Abrams Talks ‘Critical Role’ For Each Star Trek Into Darkness Character + more [VIDEO] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams Talks ‘Critical Role’ For Each Star Trek Into Darkness Character + more [VIDEO] April 8, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

In a new video interview with JJ Abrams, the Star Trek Into Darkness director talks about how this movie is different than the 2009 film, secrecy, Roddenberry’s legacy and more. You can watch the full video and read some excerpts below.


Abrams talks Into Darkness

The Brazilian website Omelete has a video interview with Star Trek Into Darkness director JJ Abrams, conducted during last month’s press event in Brazil. The interview covers a few topics with Abrams starting off describing the film in brief…

Into Darkness is about this (now) family that is being tested in a way that they never have been before. In the first film [Kirk] gets the captain’s chair and in this film he earns it. It is really about this group being thrust into crazy intense adventure that takes them not only elsewhere but also takes place very much on Earth.

Later when talking about the challenges he had making Into Darkness, Abrams described the approach they took for the the characters in the film, saying:

Part of [the challenge] was making sure all the characters get introduced brand new. You can’t assume people know or like or relate to the character. A lot of sequels begin assuming you already love the people and to me it is really important that this is a brand new movie. If you saw the first movie – great! fantastic!..but you don’t have to. So the challenge was reintroducing everyone and establishing that everyone had a critical role in the movie. If every one of the characters wasn’t required the movie doesn’t work. So it was really a lot of different characters – and the writers and I worked together for a year to make sure it was something we all loved.

You can watch the entire video (via Omelete) below.


1. Harry Seldom - April 8, 2013

I read the article, and then see “no comments yet.” I have nothing of substance to add, and by the time I finish writing this, I’ll probably won’t even be FIRST!!!!!!!!

But the temptation is to great for me.

39 days to go!

– Harry

2. chrisfawkes.com - April 8, 2013

I’m getting so excited. So hope I can get tickets to the Sydney world premier.

3. James Cannon - Runcorn Trekkie UK - April 8, 2013

#1. Well done. You must be proud.

All characters have a critical role? Does Chekov do more than run through engineering in a red shirt then? We havent seen him in any other part of all 3 trailers but doing that.

4. John Luck Pikard - April 8, 2013

So true JJ, let all the 2009 Trek haters eat shit.

5. crazydaystrom - April 8, 2013

Love the music. The new theme no doubt.

6. Seattle Trek Fan - April 8, 2013

Does anyone else want the crew to go, oh I don’t know, exploring? There’s a lot in the Star Trek universe to explore, but it seems like this crew is wading into the proverbial waters to their ankles staying so close to Earth.

7. JohnRambo - April 8, 2013

i hate all the haters of the 2009 movie!
they are not true star trek fans!

8. Exverlobter - April 8, 2013


” Does anyone else want the crew to go, oh I don’t know, exploring? ”

Sigh, that discussion again.

9. GarySeven - April 8, 2013

What a mature, thoughtful and tolerant thread of discussion here. So much ti be proud of.

10. Patrice Tremblay - April 8, 2013

I enjoyed JJ Abrams variation on STAR TREK. He brought fun to the Roddenberry universe. But, I think he went a bit too far. I was a bit surprised when I read that Abrams didn’t want to make a movie «only for Nacelles weekly readers» … I felt sad about that.

TREK has a lot of teck (too much?) and history – a lot a flesh on its bone. Not recognizing this fact would be like trying to make a period movie without considering the period. Timex were not invented during the Roman Empire !

Abrams’ idea of rebooting Star Trek within a parallel universe was great. I even accepted the destruction of Vulcan (really really bold and sad … ). But a few details – nitpicking here – were not so easily dismissed. Delta Vega was the first error … ok it was an homage to classic trek … but Delta Vega is NOT near Vulcan, It’s FAR, near the Galactic Edge (Where no man has gone before) … There is also some problems with ships in this new Trek. The Kelvin for example : when Robau leaves the bridge to get to the shuttlebay … we should see him getting out from the turbolift going upward … not from the bottom. Also … The Enterprise … is the same size as the Enterprise D !

I think it would be possible to reinterpret Trek’s canon and please a wide audience. That’s what Nick Mayer did with TWOK … hardcore fans even accepted the fact that Khan recognized Chekov …

JJ Abrams his a talented story teller, but I just hope he will treat the other franchise (STAR WARS) with a more serious attitude.

