Chris Pine Hopes Abrams Will Return To Direct 3rd Star Trek + POLL: Should Paramount Wait For JJ? |
jump to navigation

Chris Pine Hopes Abrams Will Return To Direct 3rd Star Trek + POLL: Should Paramount Wait For JJ? February 4, 2013

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,CBS/Paramount,Star Trek Beyond , trackback

Last month’s news that JJ Abrams was going to direct the next Star Wars movie took the world of Star Trek (and Entertainment in general) by storm. One person who is holding out hope that JJ will return for a third Star Trek movie is Chris Pine. See what Pine had to say below, plus vote in the new poll on if Paramount should wait for Abrams to direct a 3rd Star Trek.  



Pine Hopes Abrams Will Direct 3rd Star Trek

Speaking to the USA Today Star Trek’s new Capt. Kirk Chris Pine said that he is still holding out hope that JJ Abrams will return to Star Trek after he goes to a galaxy far far away. Pine said:

"The only way I’ll be disappointed is if [JJ] doesn’t direct our third movie,. 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."

Abrams on "Into Darkness" set with Chris Pine  (scan from Empire mag)

What’s next for Trek – Abrams to Produce but will he direct?

The next Star Wars movie (Episode VII) is due in theaters in 2015, which gives Abrams 2 years to make it after the release of Star Trek: Into Darkness. According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams will remain involved in the third Star Trek movie. Moore told the LA Times that Abrams is "committed to produce" another Star Trek film.

If Paramount is willing to wait another four years between Star Trek films, then it is possible for Abrams to return for a third Trek film as director (assuming he is interested in directing) – putting the release in 2017. While a long wait, it is unlikely that Paramount would want to fast-track the next film as that would put it out in 2015 and pit it directly against JJ’s Star Wars movie. However, Paramount may want to have their next Star Trek film in 2016 in time for the 50th anniversary of the franchise and if so, then there would probably be no choice but to bring in a new director unless they went for Holiday 2016 and Abrams was able to jump right from the release of Episode VII into production (and not just pre-production) on a Star Trek movie.

Hopefully we will know more after the release of Star Trek Into Darkness.

POLL: What do you think?

Worth waiting for Abrams to direct 3rd Star Trek movie

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


1. Chames - February 4, 2013

We need JJ!

Even as a Star Wars fan, Star Trek is way more important to me and I think JJ in the director’s chair adds a lot that we wouldn’t get just as him being an EP Maybe we will get 3+ movies!

2. Langlang1701 - February 4, 2013

Have JJ direct the Star Wars Trek for 2015. Two at once, he can do it! No seriously wait for JJ, please

3. Apollo - February 4, 2013

No wait! 2016! 50th Anniversary of STAR TREK! We need a movie or a new series to celebrate!

4. Jack - February 4, 2013

3. Why, we’ll celebrate anyway…

5. BJohn - February 4, 2013

Star Wars should wait til after JJ is finished with Star Trek 3

6. Bucky - February 4, 2013

I’m fine with waiting for Abrams to helm the third Trek movie. You know what would be more appropriate for the 50th anniversary of the original TV series? A new TV series!

7. Trekkieloveiscool - February 4, 2013

If anyone is listening I second the idea of a new Trek series for 2016!! There is a big fan base and the movies are only adding to it….

I was be so excited to see it return to TV :D

8. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

Even if JJ could direct for a 2017 release-
that means, that Episode 8 will also have to wait until 2019.
Are the guys at Disney also willing to wait that long?

I think its better for both franchises if they split that. There are many talents in Hollywood. Why have the 2 biggest SF-Franchises be under the control of one man? It just leads to very long periods between each film for both Trek and Star Wars.

9. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

I’d like to know how Brian Singer would handle a Trek-FIlm

Star Trek 13 with Singer. Thats it.

10. gingerly - February 4, 2013

It depends on how well this one does and if JJ is motivated to come back.
If this movie is a slamdunk hit and JJ is still in love with the franchise, then I say wait as long as he needs.

If however, he needs time to focus on Star Wars, if he feels stretched a bit too thinly, or he’s creatively sapped for Trek? …Then get a new director.

I want Brad Bird or Joss Whedon.

11. D.J. Ammons - February 4, 2013

I am confident that with Bad Robot producing JJ will find the right director for the third film and insure it has the same high standards of story telling and production values that the ones before it have.

12. Michael - February 4, 2013

It’s not up to us.

13. scottevill - February 4, 2013

I’m open to a new director taking over for Abrams if it can go as well as Brad Bird on Mission Impossible IV.

14. Bucky - February 4, 2013

Disney / Lucasfilm is probably gonna have a different director for each movie of the Sequel Trilogy. JJ will have a brief, torrid, and hopefully great fling with Star Wars then come back to Star Trek.

15. Phil - February 4, 2013

No. Disney has already indicated they expect to be spitting out a new movie every 24 months. Time for some new talent behind the camera. Unless STID is a complete disaster, Paramount needs to get off the dime and green-light #3 now, and peg some writers to get to work, assuming Orci and Kurtzman will not be back, either.

16. JR - February 4, 2013

The Poll should have simply been WAIT or not… splitting the release date splits the vote

17. Pegasus - February 4, 2013

#5. BJohn – Totally right. Star Wars should wait for JJ to finish Trek. None of this, oh I have Star Wars now I drop Trek. Let’s make some promises and keep them JJ.

18. dmduncan - February 4, 2013

If we wait for 2017, Kirk will be ready for his retirement mission. We’ll actually get to see how he gets his desk job.


19. Ahmed - February 4, 2013

No, they should move on & find someone else. There are other directors out there who are as good as Abrams & even better.

@ 16. JR – February 4, 2013

“The Poll should have simply been WAIT or not… splitting the release date splits the vote”

Agreed, if you combined the vote for not waiting, we get 62%

20. Son Of MJ - February 4, 2013

1) the series doesnt need him to survive. I think with his plate being full on star wars as well as his Lance Armstrong movie. He should definately pass the directing reigns off to another. He is one of the most hands on producers out there, so his fingerprints would still be all over the film. But I definately think he should Produce and bring another director on board.

As it is he is allready saying he doesnt think he will have star wars 7 ready for Memorial weekend 2015, do we really want to wait another 3 or 4 years for another film.

Besides a new director brings with him fresh ideas, and creativity.

21. Red Dead Ryan - February 4, 2013

I don’t think Paramount will be so generous with deadlines this time, seeing as how he is directing the next “Star Wars” movie.

I figure if Abrams gets too busy, he’ll remain as producer but someone else will direct in his place. For a 2016 summer slot.

It’s doable. Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman could write the script, with periodic consultations with Abrams while he directs the SW movie.

Either that, or we’re going to have to wait at least another 4 years for the third film. Assuming that Abrams doesn’t do any other projects in the interim, ditto for Orci and Kurtzman.

22. George - February 4, 2013

JJ is one lucky (talented guy) to be able to shape both the worlds of Star Trek & Star Wars. He’s worth waiting for, the force is with him always
& may he live long and prosper

23. Son Of MJ - February 4, 2013

I will add, if CBS Television were allowed to produce a new spin off series, to make up for the delay between films than I would have no problem waiting 4 years between films.

24. dmduncan - February 4, 2013

10. gingerly – February 4, 2013

Whedon would be good, and he’s probably a fan, but why Bird? His animated work is excellent, but MI3 was a run of the mill action movie. And does he even GET Star Trek? That’s important.

25. Son Of MJ - February 4, 2013

21, he is also producing possibily directing the Lance Armstrong Bio Pic, before star wars.

26. Son Of MJ - February 4, 2013

funny you should say that since M:I III was actually JJ not Bird.
Bird directed and to great success M:I Ghost Protocol

27. Commodore Adams - February 4, 2013

It’s so tough because Star Wars is slated for 2015 but might be pushed back to 2016 which angers me because 2016 will be Star Trek’s 50th anniversary – A BIG F@UCKING DEAL – and am hoping the 3rd movie to coenside with the anniversary.

I would love JJ to direct but I want it out in 2016, if we need a new director so be it. But if Star Wars is released in 2016 I think paramount would consider changing the date so as to not compete with Star Wars i.e. loosing profit.

28. dmduncan - February 4, 2013

What about Alex Kurtzman? He did a really good job on People Like Us, and he’s a fan. Did the directing experience turn him off, or is he going to keep doing it? You can’t just draft someone to do that job. A person must feel the need to do it IN THEIR LOINS!

29. Son Of MJ - February 4, 2013

Or go back to the drawing board with the idea of doing periodic Direct to Video or TV movies set in the prime universe.
DS9 or Enterprise would make great canidates for this.

You don’t have to bring back the entire orginal casts of those series, just a few key ones.

30. johnnyb807 - February 4, 2013

We all nailed JJ to the cross so to speak. I’m a little disappointed in all of us right now. If we lose JJ then who the hell will replace him? I can see it now: “From the mind of JuneBug McRatchett I present to you …” and what happens to ‘The Supremes’? Will Bob Orci stay? Will we even have more Star Trek? There’s no Sci Fi on TV and the only TV show worth mentioning (ie Fringe) was a JJ thing that we just alienated to hell and back. Sheesh. Just having a sci fi show survive on the Fox network is a huge accomplishment. The Fox network just loves to bend over Joss Whedon. They ain’t laughing now are they?

31. dmduncan - February 4, 2013


Read what I mean, not what I write.

Tom Cruise hanging with suction cups off the building…the Kremlin blows up…and so on and so forth.

I know which one Bird directed. Thought 3 was better than 4.

32. Son Of MJ - February 4, 2013

Or go back to the drawing board with the idea of doing periodic Direct to Video or TV movies set in the prime universe. to take up the slack of having 4 years of no theatrically released Trek Product.
Heck they could even do Fathom one night only screenings of these.
DS9 or Enterprise would make great canidates for this.

You don’t have to bring back the entire orginal casts of those series, just a few key ones.

33. Jack - February 4, 2013

29. That’s not going to happen.

34. ST & SW fan - February 4, 2013

Stop the idol worship!

35. Son Of MJ - February 4, 2013

Oh and Boborci let JJ know I am sure more than a few of us wouldn’t mind a extended wait if he were to cast two of his Felicity Stars Kerry Russel and Amy Jo Johnson in the next trek movie .

wink wink

36. Son Of MJ - February 4, 2013

33 Never said it was but wouldn’t hurt if it were to ever happen.

37. Trekkiegal63 - February 4, 2013

Would love to see Abrams complete the set of three, but I don’t think its an absolute necessity. There are other very gifted, talented directors out there whom I’m sure would do a great job with it.

As for waiting, I’m torn about that. I’d love to see a third movie sooner rather than later just based on sheer impatience and a little bit of greed ;)… but at the same time, the current actors are only signed for three (and I’m just getting used to them), and I don’t want it all to be over so soon. Maybe if I were assured there would be more movies or a new Trek tv series afterwards, it would take away the sting of the third one potentially being the last with this new cast.

38. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

If they want to release Star Trek 13 in 2016, and Star Wars is pushed back to 2016 as well (which btw i would prefer, because 2015 seems a little rushed for Star Wars) then they could release it still during Christmas.

39. DeShonn Steinblatt - February 4, 2013


Well if you define killing the franchise as “wouldn’t hurt”, then sure.

40. Nony - February 4, 2013

I would not be happy at all with another 4-year wait. I enjoy J.J.’s work, and I would have liked him to stay, but there are other great directors out there who I’m sure would do a good job with Trek. All of Trek fandom shouldn’t be put on hold for the sake of one director and a competing franchise.

41. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

BTW, did we have to wait 4 years just because of Super 8?
Damn Super 8 ;-)

42. sean - February 4, 2013

There’s no way they’ll do Star Wars by 2015. That was unrealistic from the start.

43. SW & ST fan - February 4, 2013

Would love to see a Hut as captain of the Horta ship USS Skywalker, lol

44. Smike - February 4, 2013

2016 must be the date! It’s the 50th Anniversary and the ONLY, I repeat, ONLY option to create some sort of buzz in the vein of last year’s 007 Skyfall, which propelled that franchise far beyond expectations…

They MUST, the absolutely MUST follow that pattern…appoint a new, accomplished director to bring a new but yet traditional style to Star Trek, do a reboot within the reboot that brings the NuTrek film series closer to the original… maybe do Trek 3+4 back to back for a March and July release… and cross-promote it with other media events like Bond did with the Olympics, the Queen etc…

And then, launch a TV series right in fall 2016… It’s not THAT difficult to grasp… We don’t need JJ, we need the biggest anniversary celebration imaginable… it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. If they screw this up cause JJ needs to play with Ewoks, I’m gonna be severely disappointed…

45. LLAP - February 4, 2013

Star Trek is at its best on TV (though the movies are wonderful). The franchise belongs on TV, and the sooner the Abrams trilogy is over, the sooner it can get back on TV. I’d rather not have to wait until 2020 for Star Trek to return to where it belongs.

46. Exverlobter - February 4, 2013

“And then, launch a TV series right in fall 2016… ”

Yeah. ALthough in TV there is not that much anymore to tell us about.
Except, and that might be controversial for some people:

Give us the last 3 seasons of “Enterprise”.
Under Manny Cotos rule! He reframed Enterprise with Season 4, and that is the direction which worked.

I want finally to see the war against the Romulans. THey deserve it so bad to be shown properly.
Nemesis, and Trek 2009 were not the best “Romulan-movies” one can imagine. Show us finally the real birth of the Federation.
Lets call it Enterprise-PHase 2.

47. Jason - February 4, 2013

Star Wars isn’t gonna make 2015. They’ve already confirmed JJ isn’t committed to that release date. it will be at least 2016.

Trek should move forward with a new director and go for 2015

48. kmart - February 4, 2013


Bird is supposed to be a huge fan of HighFrameRate and probably tied up with 1952 or 1953 or Tomorrowland or whatever they’re calling it this week for the next year or two, and none of that bodes well for TREK, as I can’t imagine Par risking HFR given HOBBIT’s tepid reception.

But if he’d clean the decks (as in get rid of everybody even vaguely associated with Bad Robot), I’d be behind ANYBODY else directing and writing TREK, whether it be for TV or feature film. Too bad Whedon already owns the world w/ AVENGERS (should’ve happened with FF/SERENITY), and that nobody takes McFarland seriously — have a feeling that McFarland would pull together a team that would really know what the hell Trek was about instead of serving up rancid and badly prepared pastiche for the ADD crowd, which is all I see happening with the AbramsTrek.

49. LizardGirl - February 4, 2013

No, four years is just too long. But I want JJ to direct. I know, can’t have it both ways. It would be impossible unless some time concessions are made. Three years I can do but not four.

But I just can’t help feelingl that something will be…off…if he’s not apart of the process. He’s built a rapport with the actors, which is very important. He’s close friends with the writers and composer. Also a plus.

I think another director would do fine, but would he/she be able to accomplish what JJ did on and off camera? I don’t know about that.

If I had to pick a name out of the hat then I’m with gingerly. Joss Whedon as director. Everyone will love him, I’m sure. But I’m still hoping that JJ will be an active part of the third movie.

50. martin - February 4, 2013

I would rather see Abrahms, or at the least one of the Bad Robot team — or possibly someone like Jon Favreau – but I think that as long as Abrahms is producing and the BR team is writing/producing, then even another director would work.

The date should be 2016. We don’t need to wait 4 years, and it should hit the 50th anniversary. Slide the release to Sept 8th, 2016 (the exact 50th), or possibly to Christmas.

