on how “cool” it looks to people who don’t seem care either way and/or how big

it looks (which is hard to tell without precise metrics).

Roddenberry aimed high for his creation. I admire that. Trek11 not so much. Look at the difference. Roddenberry

wanted everybody to enjoy his series, JJ and the Supreme Court uses qualifiers to separate fans and nerds from the

rest of the supposed movie going public. WHEN ADDRESSING SAID FANS AND NERDS. Why? Is it a marketing thing I’m

missing?

As you said, The Supreme Court seems to want to aim higher with the sequel. Personally I’m skeptical. The trailer

indicates darker and more siniser, with possible misdirection about the villian. Darker isn’t better, it’s just

darker. I want to trust them, and yet… Hmmm.

I firmly believe that Star Wars is getting someone awesome in JJ Abrams. He might be the best person of his

generation suited for the repsosibily of helming that franchise’s future films. I want an equivalent for Star Trek.

That heart and intelligence you mention? I want it back, in spades.

And man, that letter of note from Gene is incredible.

@1461. SoonerDave

Awesome post. I would like to add that another person who should be in charge is someone like Gene L. Coon.

1472. sean - January 29, 2013

TMP made good money, but it wasn’t a runaway success. Keep in mind that the production was absolutely plagued with problems, not the least of which was Wise’s tendency to do numerous takes until he was satisfied. You also had all the Phase II baggage, as well as the original VFX company being sacked halfway through post-production (with almost nothing to show for it). And by the time they’d brought in Douglas Trumball to fix it all, they had to rush him through it. Very few of the key players were really satisfied with what was released (including Wise). Even Goldsmith had difficulty completing the score in time, and was working on it all the way til 5 days before the movie premiered. Despite years of pre-production, the whole thing ended up a rush job.

1473. Trekmovie Classifieds - January 29, 2013

MISSING. Film Director. Answers to
“J.J.” or “Flashy Abe.” Last seen at
Disneyland wearing Yoda mask and
holding suitcase full of money. Will
pay cash reward, or Paramount logo
sweatpants. Your choice.
555-483-BOBO.

1474. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

“TNG doesn’t just get attacked on this site, it gets reamed. HARD”

It gets reamed because a majority of the time it sucked..hard. Season 1 was one useless turd episode after another along with Season 2. Just bad rehashes of TOS with some Phase 2 rejects put in for good measure. The show started getting good in Season 3-5 then kinda slid into mediocre with 6-7. DS9 felt like more of an evolution of some ideas put forth in TOS.

It’s not a terrible show, but outside of a handful of episodes, it did not age well. They frequently used technobabble to get out of a situation instead of ingenuity. The Enterprise was nothing more then a flying hotel. Every little goober with a rent a ship could cause the Enterprise to come “one hit away from being destroyed”… Some of the changes the show made to existing “cannon” was odd…Honorable Klingons, Romulans with head ridges, the characters nothing more then Phase 2 rejects renamed and the always cramming down your throat that our society was “highly evolved”…also the fact that “interpersonal conflict” was not allowed between the main characters…..good show with a hand ful of great episodes, but was way too heavy handed in shoving the politically correct mindset down your throat.

and regarding the “racist xenophobes” that the Vulcan’s are…was that not something right out of Berman Trek? Even the Vulcans in TOS seemed to be a bit racist when dealing with Spock.

1475. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

@ 1473. sean

Yeah, Jerry Goldsmith had to go out and hire Fred Steiner to help finish composing/conducting the music for the film. The film had so many issues that they commissoned the Directors Edition to help complete the film.

1476. Phil - January 29, 2013

@1460. There’s one problem with that, setting aside that the continuity between the first three movies (Ep’s 4,5,and 6) and the last three is beyond horrible. The dialog in the last half of TESB and ROTJ does suggest that the ghost Jedi’s are capable of rendering instruction, or at least guidance. I’d always taken Yoda’s ‘It is finished. No more training you require.’ line at face value. Then again, I’ve always been amused that getting messages from the Force was like adjusting the antenne on your old TV set. The crappy stuff seems to come through loud and clear, but reception always faded out on the important stuff.

Yeah, the thought that Spock Prime is Yoda crossed my mind, too.

1477. sean - January 29, 2013

#1476

He also brought in Alexander Courage to help him out.

1478. Dappy Napper - January 29, 2013

@ 1392 – MJ, I’ve read many of your posts. Ironic comments coming from you. Stones and glass houses my irony impaired friend, stones and glass houses.

1479. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 29, 2013

I’m sorry but I really don’t like all this TNG bashing. It spoke to a generation and was just as its 60′s predecessor, relevant to the era it was produced in.

Arguably TNG was the most successful Star Trek has ever been. Certainly 1994 was the peek of Star Trek’s popularity.

It can be said that the TNG movies were unnecessary but that’s business for you, as long as you’ve got a successful brand your gonna milk it until its exhausted, with TOS it lasted 3 years and I think people always wanted more. It’s possible with the success of TNG on Blu Ray it may not be too long until we see Picard and co rebooted for ‘the next generation’

1480. Jack - January 29, 2013

1444. Hugh. Well-said.

1481. MJ - January 29, 2013

@1479. Always glad to add a new member to my fanbase. Glad I could be of service to you.

1482. weeharry - January 29, 2013

1425/1426

Re: TMP – “People said it looked and sounded great, but was boring and missing the heart of the TV show.”

I would say that assessment is still accurate.

I have heard it referred to as “The Motionless Picture”

I hated it as a 7 year old, but, like all Trek, it now has a place in my heart. Maybe not as much as others, but still…… :-)

1483. MJ - January 29, 2013

@1433, Yes, I loved TMP then and I love it now as well. I was simply reporting on what the prevailing public opinions were when it actually came out.

1484. weeharry - January 29, 2013

1484, no worries dude, wasn’t sniping :-)

to try and elaborate further….my dad had gotten me interested in trek as a very young child, seeing what i guess would have been repeats on the BBC in the mid-late 70′s. Sitting in the cinema for that length of time for a ponderous sci-fi movie was never going to work for me – probably more used to the 45 minute format (no adverts on the BBC), and had also, not long before this, seen and loved a certain other ‘star’ movie which definitely did keep my attention all the way through. As my love of sci-fi and specifically all things trek developed over the years i found a much greater appreciation for TMP, both in its own right and within the trek canon as a whole.

1485. lostrod - January 29, 2013

Yea, I loved TMP a lot also.

A lot of folks today cannot imagine the experience it was to sit in a theare waiting for the movie to start and hearing the “Ilia’s Theme” musical prelude.

I probably saw it 7 times at the theater and it was the first movie I bought on Betamax – back with movies on video were a hundred bucks! STII was the movie that broke the price barrier when Paramount released it for an unheard of $39 bucks – gambling that they could make up the price difference by selling more copies, and getting folks to buy rather than rent movies.

The studios hated all the video rental stores and kept trying to figure out ways to get revenue on a play basis. One studion even sold videos in special packaging that had a counter on it – so they could tell how many times the movie had been played and charge the video store accordingly.

Regards.

1486. lostrod - January 29, 2013

Another bit of trivia about TMP concerns the rush to adapt the telemovie script into a motion picture.

They didn’t have the ending when they started filming because in pilot script for an ongoing series they weren’t going to write off Decker and Ilia.

A few months into filming, someone sent me a copy of the script. The ending was totally different. I haven’t read it in many years but I recall that then ending involved Spock, Kirk and Ilia beaming down to the Smithsonian Institute to find an old working 16MM projector to play her historical footage of the Voyager missions.

Honest. I keeed you not.

Regards.

1487. weeharry - January 29, 2013

1486

I’d never heard that story about the counter on the tapes before. Crazy to think how the market has changed in what is a relatively short space of time.

…so did you then have to buy it on VHS when betamax became defunct?

…and then dvd?

…and then blu ray?

…and then super holo discs?

…and then bioneural brainvids?

:-)

1488. Basement Blogger - January 29, 2013

@ 1472:

LaForge to the Bridge

“Roddenberry aimed high for his creation.” Yes, The Great Bird of the Galaxy wasn’t a perfect man but he did aim high for Star Trek.

@ 1475

Robman007 says,

“It gets reamed because a majority of the time it sucked..hard. Season 1 was one useless turd episode after another along with Season 2.”

Could not disagree with you more. TNG was an evolution from TOS. It brought forth the big ideas from the original series. Questions about science, definitions of life and philosophy were explored.

And let’s talk about Season One. Yes, there were some duds. Every TV series has them Even J.J. Abrams shows has them. See Lost which had a whole season of them. See season six.

But there were great season one TNG episodes. Here are some of them.

1. Encounter at Farpoint. (Sarcastically) So bad that TNG ended with plot points from this show. See the trial.

2. Where no one has gone before- Interesting way to travel through space by the Traveler.

3. The Battle- An exploration of Picard’s past.

4. Datalore- (Sarcastically) Yep, so bad that they came back to the Crystaline entity. We meet Data’s evil twin and get some of Data’s backstory.

5. 11001001- An episode that explores a society that has merged with computers. And a view of the holodeck where computer generated characters may have life.

6. Heart of Glory- A good Klingon episode.

7. The Arsenal of Freedom- This is the epitome of great Star Trek. Action. Adventure. And a big idea. Alien race which are arms merchants have created weapons of mass destruction that endanger the Enterprise. The big idea? Arms control.

8. The Big Goodbye- Film noir meets science fiction meets existentialism.! (Sarcastically) This turd (your term) was so bad that it was awarded a Peabody Award. The award is given to turds. (your term)
Seriously, the Peabody Award is given to “excellence” in television. Link. For example, Stephen Colbert has received them.

I love the metaphor in this episode. The themes of existentialism. The use of the song, “Out of Nowhere.” Get it? Oh, and by the way, this jazz standard is allegedly the harmonic basis for the original Star Trek theme. Link. (Some more research by Trekmovie’s music guy would be helpful here.)

Yep, all those “turds” (your term) led to six more years of Star Trek; The Next Generation and four movies.

1. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Big_Goodbye

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_from_Star_Trek

1489. Aurore - January 29, 2013

“Episode VII” won’t be out before 2015? 2016? 2017?

It does not matter : “they” have found a way to be in the news…thanks to the next Star Trek…via Mr. Abrams…

That is how I understand what has occurred, of late.

1490. lostrod - January 29, 2013

#1488 – weeharry

“I’d never heard that story about the counter on the tapes before. Crazy to think how the market has changed in what is a relatively short space of time.

…so did you then have to buy it on VHS when betamax became defunct?”

Actually, I did buy VHS. I still have the Betamax copy. I also bought the Super 8 version and Super 8 version of Where No Man Has Gone Before.

I got the DVD version for Christmas as part of the “Movie Collection”.

Regards,

1491. If I owned Star Trek... - January 29, 2013

I would have ended the TNG films with ‘First Contact’, then continued telling the Star Trek story with a couple of DS9 movies- add in a cameo or two from previous series… I would have ended Voyager while the crew was still heading home, then I would have ended the Rick Berman era with a movie that brings the cast of the TNG, and DS9 together on a mission that brings Voyager home, and ties up a few lose threads that were otherwise ignored.

ST:Ent? I enjoyed the stories, but it was a feeble attempt at making a prequel of an iconic series. There is so much that COULD have been doe and wasn’t It’s pointless to go on any further about it.

I would have re-written the Eric Jendrenson script that would have become the screenplay for Star Trek: The Beginning, making it less violent, and more relevant to the ‘Great Birds’ vision. The story could have been a pilot for a new series. (Had the powers that be scrapped the ST:ENT idea all together.) This would give the franchise the breathing room, and refresher time to get it right.

And I would have made the movie Star Trek 2009, but I would have someone direct it that was more familiar with the franchise, and less bogged down with other projects.

And I would keep the franchise routed to where it could produce a more cerebral, and a less fast-paced series… on television.

1492. MJ - January 29, 2013

I forgot about the Super 8 versions. Those are either collectors items or worthless — hard to say?

1493. weeharry - January 29, 2013

1491 – …and do you still have a functioning betamax player??? that’s impressive!! :-)

you know, the rest of your post just reminded me of seeing, shown on a projector, ‘the squire of gothos’ – i could only have been about 4 or 5 years old. one of my earliest trek memories

1494. MJ - January 29, 2013

“A few months into filming, someone sent me a copy of the script. The ending was totally different. I haven’t read it in many years but I recall that then ending involved Spock, Kirk and Ilia beaming down to the Smithsonian Institute to find an old working 16MM projector to play her historical footage of the Voyager missions.”

Very cool, Lostrod. I think I had heard this a very long time ago, but had forgotten about it.

1495. lostrod - January 29, 2013

#1494 – Weeharry:

“…and do you still have a functioning betamax player??? that’s impressive!! :-)”

Unfortunately, no betamax player …

Sigh.

Regards.

1496. MJ - January 29, 2013

you can still get working used betamax players on ebay — $50 to $200 is the going rate.

1497. lostrod - January 29, 2013

MJ – I’m going to have to work up the energy to maneuver my way to the back of my storage shed where I have my old collectibles. That’s where the old movie script is.

When the TMP came out there was a flood of merchandise – action figures, photo-novels, pop-up books, yo-yos, posters, models, lunchboxes, etc. I bought most of that when they went on sale a few months after TMP’s release. They’re all in a couple of footlockers out there.

Except for the lunchbox. I bought it on sale for 99 cents and sold it on eBay in 2000 for 300 bucks.

Regards,

1498. lostrod - January 29, 2013

The thing I remember about the betamax version of TMP is that it included the “Ilia’s Theme” prelude. So basically 5 or 6 minutes of black screen with music, just like in the theater.

1499. MJ - January 29, 2013

@1498. Cool. I wish I still had my complete set of mint Fotonovels.

1500. Craiger - January 29, 2013

What’s Betamax? LOL.

1501. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

@ 1489, ok, so you list 8 episodes out of 26….let me list you the ones that sucked so hard that it’s tough to watch season 1.

1. The Naked Now: Unoriginal copy of an original series episode. Yawn.

2. Code of Honor: Yeah, even the cast looks back on it and calls it a turd.

3. The Last Outpost: yeah, because the Ferengi were so scary…turd.

4. Justice: Wow..another fun episode watching Wesley get into trouble..turd.

5. Angel One…snooze.

6. Skin of Evil – Turd…about the only good thing was getting rid of Yar, a boring character

7. We’ll Always Have Paris..Yawn.

8. The Neutral Zone…turd. Romulans with head ridges = WTF?

So, I do stand corrected, maybe the season was not littered with Turds, but it was damn horrible.

…and don’t give me that bullsh!t about it was “good enough to get 6 more seasons and 4 movies”…please. That’s like calling Spocks Brain an award winner. It did good because Star Trek fans were dying for something new on TV each week. Season 3 of TOS was at times easier to watch then Season 1 of TNG. Both had some gems, but both were turds. A turd is a turd is a turd no matter how much polishing you put on it. TNG survied into Season 2 because Trek fans wanted more Trek like an alcoholic wants some Jack Daniels, not because of how “great” season 1 was.

Season 2 did to slightly better…although it did have the epic TURDS of introducing that harry mudd rip off “Okuna” and the ever so awesome (sarastically speaking…) Shades of Grey.