11. Exverlobter - April 8, 2013

@10 Patrice Tremblay
“Abrams’ idea of rebooting Star Trek within a parallel universe was great. I even accepted the destruction of Vulcan (really really bold and sad … ). But a few details – nitpicking here – were not so easily dismissed. Delta Vega was the first error … ok it was an homage to classic trek … but Delta Vega is NOT near Vulcan, It’s FAR, near the Galactic Edge (Where no man has gone before) … There is also some problems with ships in this new Trek. The Kelvin for example : when Robau leaves the bridge to get to the shuttlebay … we should see him getting out from the turbolift going upward … not from the bottom. Also … The Enterprise … is the same size as the Enterprise D !”

Yes, these are some inconsistencies, but it would be unfair to judge the Abrams movie for things, that Braga/Berman would not have made better on Voyager/Enterprise.
And many of those things can be indeed explained with this new timeline. However i indeed think that they were a bit too sloppy but again, this is nothing new.
I hope the best for STID though.

12. Preet - April 8, 2013

Nice talk by Abrams. Looking forward to see this one first day first show.

13. Aurore - April 8, 2013

It was nice to watch Mr. Abrams talk about the upcoming sequel (the way he did).

Interesting video.

Thanks for posting it!

14. Chris Roberts - April 8, 2013

@7 I read that in the voice of Ilia, from the Motion Picture.

15. shawn - April 8, 2013

To all the purest fans out there….

Whats is the best star trek movie of all time? ST wrath of Khan… No exploring there!

The movie format isnt made for exploring, it’s made to be a roller coaster.

Star trek is best on tv and im sure it will come back ( season 5 enterprise netflix maybe? Join the petition if you havent)

Till then please enjoye the show. Lets be grateful its back and lured non trekkies aboard.

16. crazydaystrom - April 8, 2013

2. chrisfawkes.com –

Hope you get those tickets bro. I would LOVE to have that opportunity! Good luck!

17. Exverlobter - April 8, 2013

“Whats is the best star trek movie of all time? ST wrath of Khan… No exploring there!”

No, the best Star Trek movie of all time is “The Undiscovered Country”.
ANd there is also no exploring.

18. Disinvited - April 8, 2013

#15. shawn – April 8, 2013

Actually, I’d say they explored the concept that our science and technology could soon give man the ability to create life from nothingness. And they did in space, away from Earth.

19. Me - April 8, 2013

Excellent interview, with JJ providing wonderful explanation of his vision for us as general movie goers and also Trek fans. He has done so well with this franchise.

20. Teiresias' Shades - April 8, 2013

#18 There are scenes set on Earth in “Wrath of Khan”. Almost the entire fourth movie is Earth based. Are these not Star Trek then? I thought “The Voyage Home” was one of the most beloved Trek movies ever made. And you can’t be serious that exploring concepts and ideas is the “exploring” these JJ haters are talking about. I always assumed that they wanted to see a starship crew on an exploratory expedition. Now you say exploring means having themes? Well I’m sure you’ve got it. And before you people start attacking a movie you all have only trailers for, the trailers for your holy of holies, “The Wrath of Khan” basically just said “Beyond space, there is Khan” and had a bunch of explosions. Judging from trailers, nobody would have had any idea that actual science fictional ideas would be in the actual movie.

21. GG - April 8, 2013

WAIIIIIT a minute, hold on.. “Part of [the challenge] was making sure all the characters get introduced brand new. You can’t assume people know or like or relate to the character.. the challenge was reintroducing everyone and establishing that everyone had a critical role”..

Weren’t they always touting that, in “The first movie” they had to “introduce” the characters and “set them up” for the audience and “establish” these characters for those who had never seen Star Trek? And, that “in the second movie”, they’d be more free to go balls out? So, what are they saying now? That they have to re-introduce them, every single time??

If I remember correctly, JJ’s beloved Star Wars (original trilogy) never did that. Each movie opened up where the others left off, and each following movie DID assume that the audience knew who the players were and what was going on (and, that was decades before the internet and spoilers, mind you). But, JJ has always thought of Star Trek as the “lesser” of the two franchises. Because HE was never a fan, he feels that it has to be dumbed down a bit for people, since HE never “got it” and never quite understood it.