51. ScifiKabbal - February 4, 2013

Thank you Mr. Abrams for all that you’ve done for the franchise. I have complete confidence in your ability as a producer and the writing talent of the Supreme Court to bring a new director into the fold. Brad Bird, Matt Reeves, or Bryan Singer would be an excellent choice. LLAP

52. EzyTarget - February 4, 2013

there’s no way JJ would do 2015 anyway so I don’t understand that option. 2016 makes more sense for the 50th anniversary of Trek. Still, you’re also basing this option on the fact that he’s really only doing 1 star wars movie. He could still do another one… and 3rd, honestly this guy is going to want to take a break after Star Wars. He’s been working pretty non stop on the new Trek film and now he needs to go right into Star Wars. 2017 is the EARLIEST you’d see JJ Star Trek 3, but more like 2018.

53. Wes - February 4, 2013

How about that editor dude, whats his name… Stuart Baird ;)

54. DonDonP1 - February 4, 2013

Respectfully, I want “Star Trek XIII” to happen in or before 2016, in time for the franchise’s 50th anniversary, whether or not J.J. Abrams directs it. I also want “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” to get a Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Combo Pack “Deluxe Edition” to included both the remastered theatrical cut and a newly-recreated director’s edition that may be similar to the remastered version of “The Next Generation.” I can’t wait for our friends at CBS Digital to work on the newly-recreated visual effects for the hi-def director’s cut of TMP. I can’t wait for a new “Star Trek” TV show or two either.

55. Cygnus-X1 - February 4, 2013

JJ is better suited to be producer than director.

JJ producing and someone else—someone with more “vision”—directing would be the best of both worlds, being that JJ is contractually obligated to produce the third film.

The Star Wars franchise hasn’t had a good director since Return of the Jedi, and JJ directing will almost certainly be an improvement over George Lucas. Star Wars VII was gonna be a Disney film anyway, so there wouldn’t have been a visionary director doing it regardless.

56. Jack - February 4, 2013

Why not wait to see Into Darkness before declaring that JJs the wrong director for Trek?

I like the idea of Bird or Marc Webb.

And the only way Trek will ever get on TV again, if at all, is after successful films.

57. Sk8r_gurl - February 4, 2013

I’d love to see a JJ trilogy, but it looks pretty unlikely at this point. The man is already hopping straight from post-production, then promotion, of STID into the in-development SW7, and given his need to do something original after ST09, plus his previous statements that he was going to work on some original material after STID, I just don’t see him coming back to direct ST3.

I’m personally more curious to see who’s going to take the overall reigns of the current movie/comic/game/etc… franchise. It was never going to be Bad Robot forever, and I wonder if JJ doing SW has accelerated the process to find a successor production company. I’d hate to see Trek leave Bad Robot, given that they’re probably the top name in geek TV/movies these days and they’ve done so well by Trek so far, but I have to believe that Paramount wants Trek to have a full-time parent, so to speak.

Like most of us, I tend to take successes/failures with Star Trek kind of personally; it’s been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. But it’s good to have reminders like this that Trek’s longevity is due as much to Hollywood wheelin’ and dealin’ as it is to GR’s idealistic vision of the future. Whatever JJ decides, I can certainly respect all the effort he and the Supreme Court have given us so far, and only hope that if/when some sort of transition of power over Trek does occur, it’s handled with as much care as they’ve handled the franchise up til now.

58. George - February 4, 2013

One thing has been bothering me and that’s the shot of Chekov running in engineering wearing a RED shirt. As we all recall Chekov was not in Space Seed but Kahn remembered him 20 years later on Ceti Alpha 5. Walter Koenig joked one time the reason we didn’t see him in Space Seed was because he was in engineering and that Kahn ran into him while trying to take over the Enterprise. So we could have Kahn in this film, we will just have to wait and see.

59. Jack - February 4, 2013

“But it’s good to have reminders like this that Trek’s longevity is due as much to Hollywood wheelin’ and dealin’ as it is to GR’s idealistic vision of the future.”

Exactly. And Roddenberry was also a businessman. He wasn’t doing this for charity.

60. Jack - February 4, 2013

I always guessed that Chekov could easily have been one of the guards outside Khan’s quarters — one we didn’t see. Say on a night shift or whatever. They could easily have spoken.

61. Vulcan Soul - February 4, 2013

“Waiting for JJ” to direct Trek is like “waiting” for your (unrequited) love when she’s already screwing someone else. Certainly something the one or the other geek poster here may relate to, but SO uncool ;-)

62. SK8r_gurl - February 4, 2013

Ha, LOL Vulcan Soul, well put.

63. Jack - February 4, 2013

55. Cygnus-X1: “JJ is better suited to be producer than director.”

Based on what? What ‘vision’ does he lack?

Writers and producers can have as much as a role as, or more than the director in shaping a movie.

What do you want, fan fiction?

64. Admiral_Bumblebee - February 4, 2013

I REALLY hope that they do something BIG for the 50th anniversary. I would love to have William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy back or maybe all of the crews in one amazing adventure.

65. Arvin Kirk - February 4, 2013

Let somebody else have a go at it. Then they can ditch all the “ALIAS” crap thrown into Star Trek. Anyone else notice the Bridge looks like the CIA headquarters and the “Red Matter” is actually “Rambaldi’s Horizon”?????

66. - February 5, 2013

Wait four years. No way!

I love what Abrams has done but he is not he only great director in Hollywood.

67. - February 5, 2013

Give Tarantino a go. The guy knows his history of television and movies.

68. captain_neill - February 5, 2013

Why must we wait for JJ Abrams to direct the next Trek film when it is clear he is now going off to direct the film francise he prefers and has more love for. Namely Star Wars

JJ Abrams is a decent director and has made Trek popular again, his film was good but is not the best ever Trek film and I feel it is not a case of only Abrams can direct Trek now.

Nick Meyer, Jonathan Frakes and Leonard Nimoy directed the better films. Another director can direct the next one and maybe it would be someone who has a little bit more respect for Trek than Wars.

Either way Into Darkness will be a good film but I would welcome a director who knows his Trek and won’t wait around 4 years to do another one.

69. captain_neill - February 5, 2013

Abrams has got the franchise he loves, and as a result Trek might not seem so appealing to him now.

70. captain_neill - February 5, 2013

Sorry for three consecutive messages but remember in one magazine he said about Star Wars “I want to make the fans proud” and yet for Trek it was “Oh Im not making this for Star Trek fans”

Go figure

71. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 5, 2013

I think that Star Wars can wait. What’s another year or two when no movies have been made in such a long time. JJ Abrams should complete the three Star Trek movies first!

72. Riker's Beard - February 5, 2013

Better to wait till ’17’, ’18 for JJ rather than rush something out in 2 years with a new team. Lets face it, the long wait since the last movie has definitely heightened all of our anticipation for this one so why not another 4 years?

73. assimilator47 - February 5, 2013

JJ Abrams always said he was a big Star Wars fan, and now he can direct one for starters. I wish him well, but Paramount should concentrate on launching a third movie quickly, within 2 years.

It’s no use to go up against Star Wars, but it is for the good of the franchise to release the 3rd movie in 2015.

In the meantime, talks should start about a new tv-series for Star Trek.
IMHO, the original universe, ca. 29th century. All four quadrants have raged enourmous wars and all suffered the consequenses. With the technology from the Vaadwaur (VOY), we can now travel through all the quadrants with faster speeds. There is no more Federation, or any other organization for that matter. The scattered people of all different races can rebuild little what’s left, and so a new series should begin: in rubble, bigger space to cover (all four quadrants) and humanity working together with other races to recreate something that once was known as the Federation. The quadcorder should be introduced also.
This new series should revamp an entire new chapter in star Trek, with no restraints from the past. Just a series about hope, the human discovery and the build of a new Federation.

But for the movie: ask Christopher Nolan to do a movie or two. That should do the trick. Good luck for JJ. Thanks. You may leave now to the dark side….

74. SciFiMetalGirl - February 5, 2013

Since we are tossing around potential directors for the next movie…

Didn’t Damon Lindelof just get done working with Ridley Scott on Prometheus? Maybe the Supreme Court could get together with Ridley for a Trek film?

75. LOFC_Ed - February 5, 2013

What about adapting the ‘Countdown’ comic books into a movie/ special series?

76. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 5, 2013

Depending on how well STID does (hopefully, it will do VERY WELL), the third movie needs to be released in 2016 for the 50th Anniversary.

Wasn’t the first ever Star Wars movie released in 1977? Releasing Episode VII of the movie series would be in its 40th anniversary year, 2017, makes such good sense. It also allows JJ Abrams and Bad Robot time to do good by both franchises.

77. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 5, 2013

I can’t vote in the Poll because I don’t find any of the options acceptable.

78. Julis - February 5, 2013

The best thing is for JJ to walk. Although honestly, these movies could practically direct themselves. Episode 7 will be made-to-order pap, and if Star Trek 3 is anything like ST09, then you could probably leave Michael Jackson’s pet chimp in charge and it’ll turn out the same.

79. raddestnerd - February 5, 2013

Bring in Jonathan Frakes.
I feel betrayed by JJ. Sorry, but I do.

80. kev - February 5, 2013

Lets see how into darkness is first before deciding or voting on any of this, if its into darkness for the star trek franchise or into light has yet to be seen when it comes to this next film.

after all it required two major hits out of four to get trek back onto tv back in the 1980’s and then the fifth one nearly killed the franchise and badly hurt star trek 6

so who the hell knows where this may lead.

and if you want a new director for the third, how about Jonathan franks mixed in with Meyer on story and Doug Drexler doing set and ship designs along with his buddies?

you know bring out the A team for it.

81. kev - February 5, 2013

lol damn it radd you beat me to the punch! lol

82. Aix - February 5, 2013

I first read the headline as “Chris Pine Hopes to Direct Third Star Trek“. I was like ??????????

83. captjohnson - February 5, 2013

I can’t help but wonder as to why “let’s get this reboot affair over with as quickly as possible, and then look for someone more qualified to bring ST back to the small screen” is not an option in the poll.

84. Killamarshtrek - February 5, 2013

There HAS to be a film out in 2016 for the 50th anniversary, if nothing else but to take advantage of the extra buzz that will create. If that means going with JJ producing & Brad Bird directing then fine, as I’ve said before it did Mission Impossible:GP no harm whatsoever!

85. alec - February 5, 2013

Don’t wait. We need to capitalise on the anniversary. That – and the London Games – helped Skyfall. It’s good for marketing; good for buzz….

The four year gap was mainly to avoid the problem that had plagued Trek: oversaturisation of the brand. People needed to want to go and pay to see it, as opposed to watching 1000 hours of Trek free on TV. But that gap will be counterproductive when the films become popular. Certainly the third one should follow after no more than three years perhaps two from the second…

Besides, there are other directors out there – perhaps better ones. According to this poll, 65% of fans agree with me.

86. alec - February 5, 2013

83. captjohnson – February 5, 2013

I, too, long to see Trek on TV: its natural home. Now that Paramount are putting a decent budget behind these films, they look great and we can do more than we could before. The downside is that they have to appeal to everyone. That means little risk. Weak story. Generic action. Whilst there have been some exceptions, such as TWOK, the films never reached the heights of the show (TOS, TNG and perhaps some DS9).

The question is, how could we make another Trek on TV? Would it be another ship? I would rather see an Academy-based show in live-action or another cartoon. I.e., something a little different.

87. Spockchick - February 5, 2013

I agree with everyone who says capitalise on the anniversary. It seems like a wasted opportunity not to. I would love it if Ron D. Moore could be involved.

88. CAPT KRUNCH - February 5, 2013

Just wait til 2016 if thats possible…50th anniversary would be great!! JJ can produce, but there are plenty of fine young directors out there…Let Nimoy or Frakes direct…please not SHAT or Tim Burton!!!???!!

89. Trek-Forever - February 5, 2013

I think the plan should definitely be to aim for a 2016 release date – possibly even on the September anniversary date. I think anyone fan wise new or old who wants to watch an outstanding Star Trek movie doesn’t really care if it comes out at the summer or not anymore.

Besides, I think if the third is to be the last one with the current crew (and I hope its not), I would love to see the 50th anniversary movie focus on restoring the timeline. So we got to see Kirk see his dad, Spock once again get to have his mother in his life, Vulcan as a planet be restored and the UFoP back on track so they can go out on their 5 year mission which leads to the TNG, DSN, VOY and more.

I couldn’t think of a more fitting way to celebrate the 50 years of Star Trek than by the alternate timeline being restored. What does everyone else think?

90. pilotfred - February 5, 2013

if we dont get a new trek film in 2016 (which i want) how about a story of star trek, from the beining to right now

91. kozmikg - February 5, 2013

I was actually surprised he came back to direct the second film. JJ seems to like to be very involved in the creative process early on but tends to step back and hand the reins to the partners in the creation. See Alias, Lost, Fringe.

92. Chris M - February 5, 2013

I think as long as JJ is involved with the next Star Trek movie, which he almost certainlywill be, then I don’t think it will be too big of a deal if he doesn’t direct it. Now that he is involved in the new Star Wars sequels it would be very hard for him to have the time to direct the next Star Trek movie as well!

JJ has given us one awesome Star Trek movie and what looks to be an epic follow up so as a Star Trek fan I will be eternally grateful for that and I am confident he will want to continue to be involved in the franchise.

I am actually pretty psyched that he is now in charge of both Star Trek and Star Wars (how awesome is that?!) and he is the logical person to take Star Wars forward and ensure we don’t have a repeat of the fiasco that the prequels turned out to be.

JJ Abrams is officially King of the geeks and I for one couldn’t be happier! :-)

93. The Keeper - February 5, 2013

Logic suggest “WAIT FOR J.J.”

To hell with what the fanboys want. They will just have to learn to live their lives till then…witch is not such a bad thing.

94. Damian - February 5, 2013

My vote is for 2016 with another director. This team will likely do one more film and they are done (according to their own statements). 2015 is going to be all about Star Wars. Paramount should play it smart and patient and wait until 2016. However, I would not wait until 2017. I would feed off some of the buzz Star Wars will create in 2015. There are plenty of directors JJ Abrams and his group trust and have worked with and I am confident they would find a good director for the next film. It might actually do the franchise some good to bring in some new blood to keep Star Trek from getting stale.

I am still concerned the period between Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness was too long and may have cost them some audience, but we’ll see. I agree with another poster, also, that maybe everyone should wait until Into Darkness is released and see how it does. We assume it will be a good movie with a wide audience, but we really don’t know that yet.

Finally, Abrams is going to be extremely busy with Star Wars in the next 2 years. I’m sure he’ll want to tackle something else after Star Wars other than Star Trek, so to wait for him to be available, you may be waiting a lot longer than 2017.

So my vote is 2016, and maybe CBS can work on a new TV show for that same year to feed off the movie and the 50th anniversary. They need to have something significant for the 50th anniversary.

95. DeflectorDishGuy - February 5, 2013

JJ is not the end all be all of directing, I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be insulting, I just think that as long as Bad Robot produces, we can afford to bring in another director.

I’m a traditional Trekkie, and wasn’t really sold on 2009 Trek. However, I’m really impressed with all the wonderful previews of into darkness. I can’t really vote on this issue until I’ve seen the film. If its another bomb, then being on a new director. But if it does well, lets wait for JJ!

96. Yanks - February 5, 2013

I think JJ will put out the 3rd movie in 2017. This second one is going to be hugely popular I think he’ll want to finish what her started.

I also think CBS should concider pushing a new series out in 2016 in concert with the 50th anniversary.

97. Mattyb - February 5, 2013

I would like JJ to direct trek XII, just so he can say “hey guys…. I have finished something”.

Having said that I would love for a Star Trek film to be released on the 08/09/16 or for my American friends 09/08/16 to celebrate the 50th year of star trek

98. Mark Lynch - February 5, 2013

Got to have a Trek film out in time for the 50th anniversary. Just. Have. To.

Simon Pegg should direct…

99. The Sinfonian - February 5, 2013

YFAMV: Your Fiftieth Anniversary May Vary.

Star Trek began filming on November 27, 1964.