Oh, and you forgot to list Conspiracy. One of the Best ep of the entire season 1.

1502. MJ - January 29, 2013

Season 1 and 2 of the TNG are nearly unwatchable as a whole — the turds are really bad, and there are a lot of them. By comparison, those seasons of TNG make the 3rd season of TOS look like Citizen Kane.

1503. Rose (as in Keachick) - January 29, 2013

Oh be gone with all this turd talk.

1504. MJ - January 29, 2013

@1504.

OK, then: “dingleberry” instead

1505. porthos bitch - January 29, 2013

Brainfart……I had WNMHGB on 8mm in that viewer that had the crank on its side……….also the RCA Video Disc..I remember playing with the stereo sound in the store ( the specific scene ; the enterprise decelarating at Regula 1 in TWOK)…I also had the “Kelly Green movie viewer ” which was a gold key comic story printed on celuloid that you help upto the light. Gotta love 60′s tech.

1506. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

@1503…exactly. I like TNG as much as the next guy, even though I think it aged badly and was not as good as TOS, but you are correct. Season 1 and 2 are horrible, with the exception of a few episodes. They do make Season 3 of TOS look like Citizen Kane.

Dingleberry episodes indeed.

1507. Basement Blogger - January 29, 2013

@ 1504

Holy crap. Keachick and I agree on something.

1508. weeharry - January 29, 2013

Robman007….

‘Conspiracy’ was always my favourite from series 1

1509. captain spock - January 29, 2013

some new to look @ esurance give you a exclusive content inside look @ ST:intodarkness @ their facebook page.

encludeing a sweepsteaks,downloads an inside look at making star trek intodarkness.

esurance facebook webpage https://www.facebook.com/Esurance/app_131772983653777

1510. Phil - January 29, 2013

Well, a while back I mentioned that some SW fans would buy a bag of moldy oranges if it was labeled Episode 7. Apparently some Trek fans would buy the bag of turds, labeled season one of TNG.

Hey, I like TNG, but the first couple of seasons were bad.

1511. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

@1509…Conspiracy was awesome. I love that episode. Felt like a Season 1 or 2 TOS story. Could have gone in a million directions. Every time I hear Harve Bennett talk about going back to watch TOS to find something to make a movie on and the “seed” that Spock talked about in regards to Khan, I always look back at Conspiracy as a seed that went unnoticed in the miles upon miles of politically correct nonsense, just because it threatened the “happy days” society that TNG set up. Good episode with some killer cool action scenes.

I’m not saying TNG as a whole stunk it up, but Season 1 and parts of 2 are just hard to “trek” through…I watch the couple gems that Season 1 made and skip the rest when doing my watch through..

but TNG did NOT SURVIVE to Season 2 because of the “greatness” of Season 1. It survived because fans wanted more Trek on TV. I remember that time and thinking about how inferior the show was compaired to TOS….that was about until mid Season 3.

1512. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

@1511…..Exactly. Don’t let folks fool ya. Those who were old enough to watch TNG Season 1 hated that show when it first aired and for good reason. With some very few and far between exceptions, the show was rotten to the core (even the actors admit that much)…it became awesome around mid Season 3.

1513. AJ - January 29, 2013

1513: Robman007

I tuned in for TNG from the start, and my opinion was they were just getting their shit together. They veered so far off-course from the writers’ guide once Klingons and Romulans showed up. The show was far from “rotten to the core,” and as others have stated above, one can cherry-pick some gems out of the wreckage.

1514. THX-1138 - January 29, 2013

Nope, I practically celebrated every season of TNG. Perspective is a tricky thing. I LOVED TOS and was raised on it. Heck, it was the reason I fell in love with sci-fi and genre stuff to begin with. But from my own personal perspective, I think people tend to look at it with rose colored glasses (no offense Keachick). There is a lot to be critical of in all three seasons. But it’s the bigger picture that is most important. TOS (for those who aren’t die-hard fans) hasn’t aged well either. But I give it a pass as we are all products of our time. I would suggest that most of the negativity for TNG is a result of the still pervading feelings of jealousy that it instilled in TOS fans. The only reason that one could possibly cherry pick more bad TNG eps than TOS is because one had a 3 year run and one had a 7 year run. Hey if you don’t like it you don’t like it. But calling TNG a “turd” or any other name is absolutely no different from people calling NuTrek garbage. I’m not a tremendous NuTrek fan but enough people love it for me to not spew out and out hate at it.

TNG, like TOS before it, was a source for outstanding story telling and some really brilliant science fiction. And it was also a source for some dog episodes. But if one is to be objective then one has to concede that both series stand on their own merits and neither is better than the other.

Obviously without TOS NuTrek doesn’t exist. But I would also say that without TNG it wouldn’t exist either. Feel free to now slice me to ribbons. Or ignore me.

1515. Trek Tech - January 29, 2013

Now we know what J.J. stands for…Jar Jar. Jar Jar Abrams. It was inevitable. In spite of his ‘loyalty’ to Trek being an obvious joke I think hes the right choice for Star Wars considering thats what the last two Trek movies were. Im also willing to bet that Star Wars will flourish under him. Now lets get somebody to produce Trek that actually wants to. Onward and upward.

1516. Basement Blogger - January 29, 2013

@ 1502

Robman007,

You know I can agree with you that the “Naked Now” is a bad rehash of a TOS episode. It should have never gotten past the pitch stage. Then you say this;

“…and don’t give me that bullsh!t about it was “good enough to get 6 more seasons and 4 movies”…please.”

First, I’m detecting a theme here. “Bullsh-t” “Turds” Sounds like well, feces. :-) I’m sorry the brown stuff is on your mind. . I’ve named eight very good episodes with one winning the Peabody Award for Television excellence. Again, I agree there were duds and some in between. Some of your “turds” I would argue weren’t that bad. It’s subjective. But here are the facts if the show was as bad as you say it was. They made six more years of the show. Three more series. Four feature films. Period. All those Trekkers can’t possibly be so drunk and high that they all hated the first two seasons of TNG but maybe they said, “It’s terrible but we’ll keep watching because no matter how bad it is, we’ll watch Star Trek.” I bet that a large number of Trekkers don’t hate the TNG as much as you do. And what about those fans buying TNG Blu-rays. They must be saying I hate season one and two but I’m going to buy them. Did CBS say, “Boy, Trekkers hated TNG but darn it, let’s spend money to remaster the show and drunkh Trekkers will buy it?” My point is there are many Trekkers who don’t think TNG was a bunch of “turds.” (Your word.)

But let’s use your logic about fans demanding more content even if the first in the series ” stinks.” Sorry, I’m not into calling stuff fecal matter. Let’s take a look at the 2008 movie, Speed Racer.

Speed Racer has an anime and cult following. In 2008 they made a movie of the character. Yes, it’s not Star Trek. But it still has a fan base. The movie was a critical and financial bomb. Where are the fans demanding a second Speed Racer movie? Are they saying,”Gee, the first movie was so bad but I love Speed Racer so much that I want another?” There won’t be in any time soon a “Speed Racer 2.” The quality of the first movie killed a sequel.

1517. Robman007 - January 29, 2013

Good point, THX. TNG was not a total turd. I just look back at season 1 and parts of 2 and smell elephant crap. I love watching seasons 3-5. TNG to me seemed like an idea better explored on TV while the original series and its characters are great for film (and even TV)…then again, I still can’t forgive Generations for killing Captain Kirk and in such a pathetic way.

NuTrek has its problems. I didn’t care for the alternate reality crap. One lesson I learned from countless hours of Trek TV is if you change the past, it alters the future…and, while I understand the reasoning behind the rapid promotions (waiting 3 films just to see Kirk be Captain is about as dumb as waiting 3 films to see Anakin become Vader), it was a tad silly.

1518. AJ - January 29, 2013

At this point, I look at the original TOS 1+79 as one long episode, and I throw the crap in with the absolutely brilliant eps, and when I shake it up like a martini, it all gels into one unforgettable puzzle piece from my childhood, another from adolescence, then my high school and college years. TMP blew my nads off up until Spock joined the crew in the film, and then it starts sucking, TWOK was the first film I ever saw on a date, III & IV I watched out of strict Trekkieness, V killed me, and VI was just my buddy who had been on line with me in 1979 for TMP and I in a quiet upper-east side cinema a few weeks after it had opened Trekking out.

TNG I watched from the get-go with fan-glasses firmly on, and the critic’s glasses thrown away. Going back to the VHS tapes/DVDs/BR set, I will no longer watch “Code of Honor” or “Angel One” or that piece of shit where Wesley crosses a border on some sexy planet and gets sentenced to death, so that Picard can piss off God. I fart in the general direction of “Shades of Grey” or “The Outrageous Okona” and Wesley Crusher, but in the end, even before season 3, TNG was wrapping some mighty eps. Unlike TOS, however, the shit ones will never become part of the overall oeuvre to me. Best to squeeze them out like swollen zits, and enjoy what’s good in a series that had the luxury of time and money to find its feet.

1519. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 29, 2013

Rumor has it that Zach Quinto and Leonard Nimoy will appear in a commercial for Audi in the Super Bowl … well apparently they filmed it yesterday …

Mr. Nimoy twiter/January29:

Leonard Nimoy ‏@TheRealNimoy
Did a job for Audi yesterday with Zachary Quinto. Total pleasure. LLAP

1520. Capes - January 29, 2013

This is the most logical thing I have heard on this topic thus far….

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/6763-A-Disturbance-In-The-Force?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

1521. Bill Peters - January 29, 2013

1453. Picard, Jean-Luc – January 29, 2013
I actually think the way Star Trek is going to be defined now Star Wars is back is how Paramount and CBS deal with Star Trek between Star Trek Into Darkness and a third Star Trek movie.

If Into Darkness does well there will be a third movie and people will undoubtably go and see it as I’m sure it will tie up story lines left hanging in Darkness but the key to keeping Star Trek from falling into Star Wars shadow is to keep it in the public eye between movies, something that didn’t entirely happen between 2009 and this year. A new animated series and live action series plus a huge 50th world wide Trek celebration would go a long way in keeping the brand out there.

It doesn’t have to compete with Star Wars, but this would be a bad time to put Star Trek on the back burner, especially if Star Trek Into Darkness is well received.

I agree with you I think Paramount will make a Big deal out Trek and promote it in between Into Darkness and Star Trek 3 if we get a Third movie which i hope we do, I think they will play up all the Annverseries in between movies but a TV series will be harder to do cause CBS not Paramount owns the rights to any new TV Series and the hole thing became a mess when the two Divorced

1522. Red Dead Ryan - January 29, 2013

My favorite Trek series is “Deep Space Nine”. Not many episodes from that show you can call terrible, though “Profit And Lace”, where Quark gets a sex change, is pretty awful. But good for a laugh or two.

Season one of DS9 was mainly blah, not terrible, but so far from the greatness it would achieve in its latter seasons.

1523. Craiger - January 29, 2013

RDR – DS9 was my favorite Trek series. I thought the Dominion War was awesome. Makes me wonder how Ron Moore would have done the Romulan War if he was in charge of Enterprise.

1524. MJ - January 29, 2013

@1523. TOS — my favorite. DS9 — close 2nd fav. TNG — distant 3rd.

Voyager and Enterprise — don’t really like much.

1525. Phil - January 29, 2013

Of the non-TOS shows DS9 is probably my favorite. It came the closest to having the ‘final frontier’ feel to it I would expect from a sci-fi space show. Don’t know that I would have signed off on the Dominion War arch, but it was handled as well as you would expect, and did a good job of portraying some of the less them plesant aspects of war. Also a fan of Avery Brooks, which helps….

1526. MJ - January 29, 2013

Star TOS Blu-Ray arrived today for me. Got it for $82 on Deep Discount DVD (all three seasons) — can you believe that price?

I wish DanielCraigWasMyWookieBitch still posted here, because he was insistent that TOS seasons would never fall below around $50 each, and didn’t believe my strategy for waiting in which I said eventually I could get them for in the $30-$40 range each…$27 each sure feels like vindication to me! LOL

1527. Craiger - January 29, 2013

MJ, I wonder if CBS would base a Trek TV series based on Trek DVD and BluRay sales in addition how much the sequel makes. After ST 2009 any new fans Trek got they weren’t exactly demanding a new Trek TV series. Which makes me wonder if rebooting Trek, even though I liked ST 2009 was really successful in getting new fans?

1528. Craiger - January 29, 2013

Sorry I meant CBS make a new Trek TV series based on Trek DVD and Bluray sales.

1529. Jefferies Tuber - January 29, 2013

These two Starfleet symbols appear on the two EMPIRE covers, with these two interesting captions for Kirk and Harrison:

A CAPTAIN SEEKING REDEMPTION

AN OUTCAST SEEKING REVENGE

http://imgur.com/PxGRYeZ.jpg

1530. MJ - January 29, 2013

@1528. Interesting — it can’t hurt!

1531. Harry Ballz - January 29, 2013

@1530

Funny, a couple of months ago, before we had heard the title of the next movie, I suggested Star Trek: Redemption on one of these threads.

Oh, so close!

1532. Basement Blogger - January 29, 2013

@ 1518

Robman007,

Yes, many Trekkers were followers of the “City on the Edge of Forever” theory of time travel. Change the past, change the future. I messed that up from Star Treik 2009 also. But I researched it and found this great website that did an interview with Bob Orci who explained it. When you go back in time you create a parallel universe. Now if they used that term and if there was more of a discussion of what happened with Nero between Spock Prime and Kirk; .it would have been clearer. You see I’m a blogger not a physicist.

By the way, the movie, Looper, is not about creating parallel universes. You change the past, you will change the future. The time travel in that movie had some problematic time travel paradoxes. Until the Greys show us how they time travel, we may never know which theory is right. :-)

Link. Trekkers at Las Vegas Con. in 2010 miss the creation of a parallel universe in Star Trek 2009.
http://trekmovie.com/2010/08/21/video-trekmovie-star-trek-fan-panel-at-trek-las-vegas-con/

1533. Basement Blogger - January 29, 2013

@ 1523-1525

Guys, you say like DS9. Interesting. Because that show is the antithesis of Star Trek 2009. All three of you loved the 2009 film. I meant J.J. Abrams has said he thought Star Trek was talky. ( Entertainment Weekly, May 8-2009, pg. 30.) And I also liked DS9. But DS9 was talky. It had no choice. They couldn’t do big action shows every week.

I’ve just watched DS9′s Homefront and Paradise Lost. Talky. And fascinating. Intelligent. Prescient. Why? The shows were about the Dominion threat causing changes to society to stop terrorism. The show could have been made after 9/11. That’s what I love about Star Trek. Ideas. Scientific. Philosophical. The television shows asked you to think.

1534. John - January 30, 2013

This how the majority of us are all feeling!
http://i.imgur.com/EcJVWnS.jpg?1

1535. Colinar - January 30, 2013

1535 LOLOLOLOL true!

1536. Mark Lynch - January 30, 2013

@1535
I was about to post that very same image… We have to put some much needed perspective here and that image does it nicely!