22. Calastir - April 8, 2013

I’ll see it in the theatre, unless it’s in 3D.

It’s time to make a stand and end this fad once and for all.

23. BatlethInTheGroin - April 8, 2013

#6: Every time I see someone say that, I have to shake my head. This is the 12th Star Trek film, and NOT ONE of them have been about exploring space.

24. BatlethInTheGroin - April 8, 2013

#21: Relax, dude. You’ll burst a blood vessel.

Seriously, some people seem SO determined to bash Abrams. It’s ridiculous.

25. chrisfawkes.com - April 8, 2013

@ 16. Thanks man.

Its 1am now but I plan to call the cinema in the morning and see what I can find out.

26. chrisfawkes.com - April 8, 2013

I thought Abrams Trek was the first to capture the feel of tos since tos plus their movies.

Galaxy quest felt more like Star Trek to me than some of the more recent series.

But lets remember that depending on when you first got into trek will determine what you think it is re action or exploration (though each series had a degree of both). To those who watched the original series Abrams has nailed it.

27. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire. - April 8, 2013

Come on May 15h. I Love the Talk about and all the leading up to Star Tre. But I am also tired of talk. I want to see the Movie and then. Let the real talking begin.

28. Mad Mann - April 8, 2013

Abrams realizes the international market doesn’t like space, so that’s why he emphasized that much of the action takes place on Earth.

I wonder, if international market is anti-space, then why did Avatar do so well? Absolutely none of that movie took place on Earth.

29. Stephan - April 8, 2013

Hi folks,

seems, a new poster is out:


30. Exverlobter - April 8, 2013


Avatar was not about space at all. There was like one shot from orbit in the beginning. The rest of the film was set on Pandora

31. Mark from Mainz - April 8, 2013

Semms there are TWO new posters out :-)

32. ali gee - April 8, 2013

well said JJ and no. 4 comment!

33. ali gee - April 8, 2013

gETTING my tickets tomorrow here in the UK for the Glasgow IMAX!

34. The Last Vulcan - April 8, 2013

Not exactly thrilled with either of those posters. They could be for a reboot of Blade Runner. Where is the SPACE element? Or does Paramount figure that the further they can take the posters from space opera the more tickets they will sell? OK, but just to be clear, I’m still going to go see the movie, so I’m not a JJ Hater.

35. Edshrinker - April 8, 2013

I am not an unabashed JJ fan, though I do love his geekocity ™. I think he loves the characters, the family, the vision he has created with using the Original Trek as the template. I mean – that is what he did. Different actors, different interpretation, 21st century CGI, and such. I see our beloved Trek and I think about watching TOS afternoons when I got home fro school at around 4 on whatever UHF channel it came in on. I was so mezmorized by how intelligent and thoughtful and amazing the ideas were (anyone ever :transport themselves somewhere as a kid, makin the sound and thinking of sparklies? :) ) Anyway. I love JJ’s sense of adventure and geekocity ™. He takes the themes and characters and tech of a show I LOVED and gives me more. An interpretation that is full of adventure and hard sci-fi (alternate universe, wormholes, red matter, time travel, sheesh!). I am gushingly grateful. Because as I have posted before, TREK WAS DEAD as far as Paramount was concerned. No more. I enjoyed bits and pieces of the spin-offs…but this is KIRK, SPOCK, McCoy et al.! Seeing the TOS actors try to pull crap off onscreen in the later years… IDK. This is just great. I love this cast. Karl Urban especially, but Pine is a perfect cast as is Quinto. Cumberbund Bendersnatch has been amazing in everything I have seen (Sherlock is MUST SEE. I mean it. Best TV I have seen since Lost). He really seems to bring it as a villain. I am rambling. But what this post is, is really a THANK YOU to the abopve posters for a fair assesment of the job JJ has done. These are childhood heroes on the big screen – and a successful interpretation to boot. I convey my gratitude. Live long and prosper.

36. Braziliantrekkiefan - April 8, 2013

Actually, this interview took place in the studios of Bad Robot in December 2012, apparently Omelet also spoke with the actors at the time!

37. Stephan - April 8, 2013


I think the other poster is already known. ;-)

38. Jack - April 8, 2013

1. Careful, the site’s touchy about firsting. Spellcheck tried to take the ‘r’ out of that. Is the site touchy about that too? That I don’t know. :/

I’m a little sad this site didn’t yet do an Ebert mention. I volunteer to do a retrospective of his Trek reviews.