There is no way that Star Wars 7 will come out Summer 2015. How could ILM have even begun pre-production work unless Lucas has had a script hiding under his mattress all these years? (Then again, he might have and if it’s War of the Wookiees, okay.) Given the long pre-prod times, even after a script, the long post-work ILM would have to do, there’s no way that seriously a 2015 date can be met. Plus, Star Wars has its 40th Anniversary in 2017. Summer 2016 is much much more likely when it’s all said in done, kicking off a huge 40th Anniversary promotion for 2017.

Paramount is going to get caught with their britches down. (Kirk gets caught with his pants down again!) Paramount should *fast track* the Threequel now, while the writing team is intact, and get pre-production going now, based on whatever K/O & L set up at the end of STID. Get filming underway at the end of this year or start of the next: setting up a Summer 2015 date. Get the heck out in front of SW. Given that ILM will be so involved in SW7, getting STXIII out of the way is the ideal way to go. Heck, if Paramount were smart, they’d pay Bad Robot and all parties involved enough to shoot STXIII and STXIV back to back. Movie 1, Summer 2015. Movie 2, late Summer 2016, after SW7 is long in the tooth, and near September when the ST 50th anniversary is.

100. Horatio - February 5, 2013

May the wind be at your back, JJ. Have fun in Jar Jar-Land.

There are lots of talented directors who grew up and honor Trek and can take more than good care of the the next film.

101. LogicalLeopard - February 5, 2013

Wow….I’m surprised at the number of people that want to keep JJ.

Hey, no offense, because I love what JJ Abrams has done to the franchise, I think he did a stellar (no pun intended) job of directing the first movie, and I even like lens flares! But no question, you get another director. This is a purely selfish thing, I want more Trek ASAP. I think as producer, Abrams can continue to do a great job of directing the franchise, and a competent director can come in and carry on the tradition for at least one more movie. There is the concern that the third movie might feel different than the first two, but different isn’t always worse.

Now if Orci, Lindelof, and the rest of the writers don’t come back, then we’ve got problems.

102. The Sinfonian - February 5, 2013

@101 Jar Jar Abrams? Haha.

Let’s not all forget that Bryan Burk and Bad Robot are all engaged in the production of SW7. That’s not a bad sign.

But JJ should remember the great *personal* cost Lucas suffered in the production of Star Wars. Lost his marriage, his fortune, his family, his sanity…. and he certainly was hurt personally by all of the criticism of the prequel series. Hopefully he lives long enough, so that he reaches the point where he realizes how many of us have great affection for the movies he’s brought us, and that in the words of Sally Field, yes, we really really do like him.

103. LogicalLeopard - February 5, 2013

And of course, it must be mentioned that Star Wars is a great reason for JJ to leave directing Star Trek. I know that sounds like sacrilege, but I think Trek/Wars fans have grown a little less Sharks and Jets in the last few decades. Star Wars NEEDS JJ. Star Trek needs his hand to finish guiding it int he direction he’s taken, but it doesn’t need him to sit behind a camera, since he’s already established the “universe.” Star Wars needs a complete overhaul, and JJ is the man to do it.

104. Adam C - February 5, 2013

Yeah sure I’ll accept to wait for JJ if we get a TV Series

105. dscott - February 5, 2013

For those wanting Trek back on TV, when it does return, you’ll just bitch and moan about it until you kill it. Then you’ll start to like it in reruns and reset the cycle asking why ST isn’t on TV anymore.

106. Calastir - February 5, 2013

Let Shatner direct it.

At least he’s loyal and true to his word.

107. Navy - February 5, 2013

JJ can take a long hard suck on my arse.

The sooner he’s gone the better. Star Trek needs to be on the small screen and actually have stories about the human condition. These villain movies are nothing more than a distraction labeled as Star Trek.

108. Barney Fife - February 5, 2013

2016 – with or without JJ. That the BIG 50th anniversary of Trek and it would be a crime not to have a movie and/or start a new live action TV series.

109. Khan 2.0 - February 5, 2013

Spielberg caused all this by suggesting JJ to direct Ep VII after he passed on it. so he should direct Trek 3 by way of compensation!!!

110. PleasureGirl1990 - February 5, 2013

Let Abrams stink-up Star Trek for a third time? No thanks.

Hire a director who actually cares about the franchise…

111. Smike - February 5, 2013

It’s relatively simple:

Star Trek 3+4 coming in spring and summer 2016, paving the way for the next TV show…they could be shot back-to-back in 2014/15…

Star Wars VII coming out in 2017, right for the 40th Anniversary of Wars…filming in late 2015, early 2016…

@46: Exverlobter:
“Yeah. ALthough in TV there is not that much anymore to tell us about.
Except, and that might be controversial for some people:
Give us the last 3 seasons of “Enterprise”.”

I’d love to see ENT back under Coto’s rule, but that’s very unlikely… one or two TV specials / miniseries at best… that would be awesome….

However, I completely disagree with that “not that much anymore to tell” notion of yours. IMO we haven’t seen very much yet. Yes, there are hundreds of TV episodes to date, but most of them didn’t really fulfill that promise of boldly going where no man has gone before…

We’ve seen some energetic beings and space clouds, a couple of time travel episodes, a few mysteries of the week, some malfunctioning computers and other devices, numerous boring forehead aliens with almost no identity, a number of decent character episodes and endless rehashes of old concepts…especially on VOY and early ENT…

They still have to show us those strange new worlds, those new lifeforms and civilisations. We haven’t seen anything yet… visually and content-wise… No, I disagree…there are almost unlimited options to explore… if they are finally bold enough to embark on that journey and take us to places beyond our imagination… instead of crappy Ferengi politics and holodeck “adventures”…

112. Jim - February 5, 2013

JJ directs SW, movie sucks (not JJs fault, story, studio etc), everybody is disappointed, JJ is glad to be back at Trek!
Remember my words!

113. Phil - February 5, 2013

@107. Oh, yeah, SyFy movie of the week, here we come!!

114. BatlethInTheGroin - February 5, 2013

#107: Loyalty is entirely irrelevant. Get a grip.

115. Rank_Zero - February 5, 2013

Pardon me, but loyalty is totally relevant when it comes to such big projects.

116. - February 5, 2013

Making us wait another 4 years would be putting the bad in bad robot.

117. Rank_Zero - February 5, 2013


Agreed. I must admit I am grateful for what he did for Star Trek up until now,
but maybe it’s better for him to step back and let someone else take the con. Someone who might actually like Star Trek and respect what he’s taken over enough to deliver it.

118. somethoughts - February 5, 2013

Ghost Protocol was fine with a different director and I think JJ is awesome but if they brought in a different director for the 3rd movie, the movie will still be good providing the script is awesome also. However it would be fitting to see the trilogy end with JJ directing the 3rd one.

119. dub - February 5, 2013

Hand it over to a new director — let’s see what Nick Meyer can do with these kids!

120. Edshrinker - February 5, 2013

The 50th Anniversary comes around every, um, 50 years. No way Paramount passes up that marketing gift. They will play it to the hilt. People clammored for Brad Bird for Ep VII. Imagine if we lost out director and replaced him with Star Wars fans’ number one choice for their director? The talkback boards shall light freakin up! I, for one, will troll with delight!

121. David H. of Seattle - February 5, 2013

For the most part, the respective star trek movies were “good” or “bad” based mostly on their stories, not on who directed: Robert Wise was a terrific director, but I was not that great. II and VI were the best because of Nick Meyer’s writing as much as his directing. III and IV were okay and showed that Leonard Nimoy could direct despite poor stories. V was a disaster and yet Shatner has gone on to prove he’s a decent director in other things. Jonathan Frakes was praised for his directing in First Contact but then criticized for it in Insurrection yet those two movies especially prove my point that it’s about the writing as much as anything. I think that as long as the writing is as good or better than Star Trek 2009 then the 3rd movie would be fine with another director. Having said that, it would be fitting if Abrams could find a way to direct the third having done the first 2 and since it’s clearly being done as a sort of trilogy – but it would be more to preserve the look and feel of the films more than story content I would think.

122. Legate Damar - February 5, 2013

Abrams did a decent job directing Trek XI, and I’m sure that Into Darkness will be at least as good, but if Abrams is too busy to direct a Trek movie, I would rather another director take over than wait until Abrams is done with Star Wars. It isn’t as if Abrams is the only good director in the world,

123. Moputo Jones - February 5, 2013

The simple truth is that SW is a more commercially lucrative product than Star Trek. JJ will not be coming back to direct any more Trek.

124. LogicalLeopard - February 5, 2013

106. dscott – February 5, 2013
For those wanting Trek back on TV, when it does return, you’ll just bitch and moan about it until you kill it. Then you’ll start to like it in reruns and reset the cycle asking why ST isn’t on TV anymore.


The perfect new Star Trek series would consist of taking clips from the old show, mixing them around, and redubbing them. I don’t know how people can complain about the Enterprise being underwater, yet have no problem with an effigy of the Enterprise gettting dangled over a candle, causing the actual ship to heat up.

125. Dee - lvs moon' surface - February 5, 2013

Well, I want to see the movie before 2017 … I find acceptable to wait until 2016 … I doubt JJAbrams will be available for the film in 2016 … then I hope he indicates a director of his confidence , connected with the cast and crew, which is able to make a great movie.

126. Edshrinker - February 5, 2013

You know, i have been here for only a few months. I read more than post. I know there are other sites that put up info faster and I have checked the “rival” site for news on occasion. I grew up with the repeats of OTS. I had every Star Wars action figure and toy I could talk my parents into. Remember the plastic tubes you could but for a golf club bag to heep them seperated. Destroyed many in lightsaaber battles with friends. SW had my heart. But Star Trek ALWAYS had my mind. My sense of wonder. Transporters were the single greatest thing I ever discovered as a kid! Imagine what adventures a kid could have with trans-warp beaming! Anyway – you all are so wonderful to read. The discussion makes my night after al long night at work in a job I dislike. The interwebs are a place where people could be nicer (including myself), but the heart of most comes out in a companionship I cannot fathom. Especially here. A buddy of mine and I found that on AICN during Lost’s run and the friends I made there are still friends today. Hell, we used to sync up episodes and watch together while on Skype – talking laughing commenting. I bought them all The Peacekeeper Wars after getting them hooked on Farscape and we did the full 4 hours together. What I am saying is, that type of bond IS HERE. MJ is a fantastic poster, although he could be less condescending. And that is the worst of the “fighting” I have seen here. You are a great bunch. I hope you know that. The rejuvination of Trek, given to us by The SC, brought fans of the concept together in a passionate way. No one can dispute that. Thank you Anthony for this site. And you all for something to look forward to every night when I come home from work. Screw the articles. The best part of this site is hearing your voices every day.

127. Will Yates - February 5, 2013

This comment will go against the grain somewhat, but I think that they should both wait until 2016 for the next film (and release to celebrate 50 years of Trek), and bring back Jonathan Frakes. (And while we’re at it, I think they should bring Patrick Stewart and others back for roles in the film that perhaps could be Picard and the 24th century crew repairing the timeline from what Nero caused… But the clincher is, the Chris Pine Kirk doesn’t *want* the timeline to be repaired…)

128. BatlethInTheGroin - February 5, 2013

#116: No, loyalty is irrelevant. For directors, this is a job, not a romantic relationship. Abrams put in two films, just as Frakes and Nimoy did. And now he’s ready to move on to the next job. No harm done. Loyalty is not part of the equation.

129. Cygnus-X1 - February 5, 2013

63. Jack – February 4, 2013

—-55. Cygnus-X1: “JJ is better suited to be producer than director.” Based on what? What ‘vision’ does he lack?—-

What has JJ brought to Star Trek? What has been his contribution to the Trek universe? JJ has brought four things:

(1) Commercial success and potential.

(2) Appeal to a younger audience.

(3) Enhanced emotional connection with the audience.

(4) Improved filmmaking and production values.

These are all fine things, but what’s lacking is an overarching theme, direction, thesis, idea: A “vision.” Can you state the theme of Star Trek ’09? in a few words? What was it “about?” What point or idea was it trying to communicate to the audience? As director, what was JJ trying to “say” with his movie?

Bob Orci said (and I’m guessing JJ would agree) that Star Trek ’09 was about a group of strangers coming together to deal with a crisis and growing into a cohesive crew in the process. That’s well and good, but it’s just not that powerful on its own. Star Trek has the potential to be so much more. To have a powerful, overarching theme, like great movies and novels do. Star Trek ’09 didn’t have that. It had a premise, a plot and a handful of little mini-themes that were only superficially treated and didn’t really go anywhere.

The premise of an alternate universe based on the “Many Worlds Interpretation” of QM was actually a fresh and compelling one for a feature film, but they didn’t really delve into it in the movie. “An alternate reality,” said Uhura…and that was basically it. No further discussion or examination of the fascinating, extraordinary phenomenon unfolding. JJ might not even really have understood the premise of his movie. A director who wanted to say something or show something about that amazing phenomenon would have run with it.

So what else was Star Trek ’09 about? Well, it was about a Romulan out for revenge, but for a stupid reason. The movie’s villain becomes utterly obsessed with taking vengeance upon the person (Spock Prime) who tried his best to save the villain’s home planet, but happened to fail. So utterly obsessed, in fact, that the villain performs amazing feats of bravery and industriousness, along with terrible cruelty, topped off with the incredible patience to sit around and wait 25 years for Spock Prime to show up. And somehow he got a crew loyal enough to waste their lives along with him, just to get back at the guy who unsuccessfully tried to save the villain’s planet. The point being, the villain’s motive was weak and uncompelling, so you don’t come away thinking that the movie was about revenge.

If you look back up at the four items I listed as JJ’s value added to the Trek franchise, I think it’s fair to say that he could contribute those just as well as a producer and perhaps even more effectively than as director. Then, we could have a director with a vision beyond simply getting a wider audience to like the movie and having it make money.

130. Picard, Jean-Luc - February 5, 2013

I think if he can and he likes the story then he will make sure he can direct the 3rd Star Trek movie, I doubt he’d want to leave HIS story unfinished or handed to someone else.

I think it would be wise to wait for JJ Abrams as long as he can get Star Wars out by 2015. Lets face it, Abrams is going to come out of the Star Wars experience more known and possibly more loved by a larger audience and I mean the 4 year gap seemingly hasn’t hurt Into Darkness’ reputation and by and large, general audiences will either remember how good the first one was or judge this on it’s own merits on viewing the trailers for it. However I would say that If it’s a longer wait then possibly the search for someone with the same vision as Abrams who can work with Abrams developing Star Trek 3 as was the case with MI4 then perhaps that’s the logical and more sensible option to go down. I think he will be back to direct a third installment, I can’t see why he wouldn’t want to do it but I think he’ll do exactly what he did before making the decision to direct Into Darkness and wait for a script… It is interesting to note neither Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman or Damon Lindeloff are going to be doing Star Wars so its possible that Abrams will invite them to begin prepping the third and possibly the final instalment in this Abrams series of Star Trek’s.

Thats not to say Paramount and CBS should wait for Abrams. I think they need to start looking at Star Trek beyond these movies and possibly begin formulating a TV series and an Animated series. I think although it seems Into Darkness will again boost Trek’s rep, Trek needs to do more in appealing to a younger demographic otherwise and appeal to not just one generation but many generations.

That being said I think what Paramount have going with Bad Robot at the moment is a good thing and even if Abrams takes a back seat on other Star Trek projects such as a TV series, I think Star Trek should remain in the charge of the Bad Robot team.

131. Adam - February 5, 2013

New director.


132. Picard, Jean-Luc - February 5, 2013

I also think it may be more appropriate for a new TV series to launch in 2016 to celebrate Star Trek’s 50th. Or at the very least the announcement that a new TV series is on it’s way…

Whilst the movies are nice fillers between series, Star Trek’s place is on TV.