1537. Aurore - January 30, 2013

:))

The image linked to @ 1535 IS funny, but, “the much needed pespective”, was already there, on this thread (as far as I’m concerned ):

1474. Trekmovie Classifieds – January 29, 2013
“MISSING. Film Director. Answers to
‘J.J.’ or ‘Flashy Abe.’ Last seen at
Disneyland wearing Yoda mask and
holding suitcase full of money. Will
pay cash reward, or Paramount logo
sweatpants. Your choice.
555-483-BOBO.”

:)

1538. JJ-phobia - January 30, 2013

REBOOT NOLAN – REBOOT NOLAN – REBOOT NOLAN!

1539. However - January 30, 2013

Yes we can do just fine without Abrams and that B-ore-ci.

1540. Star Trek Does Not STEAL! - January 30, 2013

I think Star Trek owes Nolan a chance since the upcoming film’s poster idea is STOLEN from Dark Knight Rises! A reboot by Nolan is a natural choice. and whoever has approved a long awaited ST film’s launch poster to be a STOLEN one, that idiot sitting in Paramount offices should be FIRED. I dont need to say anything about the people who stole the idea, they are just pathetic.

1541. Amazing Stuff - January 30, 2013

I hope you are reading at least some of these posts JJ! You could not get more wisdom which you terribly need if you paid a hundred advisors!

1542. Aurore - January 30, 2013

Nolan?

To be clear, I personally am not in a hurry to nominate any other director .

I still love Mr. Abrams.

:)

And I want my hack writer to be around for Star Trek ” 3 “, as well…

1543. POLL Please! - January 30, 2013

trekmovie.com please give us a poll to see if us fans want the renegade director for the third time?

1544. Captain_Conrad - January 30, 2013

In the next ten to twenty years, we may finally see a Trek/Wars crossover!

1545. Aurore - January 30, 2013

“And I want my hack writer to be around for Star Trek ” 3 “, as well…”
______

“Your” hack writer?

…..Du calme petite!

“trekmovie.com please give us a poll to see if us fans want the renegade director for the third time?”

I would rather have a poll to see if fans think Star trek Into Darkness will be “Huuuuuuuuuuuge”…or not.

I think the movie will be amazing.

Let us talk about the movie!

1546. Mark Lynch - January 30, 2013

@1538

Not everyone here has a balanced perspective on this news!
Which is what I meant, but it probably came over as a bit of a blanket statement.

1547. Disinvited - January 30, 2013

#1522. Bill Peters

But if by some miracle Abrams directs his third Trek that’s precisely NOT the kind of movie we’ll get. On two different Trek films he’s claimed to be proud he made stand alone works. So, I’m expecting him to go for that again if he’s given the opportunity, and I just don’t see how he’s going to tie up threads if he has no interest in what ever new Trek narrative he works on requiring a previous one to have been seen?

#1523.Red Dead Ryan, 1524.Craider, 1526.Phil, 1534.Basement Blogger

I’ve only asked one thing of Trek after ToS: To take the storytelling of the best of the first series and build on and beyond. DS9 delivered.

#1528. Craiger

I’ve been asking that question in these parts since the 2009 premier. Claims have been made of vast hordes of demographically desirable new fans that some claim exceed the old fan base, but when asked “Where are they?”, the answer I get is “I see them at the convention in Vegas.” which only answers another question “Where are some new fans?” and not mine. Because if this purported horde had showed up in Vegas, for a con, it would be massive news and Vegas Trek Cons aren’t making the world’s newspapers’ front pages.

The horde didn’t show up on opening day CinemaScores which said attendance consisted of upper-middle-aged males.

Their 2009 toy line gets cancelled right in the middle of holiday shopping season and anounced novels yanked and do they get organized? No. Do they bury CBS in letters to get a better toy manufacturer lined up immediately? No. Do they bury CBS in letters to get at least one of those novels published? No

And your posit inspires the question: Are they burying CBS demanding a television series in some venue be produced based on their flavor of Trek? No.

In my time we had recourse to the aphorism: “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” With respect to this desirable demographic horde, I submit: There’s no will, because there’s no they.

1548. Picard, Jean-Luc - January 30, 2013

@1548

Its clear a lot of new fans have come into the franchise but possibly not the kind who buys toys or goes to conventions.

However what I have seen is that Star Trek’s appeal over these last 4 years since the 2009 movie has broadened and long-term Trekkies have really come out of hiding to celebrate this new love of Star Trek enjoying global events like Star Trek Destination London, which despite all the negative comments was a huge sellout event and proved to be very successful.

I think we can learn from what Abrams did that actually Star Trek was already a very well regarded brand name which really just needed to be pushed into the public eye which happened with JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek movie. So much so that Star Trek Into Darkness is one of, if not the most highly anticipated movies of 2013 – hows that for a franchise just 10 years earlier was being left at the bottom of the pile being beaten by Maid In Manhattan…

As for toys and merchandise. Since 2006 DST have been producing Star Trek toys for the older fans, now despite Playmates lack of success, A little unknown company called Hasbro now have the rights to put out toys for the masses but by and large movie tie-in lines even for the likes of Batman or Avengers don’t really have an extensive longevity. The success of that line will be determined not entirely by the success of Into Darkness but really the kind of success of Into Darkness, it seems they weren’t really going for the kids demographic with that one.

If we want to see more Star Trek toys on the shelves at Toys R Us then its CBS’s job to get an animated series made or a tea-time trek series made directly aimed at the kids…

Changing the subject, can we talk about Star Trek as if it were an equally important, if not more important universe of wonderful stories than Star Wars which by all accounts is an over-bloated mess designed to sell toys….

1549. Aurore - January 30, 2013

“Not everyone here has a balanced perspective on this news!
Which is what I meant, but it probably came over as a bit of a blanket statement.”
______

No.
Not at all.

I understood what you meant ; I was merely commenting on the fact that ( along with the image ), I found the post @ 1474 funny, too.

That’s all.

:)

1550. Bored to tears - January 30, 2013

Wish they would change the tagline of this website to..

All things Trek, but only when the owner decides he wants to post something…. then, it’s just old news

1551. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 30, 2013

This is the guy that bagged Seven of Nine?

Tell me how, Trekkies!

http://ww2.cox.com/myconnection/tulsa/today/news/national/article.cox?moduleType=apNews&articleId=DA44IBK02

I am especially interested in the consiracy angle. Did’nt this guy help O in office? Jeri, you should have done something!

1552. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 30, 2013

Oops!

Wrong Ryan.

My Bad.

1553. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 30, 2013

1517. Basement Blogger – January 29, 2013

I saw Spped and thought it was ALL it could EVER be.

1554. LordCheeseCakeBreath - January 30, 2013

Bad news! StarWars will now have the cheesy, shaky camera, lens flare trendy quick cut scene crap. Will the Death Star be at a Budwieser factory?

1555. Phil - January 30, 2013

@1535 Speak for yourself….

1556. cpelc - January 30, 2013

1552 –

That was our former, former Illinois Governer George Ryan.

Jeri Ryan’s husband was Jack Ryan – he ran against Obama in the US Senate seat race but was replaced on the ticket when controversy about the way he treated his wife surfaced.

1557. KJ Trekker - January 30, 2013

Everyone is saying “it’s so Star Trek. Your thoughts? http://vimeo.com/54562820

1558. Commander K - January 30, 2013

Really Anthony, i love you man but this is really taking the p*ss, you need to let other people contribute to this site. There’s been so much news over the last week on TrekWeb…here it seems to be selective or when someone can be bothered.

This is the buildup to something we’ve been waiting for for 4 years and also one of the biggest trek events of all time..this was the flagship site for trek news. If it wasn’t for this ‘comments’ section (not a forum as many people like to call it) people would have abandoned ship.

I’m starting my own site. Stay tuned! It’s coming soon.

1559. Lostrod - January 30, 2013

Actually, if you want a ton of Star Trek and other Sci Fi news, you’re welcome to subscribe to my newsletter. It’s updated daily. Today’s edition can be found at:

http://paper.li/f-1310550694?utm_source=subscription&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=paper_sub

Just click the subscribe button and you’ll get a daily email as soon as the new daily issue is available.

Regards.

1560. Bill Peters - January 30, 2013

1549. I agree with you these fans may not be the type of fans that go to Conventions or sit around and talk trek here, bu they are the kind of people who will go see trek films because Trek has become cool in there mind.

Totally agree with this statement you made:I think we can learn from what Abrams did that actually Star Trek was already a very well regarded brand name which really just needed to be pushed into the public eye which happened with JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek movie. So much so that Star Trek Into Darkness is one of, if not the most highly anticipated movies of 2013 – hows that for a franchise just 10 years earlier was being left at the bottom of the pile being beaten by Maid In Manhattan…

For Star Trek to thrive it has to make money and pull in General Audances, I hope we get a Third movie and that Trek keeps on coming with new stuff over the years.

1561. Craiger - January 30, 2013

I am starting to think now that maybe asking where is the news is pointless, because when we do get news we are just happy to get news. No one asks if the new SOP of Trekmovie is to just post some news and then take a month off after their is some updates.

1562. AdamTrek - January 30, 2013

The fact that J.J. is now directing the next installment of one of the most beloved science fiction/fantasy franchises in existence, in such as short amount of time in directorial experience, goes to show you how great he is at what he does. I wish him all the best and what I hope will be a Star Wars film in Episode VII that will blow everyone away. I say this being a huge, and primarily, a fan of everything Trek.

And perhaps lightsabers causing lens flares, just to make the haters hate.

=A=

1563. Craiger - January 30, 2013

Updated news on the new Star Trek video games. Has spoilers because its is going to be a prequel to the sequel.

http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/01/30/More-Details-on-the-Star-Trek-Video-Game-Which-is-a-Prequel-to-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-MINOR-SPOILERS.shtml

Trekmovie better watch out, Trekweb is surpassing this site with news.

1564. Craiger - January 30, 2013

Sorry I mean Star Trek video game not games.

1565. Craig - January 30, 2013

TNG Season 3 BluRay Box Art:

http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/01/30/First-Look-at-the-Box-Art-for-Next-Generation-Season-Three-Remastered-and-The-Best-of-Both-Worlds-on-BluRay.shtml

New Interview with Captain Rachel Garrett actress:

http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/01/29/Actress-Tricia-ONeill-Captain-of-the-EnterpriseC-Remembers-Yesterdays-Ebterprise.shtml

1566. Bill Peters - January 30, 2013

f JJ job is to make moves and he had an oppunity to make another move so he took it.
doesn’t mean he will ruin Star Wars or he will hurt Star Trek it just means he got another Job but will still be around if we get a 3rd Movie and I nomanate Bob Orci to Direct.

I do so hope we get a 3rd Movie mad by bad Robot.

1567. THX-1138 - January 30, 2013

Some topics I would like to address (The ‘groans’, ‘moans’, and ‘mouse-clicks’ are deafening):

I got to thinking about what Basement Blogger was saying about DS9 being “talky”. Now that I think of it that is exactly the sort of thing about Star Trek that I gravitate toward. Probably a big reason that I liked TNG so much as well. And while I do enjoy the movies I have never been as big a fan of them as I have the series. That includes ALL of the first six movies, save for TMP, which in it’s collector’s edition form seems to me to be like a TOS episode on steroids. I think I like the balance of action and, for lack of a better word, “talkiness” to be about 75% talk and 25% action. It seems to me that most of the movies favor action over thought provoking dialogue. And that is why I much prefer Trek on TV.

I have to admit that I am not at all surprised that JJ is doing SW. Even after he came out with his statement to the contrary I just knew that he would take the job if offered. I even said so on this very site *pats self on back*. But it all just leads me to believe that JJ is a bit disingenuous. The guy loves to play games of subterfuge, decoy, and deceit (I don’t mean that last word as harshly as it sounds). I think his directing style would be a perfect fit for the Star Wars movies that I love and remember fondly; those being IV thru VI. I hope VII is a transition movie that will have the old cast sending off a new cast, and that the tone is more like IV thru VI. But as an aside will JJ ever find a career as a director of movies other than movie versions of TV shows and tentpoles?

Finally, I do miss the way this site was run before Trek 09. It was vibrant and full of new information and updates and it made me feel connected to the production of the new movie, like we were all insiders to a cool club. I felt like WE were playing a part in the production to some degree. It was a feeling of inclusion. Now I feel like I’m just another observer, which honestly is a little sad. There was no “live chat from the set” this time. There is less interaction with Orci. And there is NO interaction with Anthony. As a result (along with the fact that I was a little disappointed with the movie we got in 09) I find that I’m just not as excited for May 17th, which just happens to be my birthday. My son yesterday was surprised to hear that I had taken a gig on that date and had no plans to see STID. I told him it will be out all summer. It’s a little strange to not have the new Star Trek movie be my most anticipated upcoming movie of the year, but there it is.

1568. Craiger - January 30, 2013

Well said THX-1138 with your last paragraph about Trekmovie. Except I still am looking forward to seeing STID.

1569. Bill Peters - January 30, 2013

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/01/27/jj-abrams-star-wars-director/1865955/

Miller says that Abrams’ involvement in Star Wars could set the stage for both it and Star Trek to live long and prosper.

“Like Star Wars, the Star Trek universe has plenty of fans that have grown up to become talented, influential filmmakers,” he says. “Assuming Into Darkness does well, there will be more quality Trek in the future, even if it comes with a different director.

Have to agree I am looking forward to seeing Star Trek Into Darkness.

1570. Silvereyes - January 30, 2013

1568 THX

Always good to hear from you THX. I share your “meh” attitute towards STID, though I’m not sure why. I couldn’t care less if JJ is directing SW. Different directors directed SW V and VI and they were excellent. And nothing says JJ won’t also direct the third ST movie, and there was always the possibility of him not directing STID either, and no-one was going to make a big deal out of it.

Anyway, all this is irrelevant… Hockey is back! Sorry, I’m, huh, Canadian…

1571. AJ - January 30, 2013

Silvereyes:

Nice to see you back. May your Zamboni be forever fueled by Canadian gas extraction methods.

I echo THX’s frustration at how this site has changed from one of closeness to the franchise to the laggard on the web for Star Trek news. The mainstream newspapers, from Washington Post to the Independent (UK), plus EW and the Onion, have all put the latest JJ news at the forefront of their Entertainment sections.

TM posted a bare-bones article, then confirmed JJ’s appointment hours after fans were already discussing it in the thread.

So far, NO feature on the viral iPhone homemade copy of the STID trailer or the Esurance tie-in FB site. Anthony has been quoted in other media as to his thoughts on Abrams, but he has yet to appear here for the debate. Trek/STID and SW are benefiting from a ‘bump’ right now, and those of us who rely on TM are farthest from the real story, reading (good) articles about models and books. And, BTW, Peter David having a stroke should have been an article in itself.

I will see STID. But, like THX, it’s not high on my to-do list. Abrams’s amateur strangulation of marketing, and TM’s blind compliance without benefits has made the build-up just plain boring. I get more Trek news from Huffington Post aggregation now than from Trekmovie.

I don’t care about video games, or the actress who played Captain Garrett’s ruminations on the role, like Trekweb is running. I care about Star Trek moving forward without the lingering doubt that has frankly dogged the franchise through thick and thin since the 1970s. I’m sick of the survival story.

JJ is a superb modern action director, and he has injected new life into Trek (again), but cannot meet a deadline to save his life. MI and Trek have put him on the map as a director, but I want to hear how he has put Star Trek back on the map as a viable franchise. Just not there yet. Not enough. I hope STID is as good as the trailer shows.