39. Braziliantrekkiefan - April 8, 2013

“Omelete” I mean!

40. Erehwonnz - April 8, 2013

Star Trek has throughout most of its run been about the exploration of topics and themes that reach beyond space. I’m not sure why the gripes about a lack of space when space should at best be a peripheral concern to a deeper one: does the film have ideas worth exploring?

Think of how much Star Trek takes place on a planet, or inside a ship, or among people talking in a room. Think of how often Star Trek has been about drama among people and how little has actually been about exploration. In most of its run and as we know it today, the beast it has evolved into, Star Trek need be about concepts, not the stars except in a metaphorical sense.

Star Trek claims to explore the galaxy, but the galaxy is rarely explored in any realistic scientific scenario. Those moments of exploration generally undergird humanistic and interpersonal dramas, and if this film can give us that, it’s succeeded.

41. Planet Pandro - April 8, 2013

This film is certainly being marketed to the mainstream, what with less emphasis on space, posters that don’t look like we’d expect of a Trek movie etc but I think that’s partly nature of the beast of promoting a movie nowadays, but I do think there’s something else to consider too. With the exception of some of the international posters for ST:4 the movies have been marketed for fans only. I would guess that we as a collective group of fans are simply not used to seeing the franchise presented in such a fashion as we are seeing with ST:ID, and that may be a bit jarring to see a Trek movie with advertising aimed away from fandom.
To a lesser extent this happened in ’09, with the editing of the commercials/trailers juxtaposing dialogue and scenes that frankly worried me a bit (“you’re captain now, mr. kirk.” “you got it!) but those proved unfounded when the house lights went down and the film rolled.
I’m guessing the same will happen here. Alot of the marketing/presentation of this movie will seem action-oriented, “dark knight-esque” and not look alot like what we expect but I’m guessing the content of the movie itself will have plenty of outer space, the big E, and will have more of a “trek”-feel than the commercials or posters ever will.

42. Edshrinker - April 8, 2013

And you guys are great at Trekmovie. I love your posts, whether not I agree. Unless they are snide and pretentious. And as far as the interwebs are concerned – that ratio is pretty low here. You are a great bunch of folks. I have participated in other BBS stuff, but this is still such a goto – event hough news is a beat behind. Your assessment is always what I crave. By far the most thoughtful and civil. After a long night at work, you are my unwind time!

43. Jack - April 8, 2013

I can’t remember where I read this, but someone made a good point — the bigger budget means that Abrams’ Trek movies don’t have to be bottle episodes. They can go to Q’uonos (spelled wrong — man I hate that name), they can spend time in future London and San Fran. I’m sure they’re in space too. But plenty of TOS took place on matte-painted planets. First Contact/Exploration was rarely (maybe never) depicted.

44. Jovius the Romulan - April 8, 2013

“It is really about this group being thrust into crazy intense adventure that /takes them not only elsewhere/ but also takes place very much on Earth.”

Emphasis added by me for those worried this will be only Earth-based. In the trailers (let alone the nine minute preview) we already know this is not the case. They travel to Nibiru and Qo’noS. Probably not more than that, but it is something.

45. Superman - April 8, 2013


You are a moron.

That is all.

46. JohnRambo - April 8, 2013



47. Planet Pandro - April 8, 2013


Good points, and I would add that in all fairness I think when Paramount/JJ/whomever could have done a straight reboot/reimagining they actually stuck way closer to the source material than I ever hoped. It really could have been nothing like what we knew. Battlestar-ish gender swaps, a big E that might have been some amorphously shaped battle behemoth, doofy CGI-driven characters, a rap-metal soundtrack or even a “starsky & hutch”-like parody that lacked the reverence and charm of Galaxy Quest.
These were the things I feared/expected.
All things considered, we have a recognizable Enterprise, we have Characters seeming very much they way we knew them right down to the uniforms, and enough box-office revenue to keep the future open-ended.
Considering what could very well have been, I feel that we really got quite a treat, and there’s heaping seconds on the way!

48. Exverlobter - April 8, 2013

BTW, Space is cheap. Planets are expensive.
If you have so much money ,use it. If the film would be primarily about the ENterprise it could be considered as a bottle-show. And why would you want do that with 150 Million?