133. Kevin - February 5, 2013

I can’t beleive I’ve read through this whole post and no one has mentioned the photo. Kirk standing next to either a photo torpedo or a “casket” .. as seen in TWOK. I’m betting Spock dies in this movie. It would be … logical based on the pictures.

134. Gary S. - February 5, 2013

I hope JJ directs the third film.

135. BatlethInTheGroin - February 5, 2013

#134: The cast is all signed up for three films, so nope.

136. ScottC - February 5, 2013

@134: that photo looks like its from an early on scene – no cuts or bruises to Kirk’s face that we see him get later on. Maybe something to do with Spock in the volcano?

137. p'trick - February 5, 2013

my preference is that the studio selects a new director for TREK. there seem to be a good number of fine directors and fans here could quickly list a dozen.

my main concern now is that these actors are aging quickly. waiting 4-5 years per film, while continuing to suggest in the storyline that these characters are barely a year out of Starfleet Academy, is going to look a bit ridiculous. however, if they moved the stories forward into the TOS-era, it’d not be a problem. but the current producers seem intent on keep the films set in the pre-TOS era with the crew all still young and reckless.

138. Marcelo - February 5, 2013

New director. New voice. I liked what JJ did with Trek, I don’t mind him supervising/producing (he can certainly do that well with new directors like in MI4), but I always like it when new voices can come in and tell stories and provide new blood. We need new writers too, not because the old ones were bad, but because we want a variety of voices in Trek, not just one superwriting team that does all of it. Trek has lasted long because there was room for Ron Moore AND Brannon Braga AND Joe Menosky AND Michael Piller AND Jeri Taylor, etc.

This is why I wasn’t keen on JJ taking up Star Wars. There are so many interesting good directors out there who could show these old franchises what for, it doesn’t seem right to give the two biggest sci fi franchises to the same person. Any person. Let’s find new voices and new ideas that can revitalize old franchises, or even better, make new IP worth watching (which is what Del Toro is doing with Pacific Rim, thank goodness).

I think Marvel has the right model for this sort of thing, hire different voices to do different stories in the same universe, pick those voices to match the stories they’re doing, and then find a good overall director who can bring all those voices together. I love that the people who made Iron Man are not the people who made Thor or Captain America, that they were all distinctly different experiences. I think Trek and Wars shouldn’t look alike, they shouldn’t sound alike, and if JJ is going to focus on Wars, he should get a new director on Trek quickly and efficiently and supervise from afar.

Even if he does direct the next one, can it please actually have exploration as the main focus of the story?

139. Admiral Archer's Prized Beagle - February 5, 2013

Time for Quinto to step up and direct. He’s the new Nimoy, this will be the third film. It’s his birthright.

Pine to direct the fifth.

But in all seriousness, we need either the third film with or without JJ or a new series for the 50th anniversary.

140. Jerry Seward - February 5, 2013

I’d be interested in seeing what Duncan Jones could do with TREK – the man practically grew up with sci-fi TV shows and movies via watching them with his dad. I loved both MOON and SOURCE CODE. I think he could make a very thrilling, thought-provoking ST film. Reportedly, he’s currently attached to helm the WORLD OF WARCRAFT movie.

141. Check the Circuit - February 5, 2013

My wish list:

New Movie in 2015 (I suspect the end of the 2nd movie will set up the third with a virtual “to be continued” vibe. So hopefully the outline already exists and the writers can go right back to work on a script.)

New TV series in 2016

Another four-year wait? No way IMHO. JJ and team have delivered the template for what makes Star Trek relevant and viable in today’s market. There are other talented directors that can build from their blueprint.

And it’s entirely possible JJ is going to get pulled into Episode VIII right after VII to keep up with the 3-year model Lucas establised. So for Trek to be moving along on a more aggressive timetable, we need to let JJ go. (But this long-time Trekker appreciates all he has done to refresh and reinvigorate the old girl.)

142. USSEXETER - February 5, 2013

To me it’s a conflict of interest. Live Long And Prosper JJ, it’s now time for new leadership!

143. Flake - February 5, 2013

Don’t wait for jj. He will have his hands full for at least the next 4 years because i think Disney will want a trilogy similar to lord of the rings. Let someone else direct. Infant I reckon he will be so busy with Star Wars it might be best if paramount give trek to someone other than bad robot.

144. Ziro - February 5, 2013

JJ should direct only if its the final Trek with that cast, or a real trilogy.

Now can we have an animated series please? and launch a new live action one for the 50th

145. John - February 5, 2013

Wait for JJ. I can’t believe that after everything we’ve been through and Star Trek almost DYING, that anyone would pick a release date (even a 50th anniversary) over the best possible film imaginable.

The team behind the first film did something previously thought unimaginable. They recast the original series and made Star Trek cool to non-fans.

To ask for anything less is settling. If JJ comes back, we have a better chance of somethng truly iconic… a solid trilogy from beginning to end. That’s something that even the original Star Wars trilogy can’t boast.

Please JJ, come back.

146. Real Trekker - February 5, 2013

Disney is a soul vampire and will suck out every bit of juice out of Star Wars and leave an empty shell. They are already talking about a Yoda movie. Disney produces vapid things like “Pirates of the Caribbean”.

JJ’s Trek was not perfect Trek but it was still Trek. None of the films except WOK was pure Trek. I’m holding out for a new JJ Trek TV series for honest Trek to come back.

I’m hoping for a new Star Trek series in the same style as the Battlestar Galactica reboot and focusing on New Vulcan and how the Romulans deal with fact that Romulus will also be destroyed in the future.

Vulcans have no choice but to reunite with their Romulan cousins otherwise they both go extinct.

147. Matthias - February 5, 2013

Oh, I can wait. No problem! We need a new series, so waiting is no prob.

148. Phil - February 5, 2013

Bad Robot will probably be producing Trek for some time to come, but the JJ as director ship has sailed. Disney needs STID to do well, so no one needs to be worrying that JJ isn’t going to give it 100%. However, Paramount needs to step up now to calm nerves about the third movie. Green light Trek 13, and hire some writers. Right now, to provide some stability to the franchise. If anyone even gets a hint that Paramount is going to let this twist in the wind you will see interested third parties such as the merchindisers jump ship in a hurry. Do it right now, Paramount, or hand it off to someone who will.

149. jas_montreal - February 5, 2013

I think paramount can find someone else. A new director can bring more depth to these films. How ’bout bringing in Bryan Singer or Duncan Jones.

150. Jack - February 5, 2013

134. Photon torpedo or probe…

151. Nick - February 5, 2013

Brad Bird would be an excellent fit for (New) Star Trek 3.

The Brad Bird & JJ Abrams director-producer combo worked very well on Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Keeping the same writing & creative team would be great to round out the 3rd film at the very least.

I think Star Trek now needs to look to the Bond franchise & understand a long-term strategy for Star Trek at the movies. Hey, they’ve probably already done this.

TV … I don’t know, the format is on the wane … albeit Trek is best in episodic format.

152. nprtmn4evr - February 5, 2013

What needs to happen is release Trek 3 in 2015, Abrams or not, then launch a new TV series. Air it on 9/8/16, the 50th anniversary date of TOS.

153. Phil - February 5, 2013

Need to keep in mind that JJ’s move may force some recasting. It’s a good bet Mr. Pegg will follow JJ over to Lucasfilm. Rotating a couple of other characters out is also a good opportunity to inject some fresh blood, too. This could be really good for Trek in the long haul, especially if it forces focus on storytelling and less on character.

154. Silvereyes - February 5, 2013

I beg to differ. A Summer 2016 release would be a full year after the release of SW VII (assuming a May 2015 release, which has been the case for every other SW movie) which should be enough time (IMO) for JJ to direct. The schedule would no doubt be tight but surely doable.

155. Phil - February 5, 2013

Bad Robot has a number of active projects in addition to Trek and Wars. As does the writing team. It’s really in Paramounts hands at the moment as to how actively they wish to pursue Trek as a franchise. If they want a movie every 24-36 months, then JJ’s done as director. You can’t get ten pounds of s**t into a five pound bag.

156. Themanle1 - February 5, 2013

It’s got to be released for the 50th anniversary. If the do it right, it could be the best and most sucessful tar trek movie they ever make.

157. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

I would prefer if JJ finished the 3 movie deal in the same capacity that he started it, to make the set complete.

But since he professed loyalty and then reneged, thereby cutting his availability and the chance he will direct again, maybe he’s not the best man for the job anymore.

It’s one thing to say “let me read the script before I make a decision,” and another thing to make a decision that seems to make the quality of the third script irrelevant. In the first case he is available, which bespeaks a high order of dedication, and in the second he has made a decision about which of two families he is the head of is more important to give his full time and attention to.

I think that’s a fair way of putting it. I mean, if the SW script isn’t done, and the ST3 script isn’t done, how can he compare which is the better project to unfold his director’s chair for? He made a decision in the absence of doing a comparison and contrast between the two possibilities, and that seems to indicate where his heart is.

If his heart isn’t in it, I wouldn’t call on him to do it.

I mean, I know SW is a big thing…but, you give me the choice which franchise to direct, and I’ll choose Star Trek every time. I would be as interested in doing SW as George Lucas is in doing Star Trek.

On the question of whether we should WAIT until 2017 for #3 — how can anyone answer that without seeing how this movie ends?

Some movies end in a way that seems to call for a sequel sooner rather than later.

So…I don’t know until I see it.

158. James McFadden - February 5, 2013

Will the Khitomer Accords or a similar agreement be signed earlier in the new timeline?

159. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 5, 2013

Funny how people think that Nero’s revenge motive was weak. He just watched his entire planet being smashed to smithereens and swallowed up by a supernova. He had trusted that this Spock would prevent that from happening, but he didn’t. Nero believed that Spock had betrayed him (Romulus). I can easily see why Nero might want to seek revenge and the same would go for his crew, who also lost EVERYTHING.

If people actually knew anything about Star Trek, especially the spin off series TNG, they would know the antipathy, distrust, hatred that Romulans and Vulcans had for each other. Nero and his crew grew up with an entire cultural conditioning that told them to not to trust/like Vulcans or Humans. Therefore, in light of these factors and the fact that Spock, a Vulcan/Human, failed to save Romulus from destruction, it makes perfect sense that Nero and his crew would harbour much ill-will towards Spock, with the grief of what had just occurred galvanizing the negative conditioning they had been taught from the earliest about the Vulcans and Humans. Nero probably cursed himself daily for being such a fool to actually trust that a Vulcan/Human would save his world.

WE know that Spock did mean to save Romulus but there was no way of convincing Nero of that fact.

Some of you guys are UNBELIEVABLE. Humans constantly go around seeking revenge (as in starting wars, murder, terrorism…) for far less, rightly or wrongly, and yet there are actually posters who think that Nero’s motive was *weak*. Seriously?!

160. Chris Roberts - February 5, 2013

I’ll say this much, JJ Abrams’ jumping ship to Star Wars has certainly polarised opinion.

I remember this exact same question a while back, bringing an overwhelming response that he should direct a third film.

161. Mad Mann - February 5, 2013

I would be REALLY surprised if JJ directs the third Trek.

I think it would be cool, though, if Brad Bird directs it. That would be very possible and just perfect.

162. chain of command - February 5, 2013

Ugh…. Star Wars… loved it when I was 8. I’m not 8 anymore. Still Enjoy it but I don’t “revere it”.

That said: maybe they should just make a crossover. LOL

163. Cyrus - February 5, 2013

JJ dude probably wants to direct SW 8 too. So his availability to direct the next Trek movie may depend on how fast they want to do the new SW movies. If SW 8 is coming out in 2018 then delaying the next Trek movie to 2017 may not do any good, a Christmas 2016 would be better in that case.

164. Picard, Jean-Luc - February 5, 2013

@134 er its the nacelle to a shuttle…

165. Son Of MJ - February 5, 2013

Last night’s Hawaii 5-0 directed by Peter Weller was great,
Hire him to direct Star Trek 13

166. Phil - February 5, 2013

@160. Must have missed something further up the thread that has you so worked up.

One little problem with your theory. If one did not dig into Nero’s backstory, there was nothing in the film to suggest that a miner would have access to an Ambassador, or inside knowledge of the efforts to stop the supernova, that would allow Nero for form such a negative fixation on old Spock as being solely responsible for the distruction of Romulus. Assuming Nero did have inside knowledge, as the comics imply, then he would have known better.

Again, Trek09 played well on the big screen, and I did enjoy it. But it’s one of those movies that’s best taken at face value, because when you look under the hood there are all sorts of problems with the story. The first thing I thought when I saw the new commercial, where Enterprise is burning in space, was ‘well, Starfleet, hows that cadet to captain promotion working out for you now?’. Well, we need to wait and see just how bad no-experience Kirk screws things up in this universe.

167. Anthony - February 5, 2013

Tarantino? Frakes? Christ, I guess people do like bad movies. Lol.

168. Johnny - February 5, 2013

Guys… keep in mind that J.J. has NOT agreed to the 2015 release date for Star Wars Episode VII. At this point, it’s very likely that it could be pushed to 2016 or later.

So with that in mind, what if J.J. were to direct a third Star Trek movie BEFORE moving on to shoot Star Wars?

It’s unlikely, but I think there’s a chance it could happen, depending on how far along they are with the story/script for Star Trek 3. We already know Abrams and co. have an idea for the third film — so what if they moved straight from release of Star Trek Into Darkness into production on the next film?


169. alec - February 5, 2013

There are plenty of big names out there. Pay them enough, they’ll do it.

I’ll miss Jar Jar about as much as he will miss the Trek franchise. If he wants to make Kiddie films, fine. Trek has potential for better story telling.

Incidentally, I’m really looking forward to the re-edited BOBW episode: TNG’s best ‘film’ by a mile…..FC was bad in comparison.

170. Phillip - February 5, 2013

this vote has to reflect your confidence in Abrams as a producer as well. Even if he doesnt direct he would be very involved in the process including who should direct. As good a job as he’s done behind the lens I also think he could do a great job of selecting another director if the franchise cant wait.

171. Snackl Legend - February 5, 2013

The 50th Anniversary of Star Trek is too important for Paramount not to have a film for it. J.J. to produce, someone else to direct if he can’t.

172. JohnRambo - February 5, 2013

Star Trek without Abrams will be boring as HELL!!!

173. Uberbot - February 5, 2013

No waiting!!! I like JJ, but c’mon! 2017?!
We could’ve had a whole series by then! That’s crazy!!

174. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 5, 2013

#167 – This – I refer post #130 –

So what else was Star Trek ’09 about? Well, it was about a Romulan out for revenge, but for a stupid reason….The point being, the villain’s motive was weak and uncompelling, so you don’t come away thinking that the movie was about revenge.”

You can read the entire paragraph for yourself to see what I mean. I have not read the Countdown series leading up to events in Star Trek 09, however I do recall reading that Nero was aware that this Spock was going to prevent the destruction of Romulus. Nero was pissed at Spock because he failed and indeed believed that Spock meant to fail. We know differently, but the point is that Nero, being so aggrieved, became inconsolable, irrational and sought revenge at any cost. His crew believed as he did.

175. Captain, USS Northstar - February 5, 2013

First, let me say that I’m enjoying the Abrams, Orci, et al. vision of Star Trek and believe the upcoming movie will be wonderfully awesome.

That said, though, the 50th Anniversary is too important a milestone not to mark it with a major motion picture release. Sure, a TV series would be great as well, but a third and final installment of this particular story arc would be best in 2016.

Part of me wishes that when STID is released, we also get the surprise announcement that, unbeknownst to the general public, JJ and team also shot the third movie at the same time and will be ready for release in 2016 for the anniversary.

Hence all the secrecy, the long wait, and playing everything close the vest. That would be huge — not to mention great fun and a super publicity stunt that would put the focus right back on the Star Trek franchise.

Oh well; it is fun to dream.