I’ve heard that STID has a Superbowl ad planned this Sunday (someone please confirm). I am sure Trekmovie will not cover it, but I’ll go to Huffpost for the ‘big Superbowl ads of 2013.’

1572. dmduncan - January 30, 2013

1570: “Like Star Wars, the Star Trek universe has plenty of fans that have grown up to become talented, influential filmmakers,” he says.

Oh? Like who?

There may be a few talented filmmaker-fans out there, but none that I know of who have great influence.

1573. THX-1138 - January 30, 2013

It’s nice to have these discussions with folks who are not given to hyperbole and vitriol. Further proof that we can all discuss Star Trek and Star Wars intelligently, thoughtfully, and respectfully, all while acknowledging differing points of view.

I absolutely do not think any less of people who are tremendous fans of NuTrek . Actually, I am thankful for them, as I see them as being the ones that are keeping Star Trek alive, perhaps much more than I am (as a fan). But I’m given to outbursts of emotion and I sometimes put too sharp an edge on my comments. And I am horrible at suffering those I perceive as fools. Truth be told, I take an almost troll-like glee in egging them on and slapping them down. Definitely a fault. I’ll work on it (yeah, right).

But maybe some of you can help me. How come I just don’t get a ‘Trek’ feeling from JJ’s production? Why can’t I get as excited about it as everyone else (save perhaps for you, Silvereyes)? I mean, I watched Insurrection last night for Pete’s sake and found myself getting into it! How can I prefer that to Trek 09? Is it the different actors? Is it really the AU? It just doesn’t have the right ‘tone’ for me. And that’s strange given that all the rest of the Trek movies are made by different productions, have different ‘tones’ from each other, and DEFINITELY are of varying degrees of quality.

Anyway, let’s keep talking. WE will be what makes this site fun, I suppose.

1574. dmduncan - January 30, 2013

And by that I do mean someone who does what JJ does. Byran Singer? I dun thin so.

1575. captain spock - January 30, 2013

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/kathleen-kennedy-discusses-j-j-abrams-star-wars-192800928.html guess no one told jj that they already stared working on the script …..

1576. Bill Peters - January 30, 2013

dmduncan, Bob Orci for one, and I am sure there are others.

1577. Basement Blogger - January 30, 2013

@ 1568; 1574

On why some Trekkers feel a little disappointed in Abrams vision of Star Trek.

THX-1138,

First, let me say that you wrote two very good posts. Second, yes I did say DS9 was talky but let me say this. I liked DS9. I liked DS9 more than Star Trek 2009

You then ask this question of us:

“How come I just don’t get a ‘Trek’ feeling from JJ’s production? Why can’t I get as excited about it as everyone else (save perhaps for you, Silvereyes)? I mean, I watched Insurrection last night for Pete’s sake and found myself getting into it! How can I prefer that to Trek 09?”

Before the 17 year to 28 year old demographic jumps on me, let me say I liked Star Trek 2009. But like you, I was left a little cold by it. Why?

THX, Star Trek 2009 was not made for Trekkers. Director J.J. Abrams said this,

“We weren’t making a movie for fans of Star Trek. We were making a movie for fans of movies.” Entertainment Weekly, Oct. 24, 2008 pg. 30.

It was made for the audience that regularly goes to the movies in the summer. Teenagers. Link. The proof is on the first disc of the movie in the documentary “A New Vision.” The section is called, “What can we learn from Star Wars here?” It’s a question posed by Abrams to change Star Trek to appeal to the “modern” movie audience. “Modern movie audience” is an euphemism for teenagers.

Here’s the problem with that approach. Star Trek is not Star Wars. Star Trek is science fiction. Star Wars is science fantasy. Case in point. Remember the great movie Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back; the gigantic worm living in an asteroid? Fun but completely unscientific. No atmosphere, gravity or food for that worm. At least, Star Trek tries to stick to science. The Trek TV series had science advisors.

But here’s the biggest difference. Star Wars is your basic black and white story about good versus evil. Star Trek is about ideas. Scientific. Philosophical. Take for example the TOS “The Devil in the Dark.” Could have easily been a monster tale. Instead, it’s a story about tolerance.

We love Star Trek because it did three things well. It told tales that had adventure, heart and intelligence.

SECOND STAR TO THE RIGHT. AND STRAIGHT ON TILL MORNING.

I’ve seen the first nine minutes of Star Trek Into Darkness. And I’m encouraged. It’s very good start. Bringing in the Prime Directive was a great idea. It has me thinking and hopefully it has new Trekkers and non-Trekkers thinking. It was also exciting if a bit too fast in the pacing area. Still, I’m looking forward to STID. So, let’s hope we can calll STID, “a Star Trek movie.”

Link. TV is for adults; cinema is for teenagers
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130612646

1578. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1535 to @1538

That imagine should be redone to show fat old ugly Hammill and fat old ugly Fischer holding JJ, with Chris Pine in the back doing all the laughing.

LOL

1579. PaulB - January 30, 2013

#1576 – What are you talking about? In the article you linked, it mentions that Abrams was “flipping out” when he learned that Ardnt and Kasdan are already working on the movie. So, Abrams is excited that the writers already started working, but–according to you–no one told him they already started. HUH?!?!

1580. PaulB - January 30, 2013

#1576 – Oh, wait…did you thinking “flipping out” in this context meant Abrams was mad? No, he was “on the ceiling” and thrilled about them already working on it. If you meant something else, then I still say HUH?!

1581. dmduncan - January 30, 2013

1577. Bill Peters – January 30, 2013

dmduncan, Bob Orci for one, and I am sure there are others.

***

Not what I mean. When the topic is replacing JJ we’re talking about replacing directors. Who is the hotshot young director with his kind of influence, who is also a Star Trek fan, who is going to replace him?

1582. MJ - January 30, 2013

“But maybe some of you can help me. How come I just don’t get a ‘Trek’ feeling from JJ’s production? Why can’t I get as excited about it as everyone else (save perhaps for you, Silvereyes)? I mean, I watched Insurrection last night for Pete’s sake and found myself getting into it! How can I prefer that to Trek 09? Is it the different actors? Is it really the AU? It just doesn’t have the right ‘tone’ for me. And that’s strange given that all the rest of the Trek movies are made by different productions, have different ‘tones’ from each other, and DEFINITELY are of varying degrees of quality.”

I think it is because you are so used to the “traditional Trek” that you have somewhat closed your mind to a fresh approach. Let me explain before you react the wrong way here please….

A lot of people didn’t like TMP because it was a fresh approach — in fact they brought in Harve Bennett and kicked out Gene Roddenberry to go back to a more traditional TOS-like series of Trek movies instead of the new “hard sf” approach that Gene Roddenberry wanted to take. For my part, I like both the TMP fresh approach, as well as the going back to basics approach in Trek 2 and its sequels…to me, they all fit within possible Star Trek approached.

So now in 2009, JJ takes Trek the other way from tradition — injecting more action and reducing talk — going to a bit of a “softer sf” approach. For my part, I embraced this change, and it still seemed like it was within the realm of possible Star Trek approaches for me.

So, in conclusion, to provide you a bit of “tough love” advice here as a fellow fan who wants you to enjoy nuTrek more, I recommend that you need to be more open and accepting to new Trek approaches and not been so stubbornly tied to the past. I urge you to reject sentimentality and try to embrace these changes in Trek.

1583. Disinvited - January 30, 2013

#1549. Picard, Jean-Luc,1561. Bill Peters 15

STAR TREK is never going to be regarded as STAR WARS equal on ticket sales alone in the media. Besides, the behaviors you are ascribing to Nufans, not consuming avaricely all ancillary merchandizing regardless of quality are that which a much older (and undesirable given Paramount et al’s claimed objectives) demographic.
What you suggest is significant. But as in Trek of old, TPTB don’t appear ready to deal with it. So in the media which will always be comparing it to SW, this Trek is doomed to be perceived as coming up short.

1584. NuFan - January 30, 2013

Well, since the old canon is never coming back, they have no choice. But I do feel sorry for the people who want to get their hopes up every four years for the next century or so.

It must be a strange feeling to realize you were only ever in it for the canon.

1585. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1582.

“Not what I mean. When the topic is replacing JJ we’re talking about replacing directors. Who is the hotshot young director with his kind of influence, who is also a Star Trek fan, who is going to replace him?”

If Orci is not available, then I would say: Neil Blomkamp or Duncan Jones.

Pick one. Either would be a “genius pick” for Trek 3, and we’d likely get a bit more serious of a Trek movie that with JJ’s/Orci’s style, which might be a good change of pace.

1586. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1585. If you are that wedded to canon, then you must have been extremely disappointed that Khan didn’t rise to power and escape Earth in the 1990′s.

Hey, but it’s only 40 years to WWIII, right?

;-)

1587. Vultan - January 30, 2013

#1574, 1578

Excellent points, guys. I’ve struggled to find the Trek “feel” in Abrams’ Trek as well. Maybe it’s because it’s aimed at a younger age group. Trek Lite, so to speak. But I still look forward to seeing Into Darkness, if only to see if it really does “go deeper.”

The difference in Trek and Wars I think is apparent in those they inspire: Trek is a favorite among scientists, engineers, astronauts and the like, while Wars seems to be a bigger inspiration among filmmakers, composers, special effects artists and so on.

1588. THX-1138 - January 30, 2013

#1583 MJ

I don’t mind the tough love. I have kids and sometimes have to apply it liberally to them all.

I can see where you are coming from. And I would also admit to being stubborn when it comes to certain changes. I think we can all agree that JJ’s approach to Star Trek was something of a departure. But now that I’ve taken the time (briefly) to ponder my own question I think there are a number of reasons I could include with your own theory. It could be seeing different actors in the parts. In the same way that I enjoy some of the fan productions (Star Trek Continues being the one I most anticipate) I am constantly being taken out of the story by the fact that the actors are different. I don’t know if it’s good or bad but it’s real. And as I have said many times before, I was disappointed to find out that Trek 09 was going to be in an alternate timeline. That has soured me on it and I, perhaps unfairly, just haven’t given it a chance.

Make no mistake, I’ll see STID this summer. And I will enjoy the experience of seeing it. But that stupid voice in my head is going to keep squawking at me about how it’s not really Star Trek. It’s like going out on a date with a beautiful blonde and being disappointed because you prefer brunettes.

1589. THX-1138 - January 30, 2013

#1585 NuFan

And then I try to take comments such as this as if they’re not meant to be trollish.

You see, this is how the argument starts. Nobody needs your feigned pity or condescension. Nobody was doing that to you.

1590. MJ - January 30, 2013

“It’s like going out on a date with a beautiful blonde and being disappointed because you prefer brunettes.”

Well, having been married for 23 years, either of these options sound great. ;-)

(in case anybody in the real world who I know sees this, I am KIDDING!)

1591. Craiger - January 30, 2013

Didn’t the non Trek fans not want to see Trek because it had more science and not enough action in it and thought you have to understand science in order to understand Trek? Then JJ changed that by adding more action and less science. However as I said before they aren’t exactly clamoring for more Trek. I guess we will find out of that’s true with the STID box office report.

1592. captain_neill - January 30, 2013

JJ Abrams comment about Star Wars “I want to go justice to the fans.”

His comment about Star Trek, “I’m not making this for Star Trek fans, Im making this for fans of movies”

What does this say about him? Even though he made Star Trek popular again it sounds like he is more thrilled at having Star Wars.

Not sure I like the tone saying he is respecting fans of one franchise and saying he is making a film for the fans on the other franchise, and it is the one he said he was not making for the fans that I am a bigger fan of.

1593. NuFan - January 30, 2013

“it’s not really Star Trek”

Actual Trolling.

1594. Phil - January 30, 2013

Well, Anthony has surfaced….

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1700868/jj-abrams-star-wars-star-trek-fan-reactions.jhtml

1595. JJ's Secret - January 30, 2013

To me, it looks like Star Wars has stolen all the press away from Star Trek… Star Wars wins.

1596. Phil - January 30, 2013

@1593. Well, that quote doesn’t really sound like that of a moviemaker. I’d expect him to bring the same sense of telling a story for fans and non-fans alike, regardless of the franchise. It would also imply he’s taking a shot at George Lucas, also not a wise move.

Even taking it at face value, it’s an isolated comment. JJ, and the rest of the staff, have fallen all over themselves to be mindful of the fan base, too. Mr. Orci puts up with a lot of s**t when he visits the site here. All the producers comments, in context, suggest they have healthy feelings for how devoted the fan base is here as well.

1597. Craiger - January 30, 2013

Phil – Is Anthony becoming like JJ and he is overextending himself and that is why he doesn’t spend too much time here. :)

1598. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1595.

So it would seem that MTV is now “THE source for everything new in Trek”

Be nice if he could take a break from his hipster grandstanding on pay tv and update the real fans who frequent his site daily here.

1599. THX-1138 - January 30, 2013

#1594 NuFan

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Trolling on the internet is posting remarks that could be taken as derisive or condescending to the other posters in a particular comment thread. Trying to pick a fight by saying something inflammatory.

“Well, since the old canon is never coming back, they have no choice. But I do feel sorry for the people who want to get their hopes up every four years for the next century or so.

It must be a strange feeling to realize you were only ever in it for the canon.”

That looks like trolling to me.

1600. Phil - January 30, 2013

@1596. Hate to break the news, but based on box office, content, and merchindise Star Wars has been winning for about 25 years now….

1601. Red Dead Ryan - January 30, 2013

#1596.

I think this helps Paramount by forcing their hand. For a long time now, the studio allowed J.J Abrams and co. to take as much time needed and to miss several deadlines. But ever since the Disney/Lucasfilm deal happened, and certainly more so after Abrams has agreed to direct the next “Star Wars” film, I’m absolutely certain that Paramount won’t tolerate any more procrastination/delays on the part of the producers and writers.

Paramount sees what Disney has done, and now the Paramount is going to have to up their game to ensure that the new fan base created by the last Trek movie doesn’t get swallowed up by Disney.

Paramount is also going to be forced to do better promotions overseas.

At the end of the day, Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm is the kick in the butt that Paramout needed to ensure the strong continuation of it’s “Star Trek” film franchise. Even though it might result in J.J Abrams only producing, not directing, the third Trek movie.

1602. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1593. Well before we take this all personally and label JJ the Trek version of the Antichrist, let’s acknowledge that the Trek “market” for movie goers needed to be expanded greatly and the SW “market” does not. That’s where he is coming from here.

But if folks want to whine about his intentions and misconstrue this, have at it. I just don see these comments in that light.

1603. MJ - January 30, 2013

“At the end of the day, Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm is the kick in the butt that Paramout needed to ensure the strong continuation of it’s “Star Trek” film franchise. Even though it might result in J.J Abrams only producing, not directing, the third Trek movie.”

I agree completely, RDR.

1604. THX-1138 - January 30, 2013

#1602 RDR

There is some truth to what you are saying. I hope the converse of what you are saying doesn’t come to pass, though. That being that if JJ’s involvement with Star Wars interferes with a Trek production to the point that Paramount pulls the plug on Bad Robot’s involvement and we have to start at square one again. JJ does seem to spread himself thin and when you take into consideration that in his heart he probably is more excited about Star Wars than Star Trek we could find ourselves “Trekless’ again.