49. The Last Vulcan - April 8, 2013

Yeah, I may be old fashioned but to me if you’re gonna do a poster about Trek without even referring to space travel it’s like doing a poster for Deep Throat featuring the Teletubbies. :)

50. Exverlobter - April 8, 2013


In the 2009-movie there was an alternative Poster that showed the Golden Gate Bridge and the Beam from Neros ship.
There was also no Space in it.

51. captain_neill - April 8, 2013

After rewatching Star Trek XI again, I have to say I am more looking forward to Into Darkness now.

I forgot how much fun the last one was. I foucused too much on what I thought did not work rather than what did work. I realise this does not take away from the Trek I love but adds to it and is getting people to check out the stuff before.

That’s good

52. Smike - April 8, 2013

@5: Nope. It’s NOT the new theme from Giaccchino’s score. The tune in the background is trailer music that was originally composed by Brian Tyler for the film “Paparazzi”. It’s called “The Awakening” and its on that soundtrack.

BTW: Those of you who want to know about the various trailer tunes that were used for the teaser and trailers…here they are:

Audio Machine – Siege Towers (not on any album of theirs as far as I know but available online)

Brian Tyler – The Awakening (from the Soundtrack “Paparazzi”)

Corner Stone Cues – Drum Train (though it was remixed with a Inception-like horn sound)

Critical Mass – Requiem of the Gods

53. Jack - April 8, 2013

51. Cool, Neill. I’ve read a few people say that — they hated it at first because of “how dare they” changes, but have watched it recently and say they kind of missed the bigger picture.

I did the opposite, I tried to pretend that the troubles weren’t there. Personally, I don’t think any of the changes really hurt the spirit of Trek, or the spirit of the characters. But, yeah, some of the changes bugged me too. But I really suspect that the changes made weren’t made out of ignorance of Trek. It’s a new picture, and they’ve got to make it their own. It could have been absurd — like Spider-Man with organic web spinners. :)

I gotta say, I still don’t really buy Quinto as Spock — but hopefully that will change.

54. LOFC_Ed - April 8, 2013


Like they went exploring in First Contact?

55. Jack - April 8, 2013

If by space you mean the ubiquitous shot (in most of the previous posters) of the enterprise sitting there and firing at something. Yep, in this case it’s kind of implied. Also, yes, it doesn’t have the standard poster starfield (spell check = star fruit) background. Obviously, that means we won’t see any stars — or space. It’s called Star Trek, for Pete’s sake — space is implied.

56. Red Dead Ryan - April 8, 2013


You owe JohnRambo an apology.


Good to hear! I take it you’ll see the movie on opening night, then?

57. Smike - April 8, 2013

As much as I’m looking forward to STID and as much as I liked ST09, I believe those people are right who want to see some exploration being done in Star Trek, especially because there was hardly any exploration in the previous 11 movies. TMP was closest I guess, but it’s really sad those familar words “to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life…” has never been properly handled.

Yeah, planets are expensive, but in our day and age there are flocks of movies that show exactly that…strange new worlds. And it’s not just AVATAR…
We’ve seen the two visually engaging “Journey to the Center of the Earth / Mysterious Island” film, there was “Alice in Wonderland”, “Oz the Great and Powerful”, “John Carter”, you name it… All these movies really took us to places never seen before. Even the Star Wars prequels did, although there are basically pure action films. For whatever reason Star Trek has not yet embraced its own core mission. I don’t get it…

58. Jack - April 8, 2013

47. “It really could have been nothing like what we knew. Battlestar-ish gender swaps, a big E that might have been some amorphously shaped battle behemoth, doofy CGI-driven characters, a rap-metal soundtrack or even a “starsky & hutch”-like parody that lacked the reverence and charm of Galaxy Quest.”

Hear, hear.

It could have been bland, forgettable Fantastic Four/Twilight crap. They certainly respected the source material — way more than we give credit for here. Even the sets coul dhave been standard, forgettable, space movie interiors. I think they point to TOS but have a very distinctive look. Sure, the ship and sets don’t look like James Cawley’s (his sets are amazing — but they’re replicas). We already had TOS, why do we need — visually — to see exactly the same thing again?

It’s easy to see changes and jump to the conclusion that “Oh my God, these guys have never seen Trek/They don’t get it!/They’re disrespecting it!” — but, come on, these ain’t the dead sea scrolls — they’re TV episodes that everyone can watch. They made choices — but it doesn’t automatically mean they’re Trek dummies. It’s a TV show.