176. Phil - February 5, 2013

@169. Not likely. I be suprised if Ep.7 does not meet the orignial release date. The wheels were in motion for this well before the sale of Lucasfilm was announced – JJ will be up to his armpits in Star Wars the minute he’s done with STID.

177. Basement Blogger - February 5, 2013

I thought I posted this thought before but maybe not. J.J. Abrams should not direct the third movie. Remember the delay for Star Trek Into Darkness for Super 8. It’s my opinion that Star Wars being the bigger financial franchise and Abrams being a Star Wars guy, there will be a danger of Star Trek being the poor stepchild.

Hollywood is full of talented directors. But again, I make the argument that Star Trek needs a czar. Someone who will oversee the films and hopefully a triumphant return to television. That person should be Bob Orci. He loves and understands Star Trek. He’s the perfect man for Star Trek Czar.

178. Bob Tompkins - February 5, 2013

COPD is a bitch and I highly suspect I won’t be around for Abrams’ 3rd Trek; I am somewhat surprised I am more than likely to make it to the second- but nothing is written in stone. I felt so awful in 2008 and 2009 I didn’t think I would make it to the first one. Remission was surprising, but I am told not to look for any remission in symptoms this time- but who knows? The experts were wrong the first time.
My true regret is that whenever the inevitable comes to pass, I won’t be around for my grandchildren, not for some movie even if it is Star Trek.
Of course, if Abrams had stayed with Trek as he should have, the third installment would be opening in May.

179. Phil - February 5, 2013

@175. Well, that reinforces the point. Why would Nero, a miner, be any more or less upset about the loss of his homeworld they any other Romulan miner with a ship who was offworld? A happy set of circumstance put him in a position to wreck havoc in an alternate universe. Had Nero run a simple scan on his arrival in the new universe, he would have seen that Romulus still existed. Might that have muted his anger just a bit? This has been a problem with Trek villians for a while now, blind rage or ambition, coupled with the relative ease that advanced technology seems to be easily stolen, always seems to put to use to rampage across the Federation, which is supposed to be a bastion of peace and prosperity. Are things really that bad just under the surface that everyone and their uncle wants revenge? So far, what little is known of STID, that appears to be what we are going to be treated to yet again.

Yeah, maybe it is time for new writers and directors. And Trek can get back to exploring.

180. Bob Tompkins - February 5, 2013

You may say ‘it sucks to be you’, but my life has been mostly good, and there is no bitterness.

181. NoKhan - February 5, 2013

JJ Abrams is not the only director in Hollywood. The next movie should be out in no more than 3 years. I actually think 2 is better, but no more than 3. If JJ is available, great. If not, choose wisely.

182. Pegasus - February 5, 2013

#179 – I hope you prove the doctors wrong again and I’m really rooting for your health.

You are totally right, though — I don’t see filmmakers like Christopher Nolan walking away from Batman to diddle around with (how many??) failed tv pilots and an obscure movie he wrote and directed himself which he really could have done any time. And it’s not even that they need JJ as a director. It’s that he’s the leader on all of Star Trek right now. Why did they bump the release date? Why is Star Trek now in a state of potential 6 year release schedule? Why does Star Trek feel like it’s dying again before the second movie is even released?


183. T'Cal - February 5, 2013

Ha! When I voted it was 35%/32%/33%. We’re splintered as usual. Pathetic…

I’d prefer a 50th anniversary 2016 release with a new director. Singer and Whedon would be great choices of course but they seem rather busy lately. Would either have time?

184. Thorny - February 5, 2013

146… You may be surprised to learn that not all of us loved Star Trek 2009. Was it a good movie? Yes. Great? No. Mission Impossible 3 and Super 8 were not great movies, either. Feel free to worship at the altar of Abrams, but I don’t.

Don’t miss the 2016 50th Anniversary. If JJ isn’t available (and he won’t be) then so be it. And please not Alex Kurzman instead. “People Like Us” was terrible.

185. Leo R - February 5, 2013

Sorry, JJ made his commitment to Star Wars and Trek fans have already waited long enough. There are other directors and visionaries out there that can handle a Trek movie. Stop making the fans wait and we’ve been incredibly patient especially since CBS isn’t considering a new series.

186. Joel - February 5, 2013

Hire Brad Bird and release it in 2016 for the 50th anniversary. This four year gap between movies shouldn’t become the norm.

Ghost Protocol was the best MI movie (and the third one was pretty damn entertaining) and Bird could easily handle Trek.

187. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - February 5, 2013

It’s interesting to note that as of right now, 2-5-13, almost twice the number of people who voted are in favor of moving on with a new director.

188. BatlethInTheGroin - February 5, 2013

#169: Actually, Lucasfilm confirmed today the 2015 release date for Episode VII.

189. Captain Peabody - February 5, 2013

My answer to the poll depends a great deal on who’s doing the directing. Nicholas Meyer? Brad Bird? Johnathon Frakes? I’m in. A lot of other A-list Hollywood directors? I’ll take JJ a hundred times over.

190. thomas vinelli - February 5, 2013

No 4 years is to long. My guess is Paramount will get rid of JJ all together. Get a new crew and director in there and shot for 2015.
As far as i’m concerned JJ can kiss my ass. There’s many directors that can direct Star trek

191. Trek Pimp - February 5, 2013

Take this poll again after Into Darkness comes out…

192. AJ - February 5, 2013

I am all for Brad Bird or Bryan Singer.

JJ is more of the ‘non-stop thrill-ride’ type of director where if you blink you may miss something.

Also, he’s just not good at filming the Enterprise. The new teasers show some promise, ST09 just didn’t satisfy. Enterprise IS a character in “Star Trek,” and should get more screen-time where her scale is obvious, and her ‘beauty shot’ lasts more than a few seconds covered in mist.

193. Phil - February 5, 2013

@189. Not suprised at all. This project is probably further along then most people realize.

194. Check the Circuit - February 5, 2013

Has Brad Bird made a bad or sub-par movie? Iron Giant. The Incredibles. MI:IV. I don’t think so.

If he’s willing, I think he would be a great choice to take on Star Trek 3.0.

195. Phil - February 5, 2013

65% in the no catagory. Would really love to see Paramount make some announcements of their own in the next couple of weeks.

196. Vultan - February 5, 2013

Brad Bird, Joss Whedon, Rupert Wyatt, or Duncan Jones for Trek.
They know sci-fi.

197. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - February 5, 2013

#168: “Anthony”

Hi Anthony,

Might you consider modifying your post name here to something besides “Anthony” as it is confusing given “Anthony Pascale” is the moderator for this site

I was about ready to respond to you just now thinking that you were Anthony Pascale. It’s a tad misleading.


198. ManicTribble. - February 5, 2013

It doesn’t and shouldn’t take three years to make a movie.

We’ve had to wait three years because JJ Abrams had his pet projects that he wanted to put before Star Trek, so everyone had to wait until he was ready to direct. This is B-Sh_t! Now he has a directing job doing his favorite scifi series. I like his work but don’t think we should have to wait for him to finally get around to Star Trek. A lot of us have supported Star Trek for thirty years of better. This horse shit with having to wait for one director need to stop. Get someone else to direct. If the writing is good for the next movie let someone else direct.

This is my opinion. Take it or leave.

199. Basement Blogger - February 5, 2013

@ 197


Duncan Jones does know science fiction. I loved his thought provoking “Source Code.”

But what about Neil Blomkamp? His brilliant and Best Picture nominated ‘District 9″ (2009) featured social commentary along with the big bangs.

200. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

Ghost Protocol was okay. The first MI was the best. It’s a tossup between 2 and 3.

Bird makes excellent animated movies, but his foray into live action didn’t knock me out.

He would be low on my list for ST directors.

201. LizardGirl - February 5, 2013


Methinks Disney needs to be a little more patient and understanding and back the frick up, seriously. Paramount had the patience of a saint. So what’s the rush, Disney? With the cold calculation that only the Disney Kingdom can pull off, they went to JJ (only after Speilburg turned it down of course) with this ridiculous time table knowing full well he was invested in Star Trek! They were probably banking on his love of Star Trek as well as any challenge put before him. And JJ could not resist. It’s not in his nature to pass up an opportunity like this. It’s like putting cake in front of a kid!

If they could just WAIT for 2 frickin years then I think it’ll show a sense of decorum on their part. It’s not like they’re going to run out of money anytime soon. Especially with the new Avengers empire, not to mention whatever spinoff movies from THAT! And people, me included, will go see the Star Wars movies even with a 2 year delay from their initial time table. But, if it’s important to have a good director, then be willing to wait for him. Paramount did, we did, so why are you so special Disney?

They’re greedy. Pure and simple. They now OWN Lucasfilm. Wouldn’t that mean they own everything under that name or at least most of it, not just the movies but the Clone Wars TV show, merchandise, games, etc.??!!

Give me a frickin break! This is a power play, pure and simple. And it’s distasteful. They should be willing to make time concessions for the director they want, just like Paramount did. But, like someone else mentioned earlier, it’s not like JJ has agreed to all of their terms. Which gives me just a smidgeon of hope that he’ll be around for the third film before becoming assimilated by the Bor–I mean Disney.

202. LizardGirl - February 5, 2013


Game, set, match. The mouse wins.

203. Gold Coast Rob - February 5, 2013

I’m saddened that STID seems to be going down the Die Hard All Action route. I’d like to a little more depth, a little more dialogue and the effects being the icing on the cake, rather than the cake itself.

I think the reinvention of Bond in Skyfall managed to strike a near perfect balance, I wouln’t mind seeing a similar apporach applied to Trek.

While I applaud JJ and his crew for bring Trek back to the big screen, I can’t help feeling it’s time for him to move on and hand the reigns to a different director.

204. Phil - February 5, 2013

@201. I think disney dropped 4 Billion on Lucasfilm, they want some of that back. Lucas made most of his fortune on merchendising the snot out of the galaxy far, far away. Disney knows that if they ramp up the franchise like Marvel did in it’s buildup to the Avengers, there is a big payday in their future. I don’t fault them that, it is their property now.

The focus, rightly, is now on Paramount. We got a lot of lip service back when JJ announced he first wanted to do Trek that Paramount wants Trek at a tentpole franchise for the studio. Paramount isn’t going to go toe to toe with Disney, but they are going to have to step up and put their money where their mouth is. They have been okay with allowing the producers to fit in Trek among their other projects – but if trek is indeed their ‘go to’ frenchise, they need to start treating it as such and not like an afterthought.

205. Vultan - February 5, 2013


BB, I second that nomination. Blomkamp’s District 9 was excellent. And yeah, I enjoyed Jones’ Source Code too. Both of ’em knocked it out of the park for me.

I keep thinking of Brad Bird because of The Iron Giant—a wonderful sci-fi tale with a lot of heart, and a good message. Very Trek-ish in my opinion.

And, in a way, hasn’t Star Trek always been animated? William Shatner… yes?

206. Anthony Pascale - February 5, 2013


I am ok with someone named Anthony as long as he doesn’t post anything that appears he is trying to fake sources or fake being me. Anthony Pascale is a protected name that only I can use. Anything else isn’t me

207. mntrekfan - February 5, 2013

Don’t let Joel Shumacher direct it!!! Please!!!

208. SherlockFangirl - February 5, 2013

209. Jack - February 5, 2013

208. Or Bryan Singer.

210. Jack - February 5, 2013

Bob, is live-action TV unlikely as long as Bad Robot is involved? Did y’all ever think of doing a Trek series?

Would a quickly-cancelled, unpopular Trek series hurt the brand, whatever that means?

211. Nx01 - February 5, 2013

No Brian Singer he messed up Superman!

212. Nx01 - February 5, 2013

Goodby JJ don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
I don’t want to wait 5 years like the last movie.

213. Jack - February 5, 2013

I remember watching the Matrix with a buddy who predicted that it would be a Canadian-made weekly TV show within weeks.

My point to people who demand Trek off the movie screen and onto weekly TV? We’re lucky to be getting huge, popular Trek movies again. Why would the studio take it out of theatres and make a TV show, especially these days?

These guys get Trek, including Abrams, but they also understand how to make the key parts of Trek work for a big audience. Sure it had action, but that action always had a point, and it also had a solid story, great characters and it packed an emotional wallop.

And we’re saying Trek belongs off the screen and instead in direct-to-video and TV movies? Are we insane? Enjoy what we’re getting. I never thought I’d see Trek movies of this quality in my life-time. Trek 09 was a heck of a movie set in an optimistic future. Who cares that it didn’t force feed us lazy Sunday School morals?

None of the plots for the TNG movies made any logical sense, the actors were mostly out-of-character and they have us either pointlessly dark monster movies or nonsensical fluff.

214. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - February 5, 2013

I voted for 2016 with a different director – only because it seems likely that JJ Abrams wouldn’t be able to meet the 2016 deadline with his other commitments. I do believe it would be a great shame if we did not have a new movie for the 60th anniversary of Star Trek.

I’ve been watching Star Trek (in all its incarnations) since TOS first aired. As far as the movies went, the first one to really capture my attention since First Contact was the 2009 Star Trek – and I can assure you, I was not expecting that to happen. I’m not a big ‘movie-goer’. I watch maybe 2 or 3 movies a year at the cinema, although a Star Trek movie will always draw me out, even if I expect it to be pathetic. In 2012 I went to see The Sapphires, Skyfall and The Hobbit, and that was it.

The point I’m trying to make here is that I don’t watch many movies, and in general know little and care less about who’s involved in producing/directing them. What I want to see is a movie that I will enjoy. For me Star Trek 2009 fitted the bill, and STID certainly has my attention so far. For this reason alone, I would like JJ Abrams to produce & direct the next Star Trek movie. But I want a movie in time for the 60th anniversary more.

The questions in the poll do not permit any distinction between those who (like me) want a different director for purely time constraints, and those who want a different director because they hated JJ Abrams work with Star Trek and/or are offended he has ‘jumped ship’ to Star Wars.

215. Chris Roberts - February 5, 2013

Maybe Bryan Singer could come up with an ingenious way to converge the Abramsverse with the Prime one. After a cataclysm, surviving members of the Enterprise crew find themselves in the Prime Universe around 2271, by then as old as TOS actors were in The Motion Picture, blend in with counterparts on this side who came to a sticky end. The conceit being that whatever the universe, they’re more or less the same characters anyway and cinema audiences were more accepting of recasting than originally thought.

216. Jack - February 5, 2013

216. Why? Why are we so against new stories?

BTW, I just found Red Letter Media’s hour-long review of Trek 09. A pretty outstanding, funny analysis. The ones for the other Trek movies are good too.

217. Red Dead Ryan - February 5, 2013

If I recall correctly, George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy had been working on the “Star Wars Episode VII” script for some time prior to the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney. So some of the pre-production work should be done by the time J.J Abrams gets to directing the film.

The problem is going to be with the third “Star Trek” movie. No doubt Bob and Alex will be working on side projects after the sequel is out in theatres.

The question is, will Paramount wait another 4-6 years for another Trek movie, while Disney potentially releases two SW films in that time period, not to mention a live action SW series?

I’m thinking Paramount is a bit concerned at this point. Or they should be.

I don’t think J.J Abrams is needed as director for the third film.

“Star Trek” was needed to resurrect a dying franchise. It succeeded. But J.J Abrams still had to direct the sequel (in my opinion) to expand the Trek fanbase internationally, as well as for continuity of set design, effects, and music, as well as story-telling.

Once the sequel comes out, and if its a box office smash worldwide, then J.J Abrams won’t be needed for the threequel because the movies he directed would have built a solid base of new fans and revenue worldwide which would make it easier for a new director to come in and take the reigns.

218. I'm Dead Jim! - February 5, 2013

I’m grateful to JJ for re-invigorating Trek but I don’t want to wait another four years. Bring on Joss Whedon or Brian Singer if JJ has too much on his plate.