1605. Phil - January 30, 2013

@1602. Agreed. Back when the Lucasfilm deal was announced I didn’t feel that it was going to be an issue for STID, but that Paramount was going to have to decide if they wanted Trek in theaters more frequently then every four or five years. While Star Wars may be the kick in the pants, Paramount also have to look at how Disney is managing Marvel, and recognize that cranking out some moneymakers on a regular basis is good for the fans and the bottom line.

1606. MJ - January 30, 2013

And actually, once the sequel has completed its movie run, say mid-summer of this year, I’d like to see Paramount quietly get a different Exec Producer for Trek 3. JJ’s been outstanding, but I really don’t want a JJ who’s activities are divided running Trek from here on out. I mean, you can’t head both GM and Ford.

1607. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1605. Yea — great minds think alike — just posted above and saw your post, THX-1138.

1608. Red Dead Ryan - January 30, 2013

J.J Abrams’ statements about not making Trek movies strictly for the fans isn’t a slap in the face to us. He’s just against appeasing a die-hard, oftern fanatical and somewhat funadamentalist fan base.

1609. Red Dead Ryan - January 30, 2013

funadamentalist=fundementalist

DAMN TYPOS!!!

1610. Craiger - January 30, 2013

Would Paramount want to reboot Trek again? The general movie going audience probably has gotten used to the new cast. Unless they can reboot Trek again with the new cast? Or would Trek have to have an all new look and feel again? How many times can you reboot Trek with everyone loosing interest? Paramount even thought they overextended Trek by having too many series and movies at one time.

1611. Phil - January 30, 2013

@1607. Considering all the projects Bad Robot has active and in development, he’s been spread really thin for a while now. At some point JJ is going to have to just settle in and run the empire, like Spielberg does…

1612. Craiger - January 30, 2013

RDR and that type of Trek that die hard fans like wouldn’t appeal to the general movie going audience right?

1613. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1611. One idea, and I think this is a REALLY BAD idea, is, after the 3rd movie, some dumbass at Paramount decides that they should reboot TNG along the same lines of JJ-Trek.

But I could just seem them bringing in a Bryan Singer B+ type of guy to try to do this.

1614. Ahmed - January 30, 2013

@1614. MJ

Agreed, that would a very bad dumb idea. Last year in Calgary Expo, someone in the audience asked Sir. Patrick Stewart about this very idea & his response was “Why?”

They should either continue with the current cast or come up with a new crew & ship in a far future setting, maybe 200 or 500 years after the events of Voyager.

1615. Craiger - January 30, 2013

Well we don’t know how the TNG era got effected by the AU? Would the ships still look the same or more advanced since the Enterprise is more advanced in the new timeline. If that’s the case I wonder if they could even reboot TNG because TNG would maybe be too advanced with too much technobabble?

1616. Ahmed Greene - January 30, 2013

@ 1611 – They just rebooted Spiderman after 3 movies and IIRC they’re going to reboot Batman as well?

Of course I actually really enjoyed the newest Spiderman and really didn’t expect to at all.

Can they reboot Trek again after this reboot? Yes. Should they? Probably not, seems silly but hollywood is rarely anything but.

1617. Bill Peters - January 30, 2013

1597. Phil agree it is good to have Mr. Orci around, I agree with RDR on this Comment: At the end of the day, Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm is the kick in the butt that Paramout needed to ensure the strong continuation of it’s “Star Trek” film franchise. Even though it might result in J.J Abrams only producing, not directing, the third Trek movie.

Also Craiger, Movies solely aimed at the fan based for Star Trek haven’t done well outside Search for Spock, Nemesis was made purely for fans and it bombed, if not for Star Trek 09 we would have no new Star Trek Movies to talk about at all that is how bad Nemesis did, the only thing that got us Trek Back was 09 movie and new take. Now Star Trek II, III,IV,VI and First Contact all did well at the box office bu they were weak in comparsion to TMP and 2009. for Parmount Star Trek has to be a Money Maker.

1618. Greg Stamper - January 30, 2013

I’m waiting for the announcement that the next Star Wars movie will be made for the general public and not just its fans.

1619. P Technobabble - January 30, 2013

I think the re-booting of Star Trek was a great idea and brought us back to the root of Trek, which was Kirk, Spock and McCoy. I look forward to the new movie and I look forward to a 3rd movie by the current writers and producers (the director is obviously up in the air).
However, I want to suggest again what has been suggested by numerous others — the “next” Star Trek should be with all-new characters and an all-new orientation. I think of all the Treks that followed TOS, DS9 is the series that showed us it could work. Star Trek doesn’t have to keep rehashing itself ad infinitum. The VOY concept could have worked… even as a dramatic film… but it got sucked back into the “Star Trek as usual.”
The Supreme Court did a great job of shaking Trek up. I think next it should be spun on its head…

1620. Craiger - January 30, 2013

#1617 – They did wait 5 years after the Toby Maguire films to reboot Spiderman again. I actually thought they really didn’t need to reboot them anyway because they were just showing how he became Spiderman again. Plus more people know how Spiderman got his powers then how Kirk and crew got together.

1621. Bill Peters - January 30, 2013

by the way Bob Orci Could if he wants too Direct Star Trek 3, he should be given the chance sence he does Write the Scripts and is a Fan, and to book end the first two movies it will be perfect.

1622. Craiger - January 30, 2013

How many times can you reboot something before people grow tired of it? Like I said before I don’t Paramount wants a repeat with too much Trek like they did in the 90′s

1623. Ahmed - January 30, 2013

CBS should bring Star Trek back to the TV. It been so many years without a Trek series & given the lack of other space based series now, this might be a good time to do that.

1624. Bill Peters - January 30, 2013

Even if Abrams doesn’t return to helm a third “Trek,” Malmat cautions upset fans to look at the bigger picture. “As important as directors are, it’s the story that counts,” she says. “As long as the story is good, the third rebooted ‘Trek’ movie will be just fine. Just don’t expect lots of lens flare.”

1625. Disinvited - January 30, 2013

#1595. Phil – January 30, 2013, and 1599. MJ – January 30, 2013

I’d agree if it was new but I posted that way back at message1216 addressed to you, MJ.

1626. Phil - January 30, 2013

I don’t know if re-boot is the right word after Trek 13. I’d disagree with the observation that the public is used to this new cast, they have seen them once. .What’s more likely is the cast would be given the chance to do more movies, if they didn’t want to, they would be replaced. No one is under any illusion that this group of actors will be reprising their roles into their sixties. That, and these guys are not nearly as typecast as Shatner and Nimoy were when TOS ended it’s run. No one is sitting around saying they can’t imagine life without Chris Pine playing Kirk. The Bond movies recast their lead every few years, it would not kill Trek to do the same….

1627. Disinvited - January 30, 2013

#1607. MJ – January 30, 2013

You mean like how Steve Jobs was on the boards of both PIXAR and Apple?

1609. Red Dead Ryan – January 30, 2013

You type that as if STAR WARS doesn’t have a die-hard, often fanatical and somewhat fundamentalist fan base. I often wonder if Abrams as gotten himself into something he didn’t anticipate believing himself to be one of them.

#1623. Craiger – January 30, 2013

As many times as teenagers keep getting older and replaced by new ones? I’d say the span of high school: 4 years.

1628. Disinvited - January 30, 2013

#1628.

Make that:

I often wonder if Abrams HAS gotten himself into something he didn’t anticipate believing himself to be one of them.

1629. Ahmed - January 30, 2013

Abrams : “Okay, George. So the main bad guy is a billowing cloud of black smoke and Luke has to defeat him by running around the corner and sticking a plug in the ground.”

Lucas: “Fine, but only if Jar-Jar’s kids are in it. One of them can be a Jedi with dual-wielding lightsabres which he comically uses to smash up the scenery whenever the pace slackens.”

Abrams : “Deal.”

http://thewertzone.blogspot.ca/2013/01/jj-abrams-will-direct-star-wars-episode.html

1630. DeShonn Steinblatt - January 30, 2013

1619.

Well, Kathleen Kennedy said just that. Is that good enough, or does it have to come specifically from Abrams?

1631. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1638. And where is jobs now?

;-)

1632. MJ - January 30, 2013

A new featurette on STID released today — full coverage and video on Collider.com at:

http://collider.com/star-trek-into-darkness-featurette/

PS: I am really sorry to have to bring this up again, BUT WHY ISN”T ANTHONY AROUND TO COVER THIS??? I am embarrassed for Anthony and for this web site. This really sucks!!!

1633. Red Shirt Diaries - January 30, 2013

MJ,

Yea, I thought for sure Anthony would have posted something by now. This is unacceptable. And you are right; I am embarrassed for him. I mean this is his own site that is suppose to be covering the new movie, right?

1634. Star Trek:Voyeur - January 30, 2013

Perhaps he’s busy working on Warsmovie.com?

1635. Jack - January 30, 2013

1615. Agreed. I’d argue that there’s nothing iconic about those particular characters, except maybe Picard. And their stories never really worked well on the big screen.

I love the idea of TOS-aged Kirk and Spock having these incredible big budget adventures. We never got to see that. Picard struggling with ethics in his ready room? We’ve seen that, and it was already done pretty perfectly.

There was always a sense that TOS was Kirk’s heyday. But you didn’t get that sense with Picard in TNG, even though they tried to make it seem like he was raring for one last adventure in the movies — it usually seemed like Picard was very happy and wiser than he’d ever been in the present, even in his 60s.

1636. BatlethInTheGroin - January 30, 2013

#1634: Saying “This is unacceptable” makes you sound ridiculous. This isn’t a case of “acceptable” or “unacceptable,” since he owes people nothing.

1637. Red Shirt Diaries - January 30, 2013

BattleinTheGroin,

When I say its “unacceptable,” I am speaking of Anthony not meeting his own great standards that he use to achieved on this site. It should be unacceptable to him — he set the standard here and still boldly proclaims at the top of this web page: The Source for Everything New in Trek.

He’s not meeting his own standard that he boldy and publicly set, and still proclaims here for all to see. Of course that should be unacceptable to him.

1638. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1638. Agreed, Red Shirt.

TrekWeb is another source I use. They don’t put up some bold proclamation that claims they are “THE” trek source. So I don’t hold them to as high a standard as I do this site, which flat out says to public its “THE SOURCE” for everything new in Trek.

If you are going to “talk the talk”, then don’t act so surprised when people comment when fail to “walk the walk”.

1639. Jack - January 30, 2013

BTW. I never thought The Amazing Spider-Man was unnecessary. The origin is an essential part of Spidey — you can’t have a brand-new teenaged Spidey in a brand new universe without showing how he got there. Sure, we saw it for Macguire. But this is a whole other web head entirely.

So Anthony’s working, to some degree, on the comics. Has he crossed over onto the production side of Trek?

1640. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1637. Its a for-profit site with click ads, so their is a customer-service provide relationship here for us frequent visitors to his site. If we stop coming, he get’s less ad revenue. So yea, he does owe us a quality site or his wallet suffers.

I would be during the heavy movie interest periods like right now, the site is bringing in at least $1000/month in ad revenue. I know for a fact that the underlying software is somehow keeping track of my web surfing, because I constantly get targeted ads on this site based on other sites I have visited.

1641. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1640. But I skipped on seeing the movie, along with millions of others, because of the been-there-done that nature of ANOTHER Spiderman origin story. I still haven’t bothered to get around to seeing it even though my younger son has the Blu-Ray.

1642. K-7 - January 30, 2013

Guys, I agree. Anthony mission statement publicly says this site is the most important source for news on the new movie, and he makes money via our participation on the site.

So of course he owes us a good site that is updated regularly, and of course its unacceptable when he ignores the site. Case Closed!

1643. Jack - January 30, 2013

1640. Yep, a pretty popular opinion. Entire filn reviews said it was a good movie but shouldn’t have been made. But it was made, and it works. I’d suggest you give it a shot. Keep your expectations low. In my opinion, It works a lot better, I think, than Raimi’s did. It’s a much smaller movie — which makes sense, Spidey ‘s not Superman. There are weak spots, sure, but it’s more like Spider-Man (and much more like Ultimate Spider-Man, which I loved) than Raimi’s movie. And the origin works for thos Peter Parker — the basics are there (Spider bite/WTF I gave powers?/sad, dead Uncle Ben) but it’s a whole different tune. I gotta admit: I didn’t really like Raimi’s Spider-Man… it never found the right balance between maufactured you-should-care-about-this reality and comic-campy (but that scene in Spider-Man 2, on the train when gets unmasked, made me weep). And this is anathema, but I actually prefer Spidey 3 to the first one, Topher Grace aside. Spidey 2 is a good movie period (better than 3).

The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie period (despite a few contrivances and hokey touches), not just a good Spider-Man movie.

1644. Jack - January 30, 2013

1640. Yep, a pretty popular opinion. Entire filn reviews said it was a good movie but shouldn’t have been made. But it was made, and it works. I’d suggest you give it a shot. Keep your expectations low. In my opinion, It works a lot better, I think, than Raimi’s did. It’s a much smaller movie — which makes sense, Spidey ‘s not Superman. There are weak spots, sure, but it’s more like Spider-Man (and much more like Ultimate Spider-Man, which I loved) than Raimi’s movie. And the origin works for thos Peter Parker — the basics are there (Spider bite/WTF I gave powers?/sad, dead Uncle Ben) but it’s a whole different tune. I gotta admit: I didn’t really like Raimi’s Spider-Man… it never found the right balance between maufactured you-should-care-about-this reality and comic-campy (but that scene in Spider-Man 2, on the train when gets unmasked, made me weep). And this is anathema, but I actually prefer Spidey 3 to the first one, Topher Grace aside. Spidey 2 is a good movie period (better than 3).

The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie period (despite a few contrivances and hokey touches), not just a good Spider-Man movie.

1645. Jack - January 30, 2013

I have powers, not ‘I gave powers.’

Webb even got booed for not including the ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ line (he didn’t include because it was expected, and because it would have pulled people out of the movie). I think not using it was great, and I hope they keep it out of this next one, if anybody who happens to be, say, writing a Spider-Man sequel is listening.

1646. Jack - January 30, 2013

Sorry for the double post — browser hang-up.

1647. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1644. OK, I’ll give it a shot soon and let you know. I liked the first Spiderman though — William Defoe is one of my favorite actors, and I’ve always loved Cliff Robertson. I thought Spiderman 2 and 3 tried to do too much.

1648. MJ - January 30, 2013

…and the dance scene in Spiderman 3…WTF was that all about???

1649. MJ - January 30, 2013

Why are they making an Entourage movie…aren’t those guys all like well into their 40′s now? It’s just not believable. Their should pair them up with the Sex and the City girls and do an Over The Hill Gang reboot. LOL

1650. Red Dead Ryan - January 30, 2013

I agree that Anthony has been neglectful here. He either needs to personally update the site, or get someone else to.

As for “The Amazing Spider-Man”, it was average. Nothing we haven’t seen before.

It was a competently made movie, but offered nothing new.

1651. Red Dead Ryan - January 30, 2013

I thought “Spider-Man 2″ was the best of the bunch. Doc Ock was great.

The ugly Donna Murphy, well, I was glad her character got killed.