59. Dean-o - April 8, 2013

Yep, JJ is a creative force who wants to open-up the sandbox and let it flow. He’s the right guy for this franchise., and he’s the right one for Star Wars. The haters are the anal-retentive types who don’t like change and want things to be exactly like when they were kids. By that I mean the design aesthetics only. That just stifles imagination and makes things stagnant. Now to use Star Trek’s fundamental soul against the haters: It’s funny to me when I realize that same stagnant dynamic resembles the attitudes of the mindless disciples of Landru in The Return of the Archons. Now I do agree with others concerned with character/ story depth/ the accurate portrayal of science problems I’ve seen with the new movies, but those are minor gripes. Star Trek is at it’s best on television where there’s more time to develop the universe of characters and story arcs.

60. Red Dead Ryan - April 8, 2013

Well, I kind of miss seeing stars on the poster. I mean, its called “Star Trek”, so I’d have to think that a space-themed poster would be appropriate. We have multiple posters for this movie, yet not one featured a space theme. Not a big deal for me, but a bit of an annoyance.

Anyway, the only previous film that depicted any exploration of space was “The Motion Picture”. Yeah, its fun to watch at home, but I’m not sure I’d pay to watch it in the theatre.

My favorite Trek movies are TWOK, TSFS, FC, and the last one.

TWOK explored the issues surrounding revenge, aging, friendships, family relationships, and the pros and cons of creating entire worlds from scratch.

TSFS explored the consequences of scientific hubris, as well as the true meaning of friendship, and how far you’d go to save one of your own.

FC explored the notion that maybe humans weren’t all that perfect in the twenty-fourth century, and that humans weren’t all that bad in the twenty-first century, as well as the overcoming of traumatic events, both on a personal and global level.

“Star Trek” explored the theme of a how a bunch of young cadets thrown into the mix together (perhaps before they were truly ready) in the aftermath of an epic ethnic atrocity rise to the occasion and defeat the villain and prevent more mass murders and destruction. It also touched on the theme of the importance of good father figures.

So it seems that Trek movies do depict exploration. Of human issues. The major tenet of Gene Roddenberry’s original idea.

61. Anthony Pascale - April 8, 2013


Warning for flaming

62. Tomar Re - April 8, 2013

Especially critical roles for Star Trek’s Big Three of Kirk, Spock, and… Uhura

63. Less Protein Equals Less Passion - April 8, 2013

I love that the movies are using the TOS uniforms, but wouldn’t it be great if in this movie (and the one to follow), the bridge crew all wore baseball caps that had ‘Star Trek’ written on the front?

64. Captain, USS Northstar - April 8, 2013

There’s been a lot of talk about “exploration” and “exploring” and many on this thread lament the lack of same in the new movies.

Whether visiting a strange new world, going back in time on Earth to save whales, or any of the hundreds of story lines we have enjoyed over the years, Star Trek has always “explored” the human condition.

The greatest voyage is the one into our own hearts; the greatest discovery lies in finding ourselves.

*That* my friends is what Star Trek is truly about.

65. cpelc - April 8, 2013

63 – you tried the baseball cap thing a couple weeks ago. Just FYI if you are making caps with “star trek” on them there’s no way Bad Robot or Paramount is going to pay you or put them in the next film…..if you want caps watch FOX Saturday Baseball. And don’t”t forget about a certain fourth wall which should never be broken.

66. gingerly - April 8, 2013

I swear some of you guys focus on the most irrelevant minutiae and miss the bigger more important picture.

I’m sorry, but I’d rather see a great film, with well-thought out characters and an engrossing plot, than one that is “pure” but only attracts those elite few Trekkers.

I can totally see some of you feeling superior because “nobody else got it” and be all happy with your “pure Trek” and argue folks to death about how everybody else was just too dumb to get it, when it flops.

Meanwhile, Star Trek would be dead.

The reality is that synthesizing something down to it’s most basic understandable elements, so everyone does get it/feels it, is what takes true intelligence.

Just as aiming above basic understanding doesn’t guarantee depth.

It’s all subjective and a matter of perspective.

67. MJ - April 8, 2013

Great to see JJ finally address the nuTrek haters, and basically render their arguments and incessant whining completely irrelevant.