219. Chris Roberts - February 5, 2013

Actually ignore all that @216. What would be the point? Just to bring it all under one roof. The current Star Trek films aren’t prequels, although I note reviews often painted the first one as such. They’re a reboot or reimagining via a side door. Done to avoid having a fixed future shown in The Undiscovered Country, or in Kirk’s case, a demise nobody even the actor seemed to have liked, in Generations. :(

220. Red Dead Ryan - February 5, 2013


I have to disagree. I think Star Trek works better on the small screen. Although the first Abrams film was awesome, and the sequel looks to be just as good.

But a ten-thirteen episode season on HBO or AMC may allow for the types of storytelling that can’t be done in a two hour movie every four years due to time. Plus it will allow for more grandiose epicness that can’t be done on network television.

I actually think the new Trek films are going to lead to a new Trek series. It might not happen soon, but it will eventually.

Also, for the past several years now, Warner Bros./DC have been releasing some pretty good Batman direct-to-dvd animated films in the same length of time “The Dark Knight” movies have been released.

So I wouldn’t necessarily dump on the idea of DtoD animated Trek.

221. Basement Blogger - February 5, 2013

Okay, let’s let loose with the wild choices for directing “Star Trek III: A new hope that Star Wars won’t kill our box office”

Quentin Tarantino. It could be called: Star Trek: Spock and Kirk Unchained. He could recruit Samuel L. Jackson to play a Klingon. And Jackson could say this:

“I’ve had it with these mother fu_king tribbles on this mother fu_king starship.”

Seriously, Star Trek 2009 was Tarantino’s favorite movie that year. He’s marvelous with dialogue. We know he can stage action sequences. He has a relationship with Bad Robot. He was on Alias. And this is the most important. He has a following. Young people I know who love his movies.

Coming in 2016. In a Harvey Weinstein production, it’s Quentin Tarantino ‘s Mother Bleeping Star Trek. Starring Samuel L. Jackson. John Travolta. with Olivia Newton John. And special guest star Bruce Willis as Talosian Yipee Kayay Mother Bleeper.

222. The Sinfonian - February 5, 2013

@221 Can’t be Samuel L. Jackson.


Mace Windu didn’t die. He fell, he lost an arm, but he’s not dead. He’s the antagonist in the next triology. Bitter, broken, forgotten, written off all these years — he has been consumed by the dark side. He seeks blind vengeance on the Skywalker line, deluded to think if they are all wiped out, the universe will be restored. Sam Jackson will be busy with SW7, 8 and 9.

223. dion1701 - February 5, 2013

Don’t get me wrong, I love J.J. but he is not Star Trek. Star Trek is more then one person. He has been great for bringing it back but I think a lot of the credit goes to Orci and Kurtzman.
That said Joss Whedon, Jon Favreau, Zack Snyder and even Nicholas Meyer could direct. Actually and some of you may laugh but Seth MacFarlane is a huge fan and would be a great director.
I also think trek could return to the small screen is some form.

224. intruder - February 5, 2013

Paramount could bring someone who actually is a fan of Star Trek for a change. Someone who wouldn’t backstab on us, preferably.

225. DeShonn Steinblatt - February 5, 2013

The future of Star Trek will not be decided by some fat ass with a proxy server. The future of Star Trek will be decided by American corporate philosophy, circa 2013.

226. Mel - February 5, 2013

I want a new director and the movie earlier.

227. Dilithium_doublebock - February 5, 2013

#193 AJ

Bob Orci posted something about that about a year ago. To paraphrase, he said this movie would have the mother of all Enterprise beauty shots.

228. Dilithium_doublebock - February 5, 2013

No JJ if it means missing the 50th. He’s not the greatest director ever. He put Trek in the major leagues, gotta give him that, but Trek can get an equally good director to take over. It’s not a problem. And it shouldn’t even be an issue.

Put out a ST movie for the freakin’ 50th anniversary.

229. kmart - February 5, 2013

I don’t think it is a given that they have to deliver in 2016 — geez, the Bond people chose not to release in 2007, and 007 can’t get a better date than that!

Calling star trek 50 in 2016 because that is 50 past 1966 when the series started is convenient, but it doesn’t take into account when THE CAGE and WHERE NO MAN were shot. You could just as easily claim STAR TREK began in 1964, and call 2014 the 50th. Probably cause just as much trouble as people pointing out century 21 began in 2001, not 2000, but truthful.

230. NuWisdom - February 5, 2013

History proves that any project that JJ is involved in, whenever he reduces his role in it, the quality of the project suffers. Alias, Lost, Fringe… the list goes on. No offense intended to the rest of The Supreme Court. Let’s just say though, if JJ produced only, they’d have to get someone legendary to replace him. Someone who has demonstrated a very impressive track record with major franchises. Someone who could grasp what Trek stands for (even if only the spirit of it) and direct a Star Trek film that was also a major blockbuster film. Joss Whedon maybe? [I say so because a) he did wonders with Firefly/Serenity, which only failed in its markets because it wasnt given a proper chance…sound familiar? and b) he succeeded in a box office manner and with epic films as evidenced by The Avengers)… any other ideas as to who could helm a 3rd film that could work? <—–Pay attention to this BobOrci :)

231. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - February 5, 2013

#229 kmart

It’s my understanding that The Cage didn’t air until 1968 and Where No Man Has Gone Before until 1966. So what counts? Production date or air date? I thought it was air date, but I’ll bow to better informed sources.

232. intruder - February 5, 2013

Here my pointless personal opinion over the directors cited here:

Brian Singer: Even with a carte blanche he did a really incredibly boring Superman… so everyone has doubts about him. The good thing is that he’s a fan and would make Star Trek Star Trek, maybe The Motion Picture 2 (but for kids)

Guillermo Del Toro: He turned down Star Wars, maybe he’s the right guy… right?

Afonso Cuaron: He has artistic integrity and knows filmmaking better than anyone. He just filmed Gravity. Maybe he’s the other right guy.

Joss Whedon: He likes fanservice just too much which is… nice, I guess, he’s not a great filmmaker if you ask me. He’s also a bigger fan of Star Wars so he would backstab on us too.

Brad Bird: He creates effective and manipulative films, but to be frank Ghost Protocol was his weakest movie (and was his first live action). I have doubts.

William Shatner: Just kidding.

Neil Blomkamp: He would make a grittier hopeless Star Trek, which is interesting but Paramount would never fall for that.

Jon Favreau: This guy is a hack. He just got luck with Iron Man.

Rupert Wyatt: I don’t know… I have the feeling that Andy Serkis directed the Rise of the Apes, all the human characters in that movie are terribly directed, only the apes were convincing.

Jonathan Frakes: Really? After Insurrection and Thunderbirds?

Duncan Jones: The son of Bowie… it would be interesting, but he wouldn’t make Star Trek as BIG as paramount wants it to be.

Ron D. Moore: After his exile from Star Trek he might come up as a frakking phoenix, but I see him as TV guy making a huge space opera over ten seasons… not a film.

Alex Kurtzman: I didn’t watched his debut but people say good things about it. He sounds to be someone who can take the torch from JJ. If he can stand the heat might turn out a seamless JJ sequel.

Seth MacFarlane: I bet his making his moves to get on board, he’s a huge fan. Ted was a hit, he’s coming up with Cosmos, but well, he is Seth MacFarlane

Christopher Nolan: Warner would never let him out. Besides he would never took something so opposite from him like JJ’s bright Trek.

Matt Reeves: He doesn’t sound like the guy who wants to direct Star Trek.

Tarantino: The only guy that could create a real villain from this list. He would never do it. just impossible.

Jose Padilha: We need to see how Robocop turns out.

233. gingerly - February 5, 2013


Brad Bird did an excellent job with MI: IV. He “gets” showcasing everyone on the team.

MI: IV was the first Mission movie that felt like a full team instead of just the Tom show.

I like his Mission movie more than JJ’s (sorry JJ, though Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s villain was fantastic and I loved that opening action sequence).

Also, the Incredibles. Has there been a more perfect team movie?

I don’t think so.

I picked Joss and Bird because both seem to have that mix of being able to give a everyone a presence and that sense of optimistic adventure that Trek must have.

234. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

Rian Johnson is an innovative guy. He seems to be interested in the medium as an art, and willing to take risks doing things differently, whereas most directors out there are commercial technicians who do competent work, but whose work also all pretty much looks the same. Not every innovator would be a good fit for Star Trek (Tarantino, for example), but Star Trek also doesn’t automatically call for a paint-by-numbers technician either.

JJ is clearly in the lineage of Steven Spielberg, who’s clearly influenced by Frank Capra, which is a good look to have, but it’s not the only “look” for Star Trek.

235. gingerly - February 5, 2013

Gotta say, I’m questioning the taste-level of some of you.

Brad Bird’s MI: Ghost Protocol got a 93% Fresh rating on RottenTomatoes and deservedly so.

Have any of you actually seen the movie?? It is fantastic.

Bryan Singer would’ve been on my list before Superman Returns.

Star Trek is not Del Toro’s style…Though the aliens would be frakkin’ cool.

Cuaron could be interesting.

Favereau would be my third choice.

None of the others mentioned have styles that mesh with Trek, in my opinion.

236. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

I saw Ghost Protocol once, and that is quite enough, thank you. I’ve seen MI1 multiple times, however, and it never fails to interest me, due in part to the well done Sherlock Holmes feel of the mystery.

MI2 had the benefit of that potent relationship between the Cruise and Newton characters, and that unforgettable shoot-em-up scene where Newton injects herself with the Bellerophon, and Cruise leaves her behind jumping out of the window. The action, the emotion, the music all worked perfectly there.

Bird’s contribution actually felt flat by comparison. There was nothing special in it like the first two films that “hooked” me. My favorite part was the party scene with Paula Patton and Anil Kapoor. Very funny. I enjoyed Paula, but nothing else really got to me in that movie.

Ving Rhames needs to be a major part of each one, in my opinion. They are weaker without him.

237. gingerly - February 5, 2013



That was the worst one. There was nothing shown to us of Tom and Newton’s character’s “relationship” beyond sex.

The action scenes were ridiculous and there was too much face-off action going on.

Also, bigtime fail at Newton’s character being a master thief who failed in her every attempt to steal something.

In comparison, MI:IV was quickly-paced, every member of the team was capable and the action set-pieces were terrific.

Like I said, the taste-level here is lacking.

238. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

Brad Bird probably makes good business sense for a live action Trek, but I usually lean toward the side of art and quality rather than money which puts me in a minority that I am happy to be in because in the long run it’s the art that gets preserved for posterity, and the moneymakers that people buzz about and then just as quickly forget.

To stick in the cultural memory you have to do more than just make some already rich folk a little bit richer.

Having only one live movie to his credit may be too small a sample to judge by, but all of his animated films are home runs. While he may have the core competencies needed to direct live action movies, he seems to have a better feel for the animated genre which makes him extraordinary at that, but just another face in the crowd as a live action man.

239. Ahmed - February 5, 2013

MI 2 was the worst of the MI movies. The first movie & MI 3 were the best ones in the series. Abrams was amazing in MI3 with the story & the focus on the team & not just Ethan Hunt.

Abrams now will be very very busy with Star Wars & we should not wait around years for him to come back. He done very well with Trek & brought it back in a big way, but nothing last in this world & Paramount should start the hunt for new director.

240. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

Hey don’t say my taste is lacking because it’s different than yours! I didn’t laugh at you for liking MI4, but I can if you want me too. I sat there stonefaced and unmoved by anything I saw in that movie — other than the noted exception, and that’s not what I go to a movie to do. I could just set my money on fire if it was my goal to disenjoy one I paid to see. And realism is not a feature of any MI movie, so if that’s your critique of MI2 it applies across the board of MI movies. MI2 did have a passion to it that I felt none of in Ghost Protocol.

241. gingerly - February 5, 2013


I swear, it’s like people here think animation is somehow less legit than live-action, when actually, animated films are a lot harder to direct.

When you talk about cultural memory, you can mention Iron Giant and The Incredibles as two that speak to Bird’s legacy.

Both had the evocative emotion, the draw for the entire family, and BONUS! both were sci-fi and had optimistic visions.

Bird has two more live-action movies coming out, I guarantee, many more people here will be all about Bird directing, when they do.

242. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

I liked MI3 better than MI4, but I think the same criticism applies to the Abrams film, though to a lesser extent, that I made of the Bird film.

Not enough passion. It was like TSFS. That wasn’t the best Star Trek film, but I love it because it had some of the most priceless moments out of any Star Trek film, and that’s how I view MI2. MI3 was solid, but to me it had shorter peaks than the first two films, and those peaks are the things that make the impression for me.

That’s also why I cannot diss TSFS.

243. dmduncan - February 5, 2013


Yeah gingerly but animation IS different. I, for example, do not have a feel for animated movies. Imagine Pride and Prejudice done as an animated film with talking dogs. Ain’t happening. Dialogue doesn’t fit. I could not make an animated film because that’s not how I see the world. And I don’t think they draw on interchangeable skills, so it’s not absurd to say that a person can be better at making one type and not as good at making another type.

Picasso could draw competent “realistic” pictures of people, but he excelled at a totally different type of art than that.

244. Khan was Framed! - February 5, 2013

I have mixed feelings about this: JJ turned out a decent movie the first time around & the second looks promising, but his body of work outside of Star Trek is some of the worst shlock Hollywood has ever passed through it’s bowels.

All of the Mission impossible films are terrible whether he was involved or not, Fringe was unwatchable & Lost was a humourless Gilligan’s Island rip off.

Everything else he’s done is so lame, it’s not worth mentioning.

He’s a lowest common denominator kind of guy, so Star Wars is perfect for him: it’s low brow action with little to no substance.

Maybe with him out of the driver’s seat for the third Star Trek, we can start injecting some of the intelligence back into it.

245. Ahmed - February 5, 2013

@242. dmduncan

I agreed with you about MI4, I didn’t like it as much as I liked the MI 1& 3. The Dubai tower scene was the one thing that I liked in that movie. The rest of the movie, including the supporting cast, with the exception of Simon Pegg, was boring.

At the end of the day, people have different tastes when it come to movies.

246. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

Half of JJ’s success to due the other people he’s working with, really, who make him look so good.

He gets credit for choosing the right people, but he doesn’t get credit for their contribution, and on his own I don’t think he always makes the right choices.

I’ve never complained about lens flares, but reaction to the brewery was predictable and avoidable, I think he should have honored TOS more in his designs than he did (as he did for the uniforms), and the Shatner scene would have worked — no doubt in my mind about it. Whatsoever.

247. Vultan - February 5, 2013


Animation is a medium, not a genre. Say anything to the contrary around a bunch of animators and you’re likely to be chased out of the room amid a hail of very sharp pencils.

Oh, and as you’re being chased a chair and table in the background will repeat ad infinitum.

248. dmduncan - February 5, 2013


If an animated film can be considered for best picture, then it’s also a genre. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

I generally use the world medium to distinguish different forms of art, i.e., movies from musical compositions, short stories, plays, sculptures, or paintings. While there is an obvious difference between animated films and live action films, they are still both films. They still belong to the same medium of expression.

249. Vultan - February 5, 2013

It’s a common mistake.

And here’s Mr. Bird himself to explain:

250. Shilliam Watner (Click Name for Trek Poster) - February 5, 2013

246. dmduncan – I agree with you almost completely. I never belabor a nitpick, but when presented with the issue I will always say that I was embarrassed by the brewery. Still, it is not, for me, the most embarrassing thing in a Trek film. That being said, JJ could definitely have avoided the whole thing. It has always felt to me like a budget problem that was subsequently defended to the point where they can’t go back. I bet we see the brewery again just out of sheer stubbornness.

But I can’t agree with you about the Shatner scene. You see, I had no problem with Quinto’s Spock meeting Nimoy’s Spock. Aside from their gap in vocal resonance, I found them quite similar, and could believe the younger one would grow up to look and be like the older one.