Can’t believe they cast her to play Picard’s love interest in “Insurrection”.

1652. Jack - January 30, 2013

What are you gonna get new out of a comic book movie? The Raini movies also gave us nothing we hadn’t seen in the comics? What, Peter Parker should have been a lesbian accountant bitten by a chinchilla in Panama City in the 1890s?

1653. Jack - January 30, 2013

10-4. Cool. Yeah, Sp3 was a mess, don’t get me wrong. I love Dafoe, I hated that damned GG costume. Love Robertson, was annoyed that that damned Raimi Olds took centre stage in his death scene… as I recall (?). Also, the whole concept of organic web shooters was dumb. Sure, it led to endless splooge jokes from reviewers, but dumb.

I liked that TASpM gave Spidey his shooters back. Maybe I have no imagination.

1654. LaForge_to_Bridge - January 30, 2013

@ 1593. captain_neill

I agree with your sentiment. I think he would be more thrilled, given that he already said he was more of a Star Wars fan growing up. This is a dream come true for him.

We’ll see how it turns out.

@ 1592 Craiger

I really don’t know how non-Trek fans would get the idea that Trek films had more “science” in them. For whatever reasons mainstream interest in Trek dwindled until Trek11 recharged it.

I don’t really Star Wars hurting the upcoming movie in any way. Paramount wouldn’t let that happen as they have put quite a bit of money into this thing.

Even so, Episode VII is a long ways off so the films wouldn’t even compete at the box office. Part of me thinks that people trying to have the franchises but imaginary heads are looking for drama where there isn’t any.

1619. Greg Stamper

I wish the announcement would be:
“I making this movie for fans of movies, period.”

I think anything else is patronizing.

1655. Disinvited - January 30, 2013

#1608 MJ

That’s not the Disney Corp I know. They want it all. That’s why they’re not content with simple copyright expiration, and move heaven, earth and congress every 5 to 10 years to rewrite copyright so they don’t lose a dime from the mouse.

Sorry, I just don’t buy it that Disney hired JJ with no market projected goals that their number crunchers came up with. There has to be at least incentives far in excess of anything that Paramount could have offered for making historic record takes.

1656. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1656 Hmm, did my earlier post touch on this topic? I’m not sure what I said earlier (post #1608 ?) that you are referring to here?

1657. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1655 “I really don’t know how non-Trek fans would get the idea that Trek films had more “science” in them?”

Perhaps because Trek films did have more science in them than Star Wars films. Duh! :-) Trek is science fiction, Wars is science fantasy.

1658. Disinvited - January 30, 2013

#1660. LaForge_to_Bridge.

I wish Abrams had one consistent voice on that: “I make my movies for fans of movies.”

Because it is utter baloney that the STAR WARS attendance can’t be improved upon and Disney doesn’t care to aim to so do.

1659. MJ - January 30, 2013

@1659. Not sure what you are so excited about here???

1660. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

Fired up the computer to compare. Did hard resets on both. Mobile still shows the message of yours which I replied to as 1608 but computer shows 1603. So 5messages have been deleted and renumberings rippling through. Well subtract 5 if my reference doesn’t jell. I’m going to bed and hope it stabilizes in the morning.

#1662(1657?). MJ

You were justifying Abrams 2 different takes on fans and whether his movies should have different approaches in addressing them based on the misperception that SW has to room to grow with non-fans.

1661. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

#1661.

“…SW has to room..” should be “…SW has NO room…”

1662. captain_neill - January 31, 2013

I am still looking forward to Star Trek Into Darkness.

To me I think Star Trek is much better than Star Wars, and that statement just made him sound like a bit of a hypocrite.

1663. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

#1396. Bob Tompkins – January 28, 2013

From March 1, 1981:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=F2QuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CtoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1633,254265

“STAR TREK — THE MOTION PICTURE, released in December, 1979, grossed $170 million world-wide, but was not considered successful because of its $50 million plus production cost.” – Lou Gaul, Entertainment Editor of the New Jersey BURLINGTON COUNTY TIMES, OVERKILL CAN KILL A MOVIE, column 3 paragraph 1 of article

1664. Mark Lynch - January 31, 2013

The thing is about the TMP production costs is that the $50 million total included all the money spent when it was going to be phase II.

So that includes the sets, models, stories which were written. Everything.

I have no idea what those exact figures are, but I would not be surprised if the Phase II stuff came to at least $20-25 million.

1665. Mark Lynch - January 31, 2013

So who is looking forward to their nerdgasm when they are the one who puts post number 1701 on here? ;-)

1666. Traek - January 31, 2013

SO THAT MEANS SOON THERE WILL BE A POST-JJ-STARTREK ERA:

THANKS GOD.

For the next producer please make an IQ test before hiring.

1667. Bobbi - January 31, 2013

Anthony, if you’re reading this, please do away with the comment sections in your articles. They do nothing but kill the vibe of your website. It always de-evolves into fighting and trolling and it makes your site look bad.

People will claim vehemently that they’ll stop coming to this site if you do kill the comments section, but I suspect you know good and well that Trek fans will still come here like moths to a flame with or without a comments section.

As it is, the comments that appear in nearly every article are embarassing and continue to put a black eye on all that is good about your site.

1668. DanielCraigIsMyWookieBitch - January 31, 2013

1527 MJ,
Trust me I Still read The articles and occasionally scroll through here, I just dont post any longer
Cause I got sick of all The endless bickering.
You dont see that over at Trekcore, where people can disagree, but Still be
Civil.

In anycase I never said it would never go that low.
I said it would be a long time before it did, and guess what it took atleast 4 yrs for it to. And its Still not dropped below 110 for The complete series on mainstream retailers.

Oh incase anyone didnt hear, CBS is releasing a Best Of Both worlds ”feature length” cut on Bluray as individial release same day season 3 hits blu.
P.S. And MJ its IS My WookieBitch not WAS lol!
Ok back to my self imposed TrekMovie commemtz exile ;-)

1669. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

#1665. Mark Lynch – January 31, 2013

I agree with you. Although I thought the reporting that it made $170 million rather than the oft quoted “$139 million” was more significant. Also this same source in a November 1979 article says Paramount would get $50 million in the bank from Blind Bid advances from making its premier on time which it did.

1670. Jaj - January 31, 2013

Re: #1428:

“Check this out — Christopher Nolan’s next film:

“The new film, titled Interstellar, is said to be based on scientific theories developed by Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicist, gravitational physicist and astrophysicist at Caltech, the California Institute of Technology. Described as complex and multilayered, it will centre on a group of space explorers who travel through a wormhole.”

Interesting stuff. Sounds like Star Trek in all but name ;)

DMDuncan, re: #1582:

“When the topic is replacing JJ we’re talking about replacing directors. Who is the hotshot young director with his kind of influence, who is also a Star Trek fan, who is going to replace him?”

Christopher Nolan increasingly looks like a suitable choice. I don’t know if he’s actually a Star Trek fan (maybe someone should ask him ? Bob Orci ?), but the plot summary for his next film shows Nolan definitely has an interest in exactly the kind of subjects that many would say Star Trek is supposed to be all about. It could just be a happy coincidence…or maybe Nolan has been a secret Trekkie all along ;)

1671. Jai - January 31, 2013

^^That post was by me. You see, in Hindi, the letters “j” and “i” are interchangeable and…ah, phooey, who am I trying to kid. I just clicked the wrong button when typing my name.

I’d also like to add that the Dr Evil-style photo at the top — with JJ cocking his head to one side and touching his finger to his mouth — looks suspiciously like JJ is thinking “One BILLION dollars !”…

1672. Ahmed Greene - January 31, 2013

@ 1619 – re Star Wars being made for the general public.

Star Wars is a different animal than Star Trek. Star Wars has always had a more rabid and diverse fanbase and was always a movie series that was popular with a general audience. There’s really nothing that can make it appeal to an even bigger audience. Its going to be a huge movie no matter what and will probably break records.

1673. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

For those confused about who holds the upper hand in the Paramount/CBS split:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/movies/26itzk.html?_r=4

”That year[2006], the corporate behemoth Viacom, which owned “Star Trek,” was splitting itself in two, divorcing its CBS studio (which made the “Trek” shows) from its Paramount studio (which made the films). “Trek” was likely to go to CBS, where another television show might eventually be developed. Gail Berman, then the president of Paramount, convinced Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, to allow her one more chance at a “Trek” film; he gave her 18 months to get the cameras rolling or lose the property. (Under the arrangement CBS retained the “Star Trek” merchandising rights.)” – Dave Itzkoff, NEW YORK TIMES

1674. Mark Lynch - January 31, 2013

@1669
What is needed is a proper forum section where people have to register before they can post.

Would immediately take care of all the idiots posting under other peoples names or sockpuppeting new ones to back themselves up.

@1670
Interesting stuff indeed.

TMP does not get nearly enough love in the Trek World you know…

1675. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

#1673. Ahmed Greene – January 31, 2013

According to message 1431. Basement Blogger – January 28, 2013, SW has a way to go the reach the HARRY POTTER film franchise. I think It would be foolish to assume Disney is not goal oriented.

1676. BatlethInTheGroin - January 31, 2013

Anthony, if you’re reading this, please ignore post #1668. Doing away with the comments section would obviously be a HUGE step backward, and a decision devoid of common sense.

1677. Aurore - January 31, 2013

From a fan of movies, who loves the Star Trek franchise…. and…the Star Wars franchise :

“…But, the Star Wars prequels are nothing more than carefully crafted products to appeal to as many moviegoers as possible etc, etc…..”

( Continues at 1: 20 . Link if authorized here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-isAmaVbsM )

I am aware of the fact that it is one man’s opinion, but, I happen to agree with his point of view, on the matter.

…Thus, I am also in agreement with what Disinvited said @1656, 1659& 1661.

However, I, for one, never did mind about the “I make this movie for fans of movies” (?) comment. I liked it, in fact.

I liked it a lot.

1678. Billiam - January 31, 2013

It’s really bad that a Star Trek website is leaving us hanging with a Star Wars article. Not that I don’t like Star Wars, but this isn’t Warsmovie.com…

1679. Daniel Broadway - January 31, 2013

Picture of the JJ Enterprise mode kit coming out in May.

http://www.panzer-modell.de/specials/ontour/nuernberg13/12g.jpg

1680. Daniel Broadway - January 31, 2013

model*

1681. Craiger - January 31, 2013

Isn’t a moot point in discussing why Anthony doesn’t update this site? When or if he comes back and updates it he wont say why he has been gone or what’s happening with the status of Trek movie and why he takes off for long periods of time. No one will ask why Anthony takes these month long or longer breaks either. I think he knows that and he can allways count on his loyal viewers to be here and that we will be happy just to finally have updates. I think that is why he feels he can take off for so long.

1682. Aurore - January 31, 2013

“….Because it is utter baloney that the STAR WARS attendance can’t be improved upon and Disney doesn’t care to aim to so do.”
________

I concur.
George Lucas is a good businessman :

“…The great things about Disney….is that, you know, between the parks and all the things they got going, it’s great that we have a chance to probably expand that…there’s lots and lots of opportunities with Disney that we wouldn’t have with any other studio etc…”

(Continues at 0 :50 .Link if authorized, here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyqlTi7lkhY)

1683. Non-existant gay trek character - January 31, 2013

Maybe you guys have seen this, but I had not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Aik_4r2IVho

1684. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 31, 2013

1680. Daniel Broadway

Looks great!

Is it really that big?

1685. AJ - January 31, 2013

1684:

That is the Behind-the-Scenes short from the Esurance FB site.

1686. Spockchick - January 31, 2013

@1684.

I’d not seen that. It looks great but I am getting fed up with the dum dum dum DUM, dum dum dum DUM drum music on every single modern film score.

1687. Non-existant gay trek character - January 31, 2013

@1686:
I saw it on io9.com

@1687:
Ditto.

1688. Daniel Broadway - January 31, 2013

#1685

It’s reportedly about 588mm (23 inches) long. Ships in May.

1689. Robman007 - January 31, 2013

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems incredibly counter productive to announce that you are directing a film of a “rival franchise” while you are supposed to be doing promotion of the film that needs to be promoted (badly)…just seems a bit backwards and possibly telling of either the film or the individual.

I guess we shall see in May. I’m thinking the film will be great, but who knows…

1690. Optimistic Doodle - January 31, 2013

Yeah, @1690.
Hopefully ‘Star Trek’ will return in the center of the media soon.Has been a while now…

1691. AJ - January 31, 2013

1690:

Robman007, you are absolutely spot-on. However, I wouldn’t put the ‘rival franchise’ thing at the top of the list of errors.

While Disney has been spewing endlessly about JJ joining the team, and we have loads of details, Paramount is doing its usual ‘reverse-marketing’ by saying absolutely nothing. You sometimes wonder if they even know about it.

We’re three days out from the SuperBowl trailer, and there is buzz from the Iron Man and Volkswagen camps already. Star Trek? Nothing. Just like their reaction to JJ getting filched. No comment.

Paramount/Bad Robot, or however it works, should be looking at their top ten list of new directors as we speak, and should throw it out to fans on all the usual sites (cough! Brad Bird cough!) . Stop treating “Star Trek” like the third Olsen Twin

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lapd-discovers-hidden-deformed-olsen-triplet,576/

and give it some respect as the franchise that gave birth to the new ‘Star Wars guy.’ And that’s only if it’s any good!

1692. Mark Lynch - January 31, 2013

@1689
So let’s see, 588mm long at 1:500 scale = 294000mm
Let’s make the figures more user friendly and divide by 1000

JJ Prise is 294 metres long (Not what I’ve heard)

TOS Enterprise – 290 metres long
TMP Enterprise – 300 metres long

Hmmmmmmm…

1693. Daniel Broadway - January 31, 2013

@1693

Rumor has it in the modeling community that they have decided on a size of the Enterprise for Star Trek Into Darkness instead of being ambiguous. They say this one is more in line with TOS Enterprise size.

1694. Aurore - January 31, 2013

Correction. 1683.

“…The great things…” = “…The great thing…”

1695. Robman007 - January 31, 2013

I dunno. It just seems odd. The marketing strategy of this film seems beyond bizarre at times. They waiting to reveal the name of the villian, when it’s just a cookie cutter name that was not fitting of secrecy (unless he is actually Captain April)…it was heavily pushed in December..then nothing (except a comic book that ONLY trek fans will read)….

..then you have the director of said film getting more attention then his film that is due out in 4 months, all because he took a job on what the main stream audience considers a “rival franchise”….that alone is getting far more attention then a film that Paramount considers a “tent pole summer block buster…(it seems like Nemesis had more promotion)

It just seems so damn backwards and the secrecy so frustratingly obnoxious (or, secrecy disguising a piss poor marketing plan)…Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want spoilers extreme, but I’d like to see the film get it’s due promotion, especially when the future of the franchise is in it’s hands..

1696. The Electric Body - January 31, 2013

Thanks, Mr Abrams.

Because of you, Star Wars super-overshadows Star Trek.

Thank you very much.

1697. Phil - January 31, 2013

The Olsen Triplets?

1698. THX-1138 - January 31, 2013

I saw that scale and size for the Enterprise and did a little of my own math. Please be kind as I am terrible at math and figuring things out. Also as an American I convert from metric to stone age. So please forgive that as well.