Not so with Pine and Shatner. Seeing Shatner as he looks today, I just couldn’t buy that Chris Pine was the same guy, only younger. They play the character too differently. Pine just never reminded me of James Kirk as he was in TOS. Quinto, however, definitely reminded me of Spock.

It isn’t Pine’s fault. I think his take on the character was perfect for the movie. He would have been misguided to act like William Shatner. More than Quinto and Urban, Pine had to reinvent Kirk.

Shatner has overwhelmed the role of Kirk, and people don’t see the fictional character with him any longer. I know I certainly don’t. I just see WIlliam Shatner acting. But for some reason, Nimoy still works as Spock. I still believe the character, I don’t see Nimoy. So I think the holographic moment with Kirk/Shatner would have tipped the film into the realm of pandering and unbelievability for me.

That’s just my crummy opinion and my own wretched personal experience, of course.

251. gingerly - February 5, 2013


This is true.

And some people love Killer Klowns From Outer Space and find it brilliant, but I wouldn’t trust the people who think that movie is high-art to pick our next director (if we need one).

Heck, it’s all speculation anyway.

But, seriously MI: was some old sanitized self-parodying-Woo garbage.

252. gingerly - February 5, 2013

*MI:2 that is.

As for this Trek, I have a feeling it’ll either be amazing or really, really terrible.

There’s gonna be no inbetween.

253. gingerly - February 5, 2013



Animation is a medium, not a genre.

I recommend those who think otherwise to watch Grave of the Fireflies, The Plague Dogs, Princess Mononoke, and Waltz with Bashir.

254. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

Well, I’m a philosopher, Vultan, and I know that words are fuzzy little things that don’t have the sharp boundaries of meaning we like to pretend they do, so Mr. Bird can punch me.

“Animation is an art form, and it can do any genre.” So says Brad Bird.

Well, film is an art form and it can do any genre. Animated, photographed, concocted partly in the camera and partly on a computer, what’s the difference? It’s all light projected onto a screen for an audience. It’s like someone getting upset that you called him a Trekkie instead of a Trekker.

255. gingerly - February 5, 2013


Not a good comparison as whether or not a person is called a Trekker or Trekkie, that person is still a follower of Trek.

Animation however is in fact not a genre. There are animated films with layers of meaning heavier than any live-action film and those I would lock-away from children.

Whether you call it a medium or a genre doesn’t change the fact of what actually is.

Anyway, the point is Bird is a talented guy. His style keeps with Trek and and he’d be a great choice if JJ decides this is it for him.

256. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

Seems to me you folks who want to see an animated movie win best picture can’t have it both ways. If it’s an animated movie competing with live action movies for the same award, then that piece of animation becomes a genre of the art of film.

You didn’t have that confusion when you wanted to award animated films separately, but since that wasn’t enough and you want to blur the lines, then I’m afraid you are also changing the meaning of these words you use.

You may not like that, but it’s going to keep happening. I also don’t care if someone objects to Trekkie, however strongly they try to make a case to me that one really is different than the other.

257. WC - February 5, 2013

willing to wait if we get a series on TV

258. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

256: “Animation however is in fact not a genre.”

I have no idea what facts you think separates one from the other.

Given that live action movies are so filled with CGI and could not tell their stories without them, are we going to divide movies into live action photographed sections and CGI sections, and distinguish how we refer to these different parts of the same movie between the terms “genre” and “medium” — or, rather, are those periods of CGI part of whatever genre of film that they happen to be included within? And how many minutes of CGI does it take before project becomes more “medium” of animation than “genre” of film?

What would that make Lord of the Rings?

Animation already IS genre. We accept it as such, and we speak of it as such. There’s probably more animation in the LOTR saga than in The Incredibles. But one is a genre and the other is not? The closer you look the fuzzier things get.

The conceptual lines are not as clear as you and Brad Bird seem to think, mainly because it’s all light projected on or from a screen to tell a moving picture story.

259. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

And anyway, much as I don’t care for the idea, Brad Bird directing Trek does seem like a thing that could happen if he has an open schedule.

I would prefer Joss Whedon as long as that choice didn’t displace Bob and Alex from their writing role in the third movie, which I very much want them to return for.

260. gingerly - February 5, 2013

“Animation already IS genre.”

Okay, maybe you don’t know what that word means.

Genre could be action, drama, comedy, tragedy, adventure, romance and so on.

Examples of mediums are photographs, claymation, animation, live-action, 3D, digital film, slides, and so forth.

There can be dramatic animated films strictly for adults and there can be live-action films just for preschoolers.

Hope that helps.

261. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

I have always thought of animation, since the days of single-frame photography of hand drawn cells of artwork, as the medium of film. How you got the pictures ON the film didn’t much matter to me because in the end it’s a MOVIE, not several thousand hand drawn cells of artwork. It stops being that when you flip the switch on the projector.

It’s perfectly legitimate to call the art you are making with your brushes and paints as ONE medium different than the medium of film. But once it’s on the film, it is also transferred to and becomes a different medium.

For example: If you are doing a documentary about Picasso, you will probably film some of his paintings. And when you do that you will show in your movie images OF a different medium of art, i.e., of painting.

But when you paint cells and those individual paintings become frames on a piece of film that creates the illusion of moving objects, you are not showing pictures of a different medium anymore, like that Picasso painting. No, your artwork itself has become the medium of film.

You are no longer showing a painting — you are showing a movie that has been painted.

262. dmduncan - February 5, 2013


No, I know exactly what you mean there. I’m confused about why you think I don’t know what medium means.

263. Red Dead Ryan - February 5, 2013


“Animation however is in fact not a genre. There are animated films with layers of meaning heavier than any live-action film and those I would lock-away from children.”

By your logic, sci-fi, action, drama, fantasy, etc. are not genres either since they also include films meant/written for children at their levels of understanding and perception, and those that are written with mature subject matter aimed at adults, and beyond the comprehension of kids.

To me, genre and medium aren’t necessarily the same thing. TV and film are two different mediums, since the production and writing processes can be significantly different due to time and budget.

Not to mention TV features many of the same genres found in movies, plus game/talent/reality shows, as well as news programming and documentaries.

264. Allen Williams - February 5, 2013

Jar Jar Abrams ruined the first one with the damn lens flares. Also the script had a minor spot that could have used work. I think Franks could have not only made it look like it wasn’t filmed by a 5 year old, but he could have helped with the weakest point of the plot.

I’m hoping there are no lens flares, but it looks like there will be some just not as many. We’ll see how he pulls this one off, but I would rather have someone that isn’t going to turn it into a circus again.

265. Red Dead Ryan - February 5, 2013

J.J Abrams wanted a different look for the Enterprise because he wanted it to relate to today’s mainstream audiences.

To me, Abrams isn’t really a fan of the original show. At least not like we are, or Bob and Alex. Abrams is more of a fan of the characters themselves, and doesn’t really have any attachment to the minimalistic, retro-futuristic style of TOS. He isn’t concerned about jelly-bean buttons, or the pastel coloured light reflections on the walls of Kirk’s quarters.

He obviously had to keep the basics, like how the bridge is configured, and the basic shape, configuration and profile of the ship’s exterior.

It is his choice. He prefers a cluttered twenty-first century brewery as the engine room instead of a futuristic power-generation core.

266. Red Dead Ryan - February 5, 2013

It should say “J.J Abrams wanted the audience to be able to relate to “Star Trek” which accounts for the significant differences between the nuEnterprise and its TOS counterpart.”

267. Vultan - February 5, 2013

Placing animation in a separate category in which a bunch of animated films compete is placing it in a genre, the “animated genre.” When an animated film is deemed great enough, by whatever odd criteria the Academy uses, to compete with live-action films and sit at the grown-ups table, it’s simply another film that happens to be animated.

Rango and Blazing Saddles are both comedy westerns—their genres. One is animated, the other is live-action—their mediums. And both are in the broader medium of film, of visual arts.

As for Lord of the Rings, it combines live-action and animated visual effects—mixed media—in the genre of fantasy.

268. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

261: “Genre could be action, drama, comedy, tragedy, adventure, romance and so on.”

I think I see where we are missing each other. When I call those animated films of Brad Bird a different genre, what I am saying is that they belong to the medium of film, but their mode of expression is significantly different such that they are as distinguishable in their dialogue, in their imagery, and in the types of things that happen in them, as the period piece is from the action movie.

They are all movies, animated or live action, period piece and adventure — one medium of movies, but the types of things that you see, understand, and that happen in them are different, which is what separates genres. You may have adventure in both live action and animated films, but they don’t have the same level of reality. So there’s not just one kind of adventure that both animated films and live action films do the same way. There are two kinds, and that animated kind is a different genre, not the same one.

269. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

268: “Rango and Blazing Saddles are both comedy westerns—their genres. One is animated, the other is live-action—their mediums. And both are in the broader medium of film, of visual arts.”

Sure, you could put it that way too.

It’s all in how you group similar things. You just broke the medium of film into genus and differentia, and I did that to genre. It works either way. My freaky brain just happens to work a little differently.

270. dmduncan - February 5, 2013

E.g., I would say that Rango and Blazing Saddles are different genres. One is an animated comedy western, the other is a live-action comedy western. And both movies — their medium.

Now, which way is better to look at it? It depends on what the person who talks that way to you is trying to get you to see.

271. Kenji - February 5, 2013


You’re not the only one to have this kind of sentiment but I think it is unfair. First, Trek is made by a team, not an individual. Second, the main reason that ST09 works so well for me, as a guy who — sadly — knows a great deal about TOS is that there were callbacks to the franchise all through it.

– you must have faith
– you lied?
– Bones!
– fascinating
– canonization of Nyota, Tiberious, and Hikaru
– Scotty’s hungry
– Chekhov can’t say ‘w’
– beating the Kobayashi Maru
– …while eating apples!
– fencing
– katras
– Orion hotties
– iconic ship silhouettes
– miniskirts and boots
– pointy sideburns
– perforated room dividers in staterooms

I could go on, but you surely saw all of that tribute/callback/outright theft as well as I must have.

Not keeping the 60s panel instrumentation? I give them a pass. To reproduce the look exactly would be to call attention to an anachronism.

Instead, they made a state of the art FX spectacle, which Trek has never been budgeted for after the first, airless and tedious (though much better in the completed director’s edit) TMP barely broke even and probably caused grey hair all over Paramount.

They love them some Trek, these guys. If you can’t feel that, you’re trying to be cynical!

272. Kenji - February 5, 2013

I’ll admit that the brewery really looks like a brewery. I understand wanting to shoot on location as much as possible but I don’t understand the interior. A spaceship is a submarine, only more so. Why would you have that kind of interior volume filled with air that must be warmed, cleaned, hydrated?

273. dmduncan - February 6, 2013

See, what happens when you call different things by the same name is that very significant differences get ignored. So, for example, when you group Rango and Blazing Saddles together under the same genre, then you are grouping together an animated film about talking lizards in an environment that looks like the old west, with a live action film about people in the old west.

All in all, I’d say that makes those two films more different than alike, not because of the medium but because of the content.


274. Jason - February 6, 2013

2016 is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. So, if we don’t get a new series, we need a new film. With that it would be best to get a new director.

Remember when Abrams passed on Mission 4 but stayed on as producer. We got BRAD BIRD in his place. If we got someone of Bird’s caliber (if not Brad Bird himself) to direct, that would be worth it.

275. Curious Cadet - February 6, 2013

@25. Son Of MJ,
“he is also producing possibily directing the Lance Armstrong Bio Pic, before star wars.”

This is the first I’ve heard of this and all I really need to know to lose any respect I had for Abrams.

This is the equivalent of Steven Speilberg doing the Barry Bonds story.

If nothing else I respected Abrams directing as an artistic filmmaker. If he is really entertaining directing an Armstrong bio, then he has sold out. There is no other reason to do such a film other than to grab some money. Lance Armstrong is the least interesting figure currently alive about which to do a biopic. He is the stuff of tabloid fodder. Giving this sad, dispicable, egomaniac any further attention is abominable, especially from someone like Abrams which guarantees to put butts in seats and eyes on the screen. Whatever you feel about Lance Armstrong such a high-proile movie will only cement this pathetic man’s stature in popular culture, giving him the attention he craves, if not through sports victories then through scandal.

Leave this kind of trash to “B” level TV directors of Lifetime channel movies of the week, and save the A list talent for more respectable and worthwhile projects. If this is a priority for Abrams, then I say good-riddance. Star Trek doesn’t need him anyway, there are other directors just as good if not better and commanding a greater following than Abrams, who will take Star Trek to different and more interesting places. And isn’t that what Star Trek is about anyway?

276. Disinvited - February 6, 2013

#268. Vultan – February 5, 2013, 274. dmduncan – February 5, 2013 ,

Actually, in days of yore, RANGO was a filmed TV Western starring Tim Conway that I loved.

277. Randall Williams - February 6, 2013

My personal view would be to put the the next ST movie out a.s.a.p. and
for the 50th anniversary a new Trek TV show would premiere on the
same date as the original series, September 8, 2016 at 8:00pm ET.

The vision for the series should not be the animated kid-vid saturday
morning cartoon variety. That failed the last time it was tried in the
1970s (I remember it, not that great). It should remain in the JJ verse
with the ‘Wars style of action pacing and it would ‘get back’ to the GR
vision of Trek (which STID is supposed to do according to JJ) without
alienating the gained fans from the new movies.

Just a thought.

278. Disinvited - February 6, 2013

Hat Rick,

According to Sam Rubin at KTLA Disney has confirmed they are going to do even more SW based movies based around individual characters from the franchise. He wonders if Disney is risking over saturation?

279. Randall Williams - February 6, 2013

Oh, and in response to my comment in #278

There should be a entirely new cast and crew for the ship, hopefully
young enough so that their age is not readily apparent. The current
repertoire of actors are excellent but aging nevertheless.

The stories should reflect current day issues and not necessarily those
of the past (which have been done-to-death anyway). Come up with
new idioms (“Beam me up, Scotty!” is way too over-exposed).

I know rocks will be thrown in my direction but I have been a fan of this
franchise since 1967. I have read the TOS Star Trek Writer’s Guide,
read many of the books, seen all of the films, and more. I took a break
for a few years as “Enterprise” bored me to tears, then came back with
ST09 (mixed feelings when I saw it). I do look forward to STID!

As for a director it does not have to be JJ! Be realistic. Star Wars is
where JJ’s true heart lies. It is a dream come true for him ever since
he first saw the first Star Wars many years ago for him. Allow him to
find his true home and hopefully we can get a new director who has
found his as well – in Trek. Be optimistic!

280. gingerly - February 6, 2013


” then you are grouping together an animated film about talking lizards in an environment that looks like the old west, with a live action film about people in the old west.

All in all, I’d say that makes those two films more different than alike, not because of the medium but because of the content.


This is where you’re confused. It’s not the fact that it’s “talking lizards” that makes it a different genre, it’s what the lizards talk about and how they talk about it.

It’s whether you are laughing (comedy), crying (tragedy), or are afraid of (horror) the lizards.

Genre is about the type of content, not who or what is giving you that content.

281. Phil - February 6, 2013

@279. Marvel is now where Disney hopes SW will be in 5-6 years. If IM3 does boffo box office, that is the answer to your question.

282. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 6, 2013

#280 – Most of the cast working on the original TOS series were older than the present actors are now. The oldest is Simon Pegg, but DeForest Kelley was four years older than Pegg when he first began working on TOS. We are all aging and I doubt these present actors are aging any faster than anyone else.

In 1966, William Shatner was 35; Leonard Nimoy was 35; DeForest Kelley was 46; Nichelle Nichols was 34; James Doohan was 46; Walter Koenig was 30; and George Takei was 29.

Compared with (as of 2013) – Chris Pine – 32; Zachary Quinto – 35; Karl Urban – 40; Simon Pegg – 43 (14 February); Zoe Saldana – 34; John Cho – 40; and Anton Yelchin – 24.

Just saying…

#180 – “Why would Nero, a miner, be any more or less upset about the loss of his homeworld they any other Romulan miner with a ship who was offworld? A happy set of circumstance put him in a position to wreck havoc in an alternate universe. Had Nero run a simple scan on his arrival in the new universe, he would have seen that Romulus still existed. Might that have muted his anger just a bit?”

I never said that any other miner, working away from his Romulus world at the time of its demise, would not have been as upset as Nero and his crew. Yes, it was a *happy* set of circumstance that allowed him the opportunity to wreak havoc on an alternate universe in a way that other prime universe Romulans living off-world did not have. So what? Nero DID KNOW that Romulus still existed in the alternate universe, however that did not matter as much as getting back at Spock for the world HE (Nero of a 24th century prime universe) had lost. He also explained to Pike his intentions and reasons.

I fail to see your reasoning here. Of course, he was blinded by hatred and grief. Sadly, that is often the way of things in the real world.

Writers can only base any fictional story on a basis of what they already know/experience of the real world and extrapolate, imagine, fantasize, embellish… as to what might be, could be, from that point.

There was not a lot wrong with the writing, however people’s capacity to comprehend varies much.

283. KevinJones - February 6, 2013

It would be nice to hear some of these actors say they love Trek and are committed to it whether J.J. is involved or not. That’s why it works better when you start on the small screen and then make movies, I think the actors develop a sense of camaraderie and stay dedicated to Trek no matter who comes and goes. Look at TOS and TNG. Every major cast member on those shows would make 100 Trek movies if asked. Can we say the same about Pine and Quinto? No.

284. Disinvited - February 6, 2013

#282. Phil – February 6, 2013

The only thing I can think to add is Ruben intimated that Disney plans not to wait and implement the Character War movies now. I can only imagine this would give Abrams even more options to do more SW movies as it would give him more to choose from..

285. Disinvited - February 6, 2013


I must have been hungry his last name is spelled Rubin.

286. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 6, 2013

#284 – I think the title of the thread and the quote below speak for themselves, as regards Chris Pine’s commitment and enthusiasm at this point. The link to this article was posted on another thread a couple or so weeks back.

Chris Pine (from NZ Herald article – Guarding the Universe – 5 January 2013 –
“Was it nice to slip back into the uniform again for Star Trek Into Darkness?

“Oh I loved it – it’s no hyperbole,” he insists. “We have a great group and it’s a really tight community of people I go back to work for. I just met Scarlett Johansson the other day and we talked about her experience on The Avengers and it sounds similar – that it’s such a huge film but at least if the people you get to work with every day have a sense of family, it makes the time pass that much easier and it does make you look forward to going back to work.”

It also meant reviving his mateship with New Zealand’s own Karl Urban, who plays Dr Bones McCoy.

“I love Karl. I f***ing love Karl Urban. I really do. He has a tender place in my heart. Karl is the best looking geek on the planet. He is such a geek. And I mean that in the most loving way. All of us really get along because we are so different.””

“Every major cast member on those shows would make 100 Trek movies if asked. Can we say the same about Pine and Quinto? No.”

Exaggeration much. I don’t think that it is fair to expect or hope for that kind of commitment, dedication from any actor. What I would see as commitment would be if a fourth Star Trek were to be made and all the present cast were able and keen to sign up to do that as well. Otherwise, they were happy to venture into the world of Star Trek via the small screen, as in make an alternate universe television series playing the same characters they are playing now. Maybe some might be happy, others not so. All sorts of factors would probably come into play as regards any decision any one of these actors may make.

Actors like to act and what makes it creative and exciting is no doubt the varying kinds of characters they may be able to and get to play convincingly. This is why it is unfair to expect them to necessarily be tied to playing only one character, no matter how fantastic that actor/character may be.

287. al - February 6, 2013

EVENTHOUGH I’ve enjoyed JJ’s direction on 09 Trek, and INTO DARKNESS looks good…I prefer the studios to go with another director that can handle a sci-fi movie. Yes, it would be great to have him complete the trilogy…if that was his plan all along. But if Star Wars episode 7 is a hit ( which it should be) I can see Disney asking him to helm episodes 8 and 9 as well. I worry jj may become fatigue and burnt out by all of the trips to outerspace.
He’ll need a vacation after star wars. A new director would be more than welcome.

288. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 6, 2013

The problem that Abrams and Paramount have is they don’t know, for sure, just how well STID will do in initial box office sales and in later DVD/Blu-Ray sales. Box office returns will help determine if and when the third movie gets made. Of course, we all hope that STID will be as big a success as the first one, if not bigger…but it is a big “hold your breath, fingers crossed” time.

There is really no great need for Star Wars movie to get released before its own 40th anniversary in 2017. JJ Abrams should heed to *Chris Pine’s wishes and get back to Trek, lest he is *kidnapped and brought back with hands and feet firmly tied. Trek comes first because 2016 comes before 2017! It’s that simple!

* That could make a terrific gag reel…:)

289. anna - February 6, 2013

gawd, absolutely not. Abrams staying off Trek 3 was some of the best news I’ve heard in a long while, be it in 2015 or 2017.

290. dmduncan - February 6, 2013

281: “Genre is about the type of content, not who or what is giving you that content.”

So is the medium. “The medium is the message.” In fact, the word “genre” comes from the Latin “genus,” which means “kind” or “sort” which can pretty much describe the heading of any category as long as distinct sub-examples follow, whether it’s “western” as the differentia of the “story” genus, or “story” as the differentia of the “art” genus.

Animation isn’t a separate medium, as Bird seems to suggest. It’s the medium of film itself, which is why animated films cover what you and Bird are calling the same genres. But because the content of an animated film is itself unique, the term “animation” also names a TYPE of content that is inseparable from what you are calling the “medium.”

Animation isn’t just about the materials you are working with which, in this day, are the same computers used for making long sections of CGI “live-action” movies; animation is also a “type of content.”

But for the sake of clarity it is probably best to introduce a new term.

From now on I’ll probably describe an animation as a different STYLE within the MEDIUM of cinema or film. But I won’t refer to animations as a distinct medium. And I think you have to say that to respectfully treat animations as worthy to compete against live action movies, which seems to be the trend.

Just as different styles of cooking use very different ingredients (compare Chinese to Mexican, for example), so do different styles of filmmaking.

Though the materials are different, they all produce delicious food.

291. Captain_Conrad - February 6, 2013

JJ can come back and do ST XIV. For XIII, let’s tap Joss Whedon!!!!

292. Bill Peters - February 6, 2013

I Figured that JJ will probably be Producer if he doesn’t Direct, some people keep going back to Directors they like from other films, but I would say my choice is Orci or one of the other writers from the first 2 films, Also should point out some people are going back to the Dirctor of Nemisis, but that film boomed at the Box Office so I doubt Paramount will give him a chance to Direct another Trek Film.

272. Kenji I agree with you the updated look but the moments that went back to TOS worked for me.

293. Phil - February 6, 2013

Stewart Baird, as opposed to Brad Bird. Don’t think Baird has directed anything since Nemisis.

294. Phil - February 6, 2013

@289. Nope. Paramount approved a second Trek flick in the weeks prior to the release of the first one, so they could put a lot of the speculation about Treks future to bed by greenlighting a third movie now, and hiring writers to get to work on a story. JJ’s ship has sailed as far as directing the third installment – there is absolutely no one in the decision making process here that sat back and said, ‘gee, maybe we should get Chris Pine on the phone and see what he thinks’. I swear to god, the more this guy talks, the more inane he gets….

295. Mr. Obie - February 6, 2013

I say give the next generation crew a proper send off with an interim movie about the the Star Trek: Destiny series. That would be the perfect combination of the various series minus Mr Data. Or I suppose you could work some Techno magic and bring him back for it. In any case that was a very well written book series and I think it would make an excellent movie.

296. Corinthian7 - February 7, 2013

He’s overrated and he’s got his fingers in too many pies. Give someone else the gig.

297. Disinvited - February 7, 2013

R.I.P. Stuart Freeborn (98)

298. Dave - February 7, 2013

Chris Pine is going to be Han Solo in the spin off anyway

299. James McFadden - February 7, 2013

I think that CBS Paramount should be able to do a 12-season show simply called Star Trek in 2017 or 2018. It would be set in the Alternate Reality, from 2266-2278 or even from 2260-2280. The stories that take place up until the 2260s could be produced by Pocket Books, Gallery Books and IDW. It is a good way for Bad Robot and CBS Paramount to proceed with the new Star Trek franchise. Maybe Bad Robot and Paramount will also be able to get involved in Star Trek Phoenix and Star Trek Renegades.

300. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 7, 2013

Chris Pine is not being “inane” in expressing what he would like to see happen and what’s more, why shouldn’t he?

“JJ’s ship has sailed as far as directing the third installment…”
Really? And you think that what Chris Pine says is “inane” – Yeah, right.

Of course, you know this for certain, Phil, unlike Chris Pine who is one of the main actors and who has had JJ Abrams as his director in the first two Star Trek movies.

Fact – JJ Abrams has agreed to direct the Star Wars Episode VII movie, if and when, the time comes for JJ Abrams to sit in the Director’s chair.

Another Fact – JJ Abrams has not said whether or not he will direct the third Star Trek movie and Chris Pine knows this. In fact, no announcement has been made, which means that JJ Abrams can still say Yes or No to directing Star Trek (2016). Chris wants JJ to say YES.

301. Mr. Zoom - February 7, 2013


Regarding no 007 in 2007, since the reboot, Casino Royale was released in theaters late in 2006 (and on DVD in the spring of 2007), I would call that “close enough for MI6 work”. :)

Anyway, there was no way they were going to get another theatrical release in the can within a year. The first 4 Bond pictures came out in consecutive years — but this isn’t the ’60s anymore.

The Bond producers were just fortunate that MGM emerged from their financial troubles in time to put Skyfall in theaters for Mr. Bond’s 50th (cinematic) anniversary.

Paramount/CBS are in much better shape than MGM was, so there should be simply no excuse not to have an original production for Trek’s 50th, whether it be a movie, a TV series, or even a miniseries.

302. Mr. Zoom - February 7, 2013

@229 Further to my last post, THE CAGE and WHERE NO MAN …. may have been completed in ’64, but the general viewing public didn’t see Trek until September 8, 1966. That is the date we count the anniversary from.

303. Phil - February 7, 2013

@300. Yep. The release dates are not open to interpetation. It’s also foolish to expect that JJ didn’t discuss the ramifications of this with Paramount prior to making his decision. Chris Pine should know better, yet chooses to open his mouth and sound inane.

The only thing that gives JJ a window at directing a third installment will be if Paramount announces that they don’t have a timetable for the third movie hitting theaters. If Paramount can live with it happening by 2018, then Mr. Pine may get his wish. Either way, no one in a position to make a decision is consulting him, and Mr. Pine has no weight to throw around.

304. Aurore - February 8, 2013

“The idea of someone else saying ‘action’ to those actors in those characters on that [Star Trek] set makes me jealous.”

That is what Mr. Abrams stated before (ultimately) deciding to direct the upcoming movie.

….And, years ago, he did say that after reading the script for StarTrek (2009) he would have been jealous if anyone else had directed it.

Therefore, here is what needs to happen.

The writing team involved so far in the making of the last Star Trek and the sequel must deliver a “jealousy/ envy inducing” script for the third installment.

…. if only it were so simple, if only it were enough to convince him to direct …

I did not participate in the vote, but, I would wait for a “JJ directed release”….If I had my way.

305. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 8, 2013

Chris Pine is not throwing his weight around nor can he. He is expressing an opinion and a hope – one that many others share, btw.

As for release dates, as far as I understood, the 2015 release date for the new Star Wars movie was a tentative one. In other words, Disney hoped to have the movie ready for release by 2015, but that may not happen. Paramount also hoped to have this Star Trek movie sequel ready for release by 29 June 2012, but that did not happen. Nothing is set in stone. And – Chris Pine knows that as well.

306. Phil - February 8, 2013

Disney is not hoping for anything, they have just confirmed the dates first announced. Further, the story is done, the script is underway, as is pre-production. Yeah, Paramount had hoped for a 2012 release, but our boys took a couple of years off to pursue other projects prior to writing the story. Sorry, but the only way JJ directs the next installment is if Paramout is okay with a release date of 2017-2018….

307. Marja - February 8, 2013

I think it’d be great if JJ Produced or Executive Produced, with Joss Whedon as director! Whedon understands devoted fanbases to be sure, and is a great director.

ST3 should have a target date of 2015, Christmas. That way they’ll have it ready for real around, oh, September 2016.

Hope I’m still around to see it! I was beginning to have my doubts about ST2!


308. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 8, 2013

#306 – Which means that JJ Abrams being able to direct both movies is doable. Assuming Star Wars takes 18 months to make from this point – February 2013, then we may expect the SW movie more or less ready for release by August 2014…Disney only needs hold it over for release as a 2015 summer blockbuster release.

JJ Abrams was signed on as director only.

While SW is in its post-production phase, JJ can be working on some of Star Trek *3’s pre-production, that’s assuming that a script has been written and Paramount has given it the go-ahead. While the Star Wars movie is playing in cinemas in 2015, he can be working on the third Star Trek movie, ready for release in 2016.

Admittedly, it is a tight schedule and for that reason, JJ may need to hand the director’s reins over to someone else. I really do not know who that should be. Perhaps we could ask Chris Pine. After all, he will have to work with this new director…

It is likely, though, that Chris Pine and the other actors may not be allowed or would not wish to give such an opinion, but what is more interesting in this whole debate about who should direct the next Star Trek if JJ can’t, is that nobody even considered what the actors may think. After all, they (not us) have to work under the direction of whoever. Clearly, Chris likes JJ – they have both worked hard on getting to know who this Kirk character is and how he should be best played etc. Now another director comes in…

Actually, that was one of the problems that both Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner had when making the original TOS series – every week a new director – someone who didn’t much, if anything, about the characters of Spock or Kirk, but who could call the shots. They would have these actors who had perhaps worked for months on developing their characters, do and say stuff that was completely out of character, because the writers and especially the stranger directors didn’t know zilch…

Hopefully, any new director today will be more clued up than some of the original TOS directors were…

309. Jemini - February 8, 2013

I want JJ but I can’t wait until 2017
that’s a no win scenario

310. Phil - February 8, 2013

@308. Bad Robot is producing, too. Why would anyone assume that JJ is a one and done deal with Star Wars, anyway? Ot that he’s dumping any of his other projects? Bad Robot’s deal with Paramount is a first look contract, he’s free to shop his talents elsewhere. Bad Robot will deliver what they are contractually obligated to do – produce movies. JJ directing was a bonus.

Most TV shows have a pool of directors, for a number of reason. ST was no different.

Sorry, JJ is not directing the third installment. There just isn’t enough of him to go around. At this point, because Paramount has gone silent on these developments, I’d also question if the wrtiers are going to be on board, too.

311. Phil - February 8, 2013

In case JJ isn’t busy enough. Add game developer to Bad Robots list of things to do…

312. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 10, 2013

Phil – I am saying what could, might be doable. That is not the same as saying that he will actually do something. However, you are definitively saying – “JJ is not directing the third installment”. That is a highly presumptuous statement. You, like me, have no idea what JJ will or won’t do.

Besides, *Simon Pegg was quite dismissive of any notion that JJ would not direct the third Star Trek movie. For some reason, I have this odd notion that both Simon Pegg and Chris Pine may be a little more clued up as who and what JJ may or may not do, than either you or I or any of us people posting our little comments to this website are.

* See new thread that Anthony Pascale has just posted to this site. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.