I am figuring that the JJprise is now 958 feet long. I like that. It also seems to concur with what you smarter folks have figured out. That pic of the model still illustrates that it has some odd viewing angles, though. I have to admit that it is growing on me. Not too keen on the submersible aspect but I will wait to see how it plays out in the movie.

And AJ I am totally with you. Where the heck is Paramount in all of this “JJ directs Star Wars” stuff? No announcement, no nothing. If one were given to conspiracy theories you would wonder if Paramount is deliberately trying to sabotage Star Trek or run their own studios into the ground for some nefarious purpose. Really odd.

1699. Son Of MJ - January 31, 2013

uh JAJ,
you do realize that Christopher Nolan is a BIGGER name than JJ Abrams right? its not like JJ has directed a movie that is one of the 4 highest grossing movies of all time. heck he hasn’t even made a movie thats cracked the top 10 movies of all time list.
Not only that that him and his production company are firmly entrenched at Warner Bros, its been his home since his pretty much his career started

JJ started at Buena Vista(Disney) then signed a deal at paramount and is now once more going to be making a film at Disney.

1700. Son Of MJ - January 31, 2013

I did I am 1701 :)

1701. EM - January 31, 2013

Can I be 1701 E?

1702. EM - January 31, 2013

Darn.

1703. Son Of MJ - January 31, 2013

Aj the irony is that the 3rd Olsen sister(albiet not a tripplet)Elisabeth Olsen is the sister who can actually ACT.
haha

1704. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

MJ,

Handheld did not sync posts numbers until 11amPST

1705. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

MJ,

If you look at the Newest article at the top of Latest Articles, you will find Dr. Livingston.

1706. Aashlee - January 31, 2013

528. Disinvited – January 25, 2013

“You are woefully uninformed. Abrams said his infamous line in response to Disney sending him a SW treatment after announcing the acquisition.”

Fine, I concede that my timing was off. (“Woefully” uninformed? How dramatic.) However, all my other points still hold. Abrams can work on more than one thing. Between Trek and Wars, it doesn’t have to be either/or, it can be both. And, above all, Abrams’ career is Abrams’ business, not ours. If you like what he’s putting out there in the market, then consume it. If not, then don’t.

1707. Phil - January 31, 2013

Suggesting that Paramount would sabotage a 165MM dollar investment isn’t the stuff of conspiracy, its just a non issue. The second GI Joe was a dog, and they pumped additional money into it to fix it, they didn’t walk away from it. Theres no reason to suspect they would do any different with Trek12 if it had problems….

1708. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

Aashlee – January 31, 2013

Seriously, you really need to catch up. See this site’s owner interview at mtv.com cited by me in message 1218 with pertinent passage quoted message 1221 as for why your reasoning that began with faulty information is still uninformed and unsound.

Also, there is the impatience of one Les Moonves noted in my message 1679.

1709. Aurore - January 31, 2013

“Seriously, you really need to catch up. See this site’s owner interview at mtv.com cited by me in message 1218 with pertinent passage quoted message 1221 as for why your reasoning that began with faulty information is still uninformed and unsound.

Also, there is the impatience of one Les Moonves noted in my message 1679.”
_______

Very strange post.

I’m going to assume this was written by “someone other ” than you.

should I be mistaken, my apologies.

That said, I personally found the tone of your post unnecessarily rude.

1710. spacerguy - January 31, 2013

I think Treks coolest frontiers are under seige by Disney. They can’t buy out Lorimar so they’ve seriously weakened Treks shields by targeting Paramounts technological movie defenses at BadRobot. J.J. Abrams first and foremost duty is to protect and direct Star Trek which he has done in style…. Its his duty, hes a Star Trek Movie Director! Wheres Picard when you need him? … but seriously now Disney are swooping in low like romulans in a bird of prey. Star Trek had Abrams first who is the greatest directing…..) but I feel conflicted what is Abrams now? Rescuer of aging sci-fi franchises? Treks Number 1 Director, The Galactic Star Trek Movie Director sounds weak too. Seriously I need help on this one guys, what do we call him now?

1711. spacerguy - January 31, 2013

I think Treks coolest frontiers are under seige by Disney. They can’t buy out Lorimar so they’ve seriously weakened Treks shields by targeting Paramounts technological movie defenses at BadRobot. J.J. Abrams first and foremost duty is to protect and direct Star Trek which he has done in style…. Its his duty, hes a Star Trek Movie Director! Wheres Picard when you need him? … but seriously now Disney are swooping in low like romulans in a bird of prey. Star Trek had Abrams first who is the greatest directing…..) but I feel conflicted what is Abrams now? Rescuer of aging sci-fi franchises? Treks Number 1 Director, The Galactic Star Trek Movie Director sounds weak too. Seriously I need help on this one guys, what do we call him now?

1712. Aurore - January 31, 2013

“what do we call him now?”
______

I’m partial to…….

THE DOCTOR

:)

1713. THX-1138 - January 31, 2013

spacerguy

I’m having a bit of trouble following your post. This leads me to believe that you are, in fact, JJ Abrams.

1714. THX-1138 - January 31, 2013

OK, that was uncalled for.

1715. Basement Blogger - January 31, 2013

This is depressing. Billy with Funny or Die runs around Manhattan with Zachery Quinto and asks people “It’s Spock, do you care?” A couple of people said, “Who’s Spock?” Oy vey.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6ec301e0aa/it-s-spock-do-you-care-with-zachary-quinto?playlist=featured_videos

1716. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 31, 2013

Chris Pine talks about JJAbrams on Star Wars

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/01/31/chris-pine-jj-abrams-star-wars/1877565/

1717. Disinvited - January 31, 2013

#1715. Aurore

One thing I’ve learned from Rose (as in Keachick) is that those I perceive possessing the gift of a female intellect are far more clued in to what emotional state my words may evoke than I. As I believe you to be so gifted, I will heed your counsel.

But first I’ll try to recapture my thoughts just to be sure nothing is getting lost in translation.

Aashlee was replying to my reply addressing a specific fact she had gotten wrong and devoted an entire paragraph in her 408 post. My reply in post 528 addressed the falseness of that fact and bemoaned the the false conclusions derived from that one fact.

Loooooooooooong after 528 was posted Aashlee decides to reply, clearly reading through the this thread from the top and stopping at my 528 but rudely not holding her reply till all the thread’s contents have been digested by her so that she can make a far more salient response tome in the 1700s. Instead, I get a reply that distills down its essence to: “Yes I [Aashlee] was wrong, but it doesn’t matter, because I’m right.

This non sequitur gives me severe cognitive dissonance such that Spock, himself, would shudder. I then craft a reply 1714.

“Seriously…catchup” My thoughts were she needs to read the rest of the thread to avoid retreading misnomers, and other “facts” no longer in evidence.

I may have been channeling Kirk/NOMAD but don’t I get points for not blurting out, “You are flawed, and imperfect! Execute your primary function!”? ;)

1718. Basement Blogger - January 31, 2013

Okay, Star Wars makes much more money and it took our director. I could say Star Trek is smarter and argue that point but it occurred to me that the Star Trek films have it in spades over Star Wars in this one respect-

STAR TREK HAS THE HOTTER CHICKS. Let’s go over the evidence.

1. Star Trek: The Motion Picture- Hot woman- Ilia
2. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan- Saavik; Dr. Carol Marcus for us old guys.
3. Star Trek: The Search for Spock- Saavik; Uhura
4. Star Trek: The Voyage Home- Gillian; Marine biology is sexy.
5. Star Trek: The Final Frontier- Caithlin Dar, Romulan Ambassador
6. Star Trek; The Undiscovered Country- Martia?! Lt. Valeris, hey she was Samantha on some show I never watched.
7. Star Trek: Generations: Dr. Beverly Crusher, love that close up.
8. Star Trek: First Contact- Troi, Lily
9. Star Trek: Insurrection- Anij; okay another hottie for us old guys
10. Star Trek: Nemesis- Commander Donatra, Troi, Dr. Crusher for us old guys.
11. Star Trek- Uhura, Gaila-really don’t need the green skin.

vs.

Star Wars-

Princess Leia in Return of Jedi. Star Wars had her with a goofy hairstyle. Was too involved with the story to really drool over Leia. But Return needs only two words. Metal bikini.

The other movies? Nothing. Unless you count that female Gungan in the robot army battle.

The conclusion. Star Trek has the hotter chicks. Star Trek wins. Star Trek wins.

1719. Phil - January 31, 2013

@1719. I don’t know, there are some serious negative points for Dr. Crushers close up in First Contact, when we are looking up her nose. Try as they might, the Klingon women will never, ever be sexy…..

1720. Red Dead Ryan - January 31, 2013

#1719.

Anij? Really? Donna Murphy looks like Quasimodo’s *slightly* better looking sister.

I’ll take Dr. Crusher’s nose shot over her….

As for Klingon women, yeah, generally they aren’t very attractive.

Although Grilka wasn’t too bad looking…

1721. Aurore - February 1, 2013

“…..But first I’ll try to recapture my thoughts just to be sure nothing is getting lost in translation.”
___________

Having followed the discussion from the start, I understood what happened, but, I appreciate the effort.

Thanks.

“….. was replying to my reply addressing a specific fact she had gotten wrong and devoted an entire paragraph in her 408 post. My reply in post 528 addressed the falseness of that fact and bemoaned the the false conclusions derived from that one fact.

Loooooooooooong after 528 was posted Aashlee decides to reply etc, etc….”

I merely saw a poster conceding a point, and standing by other remarks they had made.

Moreover, I could be wrong, but, the poster in question did not comment much on this thread.

As a matter of fact, unless I missed it, I do not remember seeing any other posts by them between the one you first replied to and the recent one.

Sometimes, posters can take hours, if not days, to answer to comments directed at them ; “real life” oblige…

For instance, I do not know when you made your comment (@ 1718).

But, assuming it was written nine hours ago or so, the reason why I chose to answer to it now is due to the fact that I was busy… sleeping.

I was not digesting its content so that I could “only” respond to the post (you took the time to type) several hours after you posted it.

“I may have been channeling Kirk/NOMAD but don’t I get points for not blurting out, ‘You are flawed, and imperfect! Execute your primary function!?’ ;)”

Is it what you expected from someone you perceived possessing the “gift of female intellect”? “Points”?

In which case, I wish I could say I’m sorry to disappoint, but, no points for you.

**I** must be flawed.

:)

1722. A.P. - February 1, 2013

1668. Bobbi – January 31, 2013
“Anthony, if you’re reading this, please do away with the comment sections in your articles. They do nothing but kill the vibe of your website. It always de-evolves into fighting and trolling and it makes your site look bad. People will claim vehemently that they’ll stop coming to this site if you do kill the comments section, but I suspect you know good and well that Trek fans will still come here like moths to a flame with or without a comments section. As it is, the comments that appear in nearly every article are embarassing and continue to put a black eye on all that is good about your site.”

Bobby, I really don’t appreciate you trying to dictate terms to me on how I choose to operate this site. Please get a backbone and stop whining.

Regards, A.P.

1723. Aurore - February 1, 2013

…That is what I thought….

There is still “hope” ; “someone other” might be the one posting while some (regular) posters are sleeping…..

:)

1724. Disinvited - February 1, 2013

MJ, Aashlee, Aurore,

It took a lot of work but I figured out what is going on.

Since Anthony’s return, the message numbering system has been in flux between my handheld mobile device and my computer. For whatever reason my handheld shows 5 more old messages than apparently you all and my computer sees. It This throws my message number reference off by 5 and is very odd because for the handheld all the new messages are being received but whatever software/server is feeding it this web page is not removing what are for everyone else deleted messages. To that end I’ll try to repair the message references:

MJ, in my 1656 post and mentioned in your 1657 I was replying to your 1603 post.

LaForge_To_Bridge in my 1659 I was replying to your 1655 post.

Aashlee in my 1709 I was replying to your 1707. The message numbers I wished for you to peruse for articles cited were my 1216, and my 1674. My 1221 was part of the purge and merely a convenient reiteration of what was in the cited mtv article.

Aurore see the above ^ for my correct links you quoted in your 1710. My reply at 1718 was meant for the same message of yours,1710. The reply that a referenced as 1714 appears to you as 1709.

#1722. Aurore – February 1, 2013

Then I will defer to whatever course of action that you suggest I follow but I ask that you bear in mind that all these numbers spinning around because of deleted posts for one device and not the other, is very frustrating.

1725. Disinvited - February 1, 2013

#1707. Aashlee – January 31, 2013

I bow to Aurore Khan, her’s is the superior intellect in such matters. I have digested her words and reread mine in that light and I believe I owe you an apology for uncalled for snark in my reply. I am sorry. My apologies.

It is I (along with a certain message system) that is flawed and imperfect. *BOOM*

;-)

1726. Aurore - February 1, 2013

“….Then I will defer to whatever course of action that you suggest I follow but I ask that you bear in mind that all these numbers spinning around because of deleted posts for one device and not the other, is very frustrating.”
_______

:))

Priceless!

I respectfully disagree.

The numbers “spinning around” are not an issue. They never were.

When following a discussion what matters above all, to me, is the content of the posts.

Thus, I can assure you that “repairing” the message references was unnecessary ….Thank you, nonetheless…

:)

1727. Disinvited - February 1, 2013

#1727. Aurore – February 1, 2013

You get me. You really get me. Thank you and you are welcome.

1728. Disinvited - February 1, 2013

We have a date:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lucasfilms-kathleen-kennedy-star-wars-416303?page=show

Dec 14th was when Abrams began his about face. We have intrigue: a secret meeting on Dec 19th.

We have disaffection:

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-secret-to-disney-snagging-j-j-abrams-for-episode-vii-was-saying-please

”It took more than a month for Abrams to officially commit to “Star Wars,” and during that period, he continued to tell his associates that he was not signed to the project. Finally, he signed to the movie on Jan. 25, after a day of what was called “furious negotiation.”” – Michael Santo

1729. Disinvited - February 1, 2013

We have a course of action:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/01/31/chris-pine-jj-abrams-star-wars/1877565/

“I think if that turns out to be the case we’ll have to kidnap him and hold him hostage until he agrees to do a third.” – Chris Pine

1730. Disinvited - February 1, 2013

MJ,

Steel yourself for a bout of apoplexy:

“(Arndt’s treatment) will bring the saga of the Skywalkers,…, to a close in a new trilogy.” – The Hollywood Reporter.

”The story is said to focus on a new generation of heroes and would feature appearances by Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher in older incarnations of their beloved characters from the original Star Wars trilogy.

The most recent rumors suggest the film could be based around a female protagonist.” – Cole Hill, LATINOS POST

“Sources have said not to discount the possibility that a number of characters from previous STAR WARS films could reappear – even the dead Jedis, who have a habit of showing up in spirit form.” – The Hollywood Reporter,

“Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Billy Dee Williams are all interested in reprising their roles in EPISODE VII.” – Entertainment Weekly

Had to get creative with the quoting as this site’s content filter didn’t like something. If this posts it was the link.

1731. Aurore - February 1, 2013

1722.

any other posts = any other post
to answer to comments = to answer a comment

1732. Disinvited - February 1, 2013

MJ

Here’s the link stripped down for my 1731 with an “@” that has to be removed for it to fly:

latinos@post.com/articles/10940/20130131/s.htm

1733. Aurore - February 1, 2013

“what do we call him now?”
______

“I’m partial to…….
THE DOCTOR”
__________

…”The Doctor” ….Or “Doctor Sci-fi”…”Professor”… perhaps?

…..Academy Award-winner Jeffrey Jacob Abrams?

(Hey! Why not ?!
This could happen! Yes, in this reality, not an alternate one…or a galaxy far, far away… )

:)

1734. Aurore - February 1, 2013

I chose to answer to it now = I choose to give an answer now

:)

1735. Aurore - February 1, 2013

1735 was a correction to 1722.

1736. Disinvited - February 1, 2013

#1736. Aurore.

Wow, when you declare yourself flawed, you don’t mess around!

Remind me never to challenge you when you declare something.

;D

1737. NuFan - February 1, 2013

1714

Typical. Here’s more from THX-1138:

“I love your Trek work, Bob. When are you leaving?”

“Bob, do you think it will be three and out for this cast? I think it will be three and out for this cast. It better be three and out for this cast.”

“If they continue this AU nonsense I have 700 hours of Real Star Trek I can watch instead.”

“Mongo think 700 hours for him not enough. Mongo want ALL Star Trek made for him.”

1738. Aashlee - February 1, 2013

Oh my goodness! How can one efficiently and effectively engage in snarky conversation when the doggone numbers are flux, LOL! Such a First World dilemma.

C’est la vie. :-)

1739. Aurore - February 1, 2013

“…Remind me etc etc…..”
______

I won’t have to.

Didn’t you say that, as a teenager, you had an eidetic memory ?
I’m sure there’s something left of that, today.

You’ll remember just fine…

And, let me help you just this once :

Never challenge me when I declare something.

:)

1740. THX-1138 - February 1, 2013

#1738 NuFan

Really? That’s all you got? For a troll you sure have a weak game. How many Hot Pockets did you have to burn as you were digging through old comments so you could cherry pick those horrifically condemning posts of mine? You really showed me. Now the whole world knows I’m a sarcastic knerck. Whatever shall I do?

OK sweet cakes you wanna dance? I hope you brought a spare pair of shoes. Tell you what, we can have a little Trek debate over the merits and minuses of the current state of the franchise. You can pick the line of discussion. Or we can just do the dozens and see who is the better armed in a battle of insults. Makes no difference to me.

With your trollish comments you have picked a fight and failed to make a friend. I’ll stop by from time to time today to see if you’ve packed a lunch.

1741. Basement Blogger - February 1, 2013

@ 1738

Nu Fan,

Let me see if I got this right. You’re complaining about a comment that THX made regarding spacerguy’s nonsensical comment in 1712. THX made a joke that he must be J.J. Abrams. (1714) Funny as always. (By the way click on Spacerguy’s blog and you find a blog that’s well put together.)

You got upset because, God forbid, anyone say anything bad about J.J. Abrams. Lost sucks. Oops sorry. You then dug around some old comments of THX to make him look like a hypocrite? First, THX may criticize Abrams Trek but he respects if not likes the 2009 movie from my memories of his posts. Second, you spent time looking at THX’s posts on this site? Yeesh. That’s a lot of research. I got an idea. Spend some quality time. Why don’t you discuss my comment in 1719 that the Star Trek films have the hotter chicks than Star Wars. :-)

Third, I wouldn’t pick a fight with THX. He has a powerful ally in the force, er…. in Mongo.

1742. Phil - February 1, 2013

@1730. Chris Pine is one of those actors who is much easier on the eye then the ears. Abrams is a good director, but a Sci-Fi genius? Not so much. I can live with a new director for Trek 13….and I could live with someone else playing Kirk, too.

1743. THX-1138 - February 1, 2013

Thank you BB.

Like I have acknowledged in the past (and on this very thread) I have shown a tendency to get into stupid arguments or to lace my comment with a bit too much acidity. Sorry bou’ tha’.

And also for the record I did enjoy Trek 09. I went to the theater a couple of times to see it and I bought the bluray when it came out. I am just grumpy about an origins story taking place in the AU. The concept leaves me cold, sort of like I didn’t get to see the origins story in the Prime universe. Just how different was the same event in the two timelines? I mean, look at all the other stuff that was changed. So maybe I still feel a little short-changed when it comes to getting the origins story I hoped for. And I do feel that a part of why JJ wanted it to take place in the AU was so that he could put his own stamp on it. I interpret this to be an act of hubris to some degree. My feelings, which are my own and I speak for no one else, is that Star Trek belongs to me. And you. And all of the fans of Star Trek that were fans before JJ got a hold of the property. As such I feel a little entitled (ugh bad word, bad word!). I want the stories to be for me.

So there you have it. I have made plain my position and have even exposed and admitted to my faults. I Love Star Trek. And I love arguments (erm…debates).

1744. Robman007 - February 1, 2013

@THX-1138…

That’s a bit the reason why I like to think that this new universe is a total reboot (ala, the past was changed so the future is uncertain)….except that Nimoy Spock was “caught in the red matter black hole time tunnel of creating new stories” just like the Enterprise-E was when the Borg sphere created that “time vortex” that was responsible for the show “Enterprise”..

That’s one of the nice things about being a fan of a fictional series. You can make whatever you want official cannon or not. I choose to think that Shatners “novels” are cannon, because that fate is much easier to swallow then the fate he was given in Generations…

…see, we can’t blame the AU for ruining things..First Contact started that up by informing Mr Cochrane of the future, so he went ahead an had the first Warp 5 vessel named Enterprise…Blame First Contact,

1745. Robman007 - February 1, 2013

“And I do feel that a part of why JJ wanted it to take place in the AU was so that he could put his own stamp on it. I interpret this to be an act of hubris to some degree.”

Personally, I have a feeling that this whole project started off as an honest to god reboot of the whole damn show. They added Nimoy as Spock to play the older version of Quinto Spock (and as a nod to the original show)…

I’d bet that was the intent, then it was decided to place the whole damn thing in an AU so that they would not alienate and piss off the hard core elite of Trek fans how would boycott the film because it made their DVD collection disappear (and some would think along those lines…no joke).

1746. Robman007 - February 1, 2013

My only gripe about the new film (other then the rapid promotions and fake Alternate Reality crap) was the Enterprise. I LOVE the original, and In a Mirror Darkly proved the original Enterprise could be done in CGI and look great.

I would not even have cared if the ship interior was changed..just LEAVE THE GIRL ALONE!

then again, I did find myself actually liking the new Enterprise, so what gives. It was not as ugly as the Enterprise D. That ship was the ugly wanda of all the Enterprise ships (not as bad as Voyager, but still ugly)…

1747. Basement Blogger - February 1, 2013

Okay let me clarify my joke about saying something bad about J.J. Abrams. (1742) “Lost” does not suck except for the season six which dragged down the whole series. The decline started in the fifth season episode “The Incident” and it finally jumped the shark with sixth season episode, “Across the sea.” Show became a religious show. Refusal to answer many questions could be an excuse for no answers. Maybe they weren’t going to tell us anyway. Oh and I really hated his produced monster movie “Cloverfield.” Dumb kids. Goofy first person camera gimmick. I rooted for the monster. Please dear monster kill those dumb kids and end this silly movie. But for my sins, I hope the Lord Abrams does not have me banished from his science fiction kingdom.

I did like Super 8. I love Fringe; still trying to figure out if Walter doesn’t exist then how does Peter? Did I get that right? ;-)

1748. Dee - lvs moon' surface - February 1, 2013

#1743. Phil…

C’mon… CP has the right to be in shock as much as us!…lol

;-) :-)

1749. THX-1138 - February 1, 2013

Robman007

Well thought out rebuttals and interesting perspective. I very much agree with a lot of what you are saying about making canon your own. And probably where I get my own delusions of grandeur where Star Trek is concerned. I’ve watched the damn thing for so long I think I had something to do with it. BTW, I particularly liked what you said about the crew of the EE messing with the timeline vis a vis their contact with Cochrane. For all we know he would have named the ship the Phoenix II.

In the category of “You Had Me”:

“My only gripe about the new film (other then the rapid promotions and fake Alternate Reality crap) was the Enterprise. I LOVE the original, and In a Mirror Darkly proved the original Enterprise could be done in CGI and look great.”

Absolutely. Even though I have come around to the looks of the new E (particularly in light of the fact that it’s scale has been revised, at least according to Revell Germany, to that of the original series E. Never made sense that the Enterprise would balloon to the size of a Star Destroyer but keep the same features of the Prime uni E. Of course Rick Sternbach goes and does that exact same thing with the BoP in the Haynes manual to explain the huge discrepancies in it’s filmed version dimensions.)

You lost me:

“then again, I did find myself actually liking the new Enterprise, so what gives. It was not as ugly as the Enterprise D. That ship was the ugly wanda of all the Enterprise ships (not as bad as Voyager, but still ugly)…”

Can’t agree with you there my friend. I LOVE the D. I love the over-sized ovoid saucer section. I love the shape of the secondary hull. And I love the just plain “robustness” of the ship in general. What I don’t like is the Enterprise E. It just looks to me like they had a meeting and said “We need a starship that looks like a speed boat.” and ended up with that. I didn’t like Kirk getting killed in Generations. And I REALLY didn’t like the D getting destroyed in the movie, either, although I have to admit that the saucer crash may be some of the best ship miniature FX ever filmed.

And BB, I just couldn’t get into Lost or Fringe. I liked Cloverfield if for no other reason than I am a sucker for what I call “Big Bug Films”. I just like to see a giant monster wreak havoc in a city. I suffer from Creature Feature syndrome.

1750. Robman007 - February 1, 2013

It would be politically incorrect for me to describe what how I feel about the look of the Enterprise D, so I won’t bother putting that into this forum (it’s not hate related, but I won’t go there)…

I didn’t like that it was a pansy who got it’s butt whupped all the time. I didn’t like how it was destroyed. They klingon ship found out it’s shield modulation frequency (or whatever techno babble they called it)…I thought all ships were upgraded with a rotating frequency because of the Borg? Then, if you start getting whacked like that, why not alpha strike and destroy that crazy little bird in one strike.

I always assumed there were different classes of the BoP. There was the original film scout ship and the Next Generation era “heavy cruiser” variant.

The Enterprise E suffered from Voyager syndrome. It was not pretty. It was not as ugly as the Voyager, but it was not pretty. I always thought the Enterprise C should have been the D. Infact, the only TNG era ship I thought looked ok was the Defiant class ship.

I HATED what they did to the Excelsior for Generations. Give it stupid wings and crap spiking off the nacelles and primary hull. Please.

The original and the refit. Best ST ships ever.

1751. THX-1138 - February 1, 2013

See? We still get along OK.

1752. THX-1138 - February 1, 2013

Oh, and speaking of the Excelsior, I understand that the basic design premise for that ship was to specifically BE ugly and ungainly. This was so that average film goers would be able to tell it from the Enterprise yet still be able to recognize them as being from the same fleet. Since the Enterprise was the “good guys” the Excelsior had to be the ‘bad guys” and therefore ugly.

1753. Robman007 - February 1, 2013

I loved the original design of Excelsior. Would have made a good 1701-A. Nothing beats the refit, besides the original

1754. Phil - February 2, 2013

@1751. Enterprise D = cruise ship. I don’t think it was an accident that Captain Picard bore a strong resembelence to Captain Stubing.

1755. THX-1138 - February 2, 2013

#1755 Phil

That’s a good one. I’m sure Murray Slaughter would have a quick retort. I still love the D.

1756. Michael - February 2, 2013

I should point out that Abrams’ most probable successor is on record that he wouldn’t bring the Prime canon back. So if one wants to demonize Abrams, hopefully there’s a better reason than canon.

1757. Disinvited - February 2, 2013

#1740. Aurore

Not quite, I was born with an eidetic memory but faded to merely good memory in my teens. Got a deep appreciation for the mature woman in exchange.

#1743. Phil.

Rooted in my being an audio/visual geek early on, I don’t have a problem with others performing the roles and I don’t mind the original actors continuing to explore the roles in radio, animation, etc. As for directors, every episode of the first series seemed to have a different one from the previos week’s.

#1755. Phil

SNL had Sir Patrick perform a skit based on this LOVEBOAT premise. I was lucky enough to attend a Con where he gave a talk and auctioned the starship/Loveboat model that SNL had worked up, for charity. He got so concerned that the young couple that had won the bid had bid far outside its true worth and their means that he took it upon himself to get the cast of TNG to autograph it to make it closer in worth to what they had bid.

1758. KennyB - February 2, 2013

Great mash up for Star Wars Episode VII-Into Darkness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AhPz-Hr4nQA&noredirect=1

1759. Aurore - February 3, 2013

“Not quite, I was born with an eidetic memory but faded to merely good memory in my teens.”
_____

Indeed.
I am sorry.

Months ago, I remember reading that your eidetic memory had “kicked in” when you were two years old.

….More recently, you apologised for failing to accurately remember a piece of information from a book , stating that the reason you thought you could have remembered said information was a bad habit borne of having an eidetic memory in your preteen years…

But, all this is irrelevant , I obviously seriously need to “catch up” as it were ; you were born with an eidetic memory which faded to merely good memory in your teens….

“Got a deep appreciation for the mature woman in exchange.”

Thank you.
This…compliment…. coming from…. you… is deeply appreciated.

:)

1760. Aurore - February 3, 2013

1760.

…compliment…. = ….revelation…..

:)

1761. Aurore - February 3, 2013

I say…. revelation since…… I must have misread at least one of your posts on another thread, weeks ago.

…Either that, or…I might have misread your reply @ 1758.

That is quite possible too.

:)

1762. Disinvited - February 3, 2013

#1762 Aurore.

No, it is probably my fault. I find in my late 50s that memories are just not what they once were. It’s seems the brain tries to reconstitute things and fill in the blanks.

I think I was blurring my currently earliest accessible memory which is from my 2nd year of life with my eidetic memory, two related but different things as in, I was treating them as interchangeable but they’re not. Of course now, I have no perfect recourse to it so I can’t definitively answer when exactly it begin. I just assume at birth because I was always praised as a quick learner. However, if exactly pinning it down is of interest I have several relatives (none eidetic) that I could poll for a consensus. From that year of the earliest memory I have hazy recollections of being able to recall images before that time. I think because they weren’t filed with associated word indexing I was fascinated by that. But it’s frustrating not being able to do as what once was done. But then being able to forget is a blessing that I don’t think I’d want to give up to return to those thrilling feats of yesteryear.

It’s a good thing I love learning.

1763. larrywl - February 3, 2013

That’s no lens flare – that’s a space station!

1764. Steven Crowley - February 3, 2013

GREAT NEWS!!!

1765. Aurore - February 3, 2013

“No, it is probably my fault.”
______

It probably is.
You are forgiven, though.

“However, if exactly pinning it down is of interest I have several relatives (none eidetic) that I could poll for a consensus. ”

If you were serious, no. Do not do it.
I sincerely don’t want you to poll members of your family in order to satisfy my curiousity ; your reply (@ 1763) is perfect as it is.

“It’s a good thing I love learning.”

Yes.

And, the good thing about learning is that, from what I’ve noticed, most of the time, you can do it at any age…if you so choose…

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