Well done, JJ !!!

68. Rick - April 8, 2013

@62- sorry, but the big three is Kirk, spock and MCCOY. You or the writers can’t convince me otherwise. No matter how hard you try to push Uhura with a gun at us.

69. gingerly - April 8, 2013

Case in point.^

70. Rick - April 8, 2013

I’m your point? Why because I’m not a fan of them pushing one of their most beloved characters to the background? Uhura was a beloved character as well, but not nearly to the point of bones. Spock and Uhura are suddenly together. Fine, whatever but as adequate as Saldana was as uhura, Karl Urban knocked it out of the park as Bones. Just looking at the comments and polls on here and other sites the one people wanted to see more of was Bones. I will always be a Trek fan but that doesn’t mean that I or anyone else have to agree with the new direction.

71. chrisfawkes.com - April 8, 2013

Re the avatar comparison I agree that it was not so much about space but set on another planet.

Trek has never really taken the time to develop another race of people that we can see and feel for at that level.

We do have klingons and vulcans but we have seen glimpses of their planets and how they live by comparison. We get enough to propel the storyies we have had hithertoe but not much more.

That may change with into darkness but if not perhaps that is an option for 3 where a good deal of the story sets up the planet and it’s people and it’s politics to the same level that avatar did so by the time Kirk and crew arrive their are some serious stakes.

Other than that earth will always be a more popular setting as we are already connected emotionally to our planet, it’s people, it’s conflicts etc.

72. DiscoSpock - April 8, 2013

#68 “@62- sorry, but the big three is Kirk, spock and MCCOY. You or the writers can’t convince me otherwise. No matter how hard you try to push Uhura with a gun at us.”

Wow, I never thought I would hear something this awful on a Star Trek site.

73. Jonboc - April 8, 2013

#35. “These are childhood heroes on the big screen – and a successful interpretation to boot. I convey my gratitude. Live long and prosper.”

Well said edshrinker.

74. Becca - April 8, 2013

@DiscoSpock-THAT is the most awful thing you’ve heard on this site? You don’t come here that often, huh?

75. DiscoSpock - April 8, 2013

#74. He sounds just like one of those white males in the 1970’s who is hell-bent on his kids not being bused to an integrated school.

76. Rick - April 8, 2013

#75. Oh what a shocker! Someone is crying racist because I said that even though Uhura is a good character I was angry they got rid of the team that I grew up loving. Why don’t you come up with a new excuse? You sound like an idiot making accsusations like that. Annoying when you can’t have a disagreement or discussion with out someone throwing out stupid accusations like that. Yes, me and ALL the others who are sad at McCoy being replaced are racist. What a genius you are!

77. Mark - April 8, 2013

@75-Really? That’s what you got from his post?

78. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 9, 2013

Karl Urban gave an excellent performance as McCoy in the last movie. I’m sure we will see plenty of him in this one as well.

Also, it doesn’t have to be an either/or situation regarding S/K/MC vs S/K/U. It can be expanded to cover the 4 of them. It’s more inclusive to unclude a female as a protagonist in this day and age – women do make up around 50% of the population, after all. I believe it can be done without diminishing McCoy’s contribution. … and I remenber reading somewhere that with 4 there is no third wheel…

79. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 9, 2013


You did say, “No matter how hard you try to push Uhura with a gun at us.” The does sound pretty out there and borderline nutcase to me as well. What the hell is the firearms reference about?

Just try to sound less like some 14-year old delinquent next time and maybe people here will take you more seriously and not misread whatever it is you were trying to say.

80. Rick - April 9, 2013

I don’t actually mean Uhura pointing a gun AT us. I mean that by attempting to make her the third point of the party and look like an action woman they have her posing on the poster with a firearm to sell it. Along with Kirk and Spock. I’d say the same thing if it was chekov or Scotty. In fact to be honest the whole poster looked off to me from the phasers to the costumes. That is my opinion. And yet, it’s somehow racist..

81. MJ - April 9, 2013

Rick, LOL. Dude, I get what you meant, but your wording choice was kind of out there. Not racist at all — buy unintentionally militant…like Uhura was a Blank Panther or something. :-))

82. MJ - April 9, 2013

“Black Panther” (not a Panther shooting Blanks, given firearms references are suddenly so popular here)

83. captain_neill - April 9, 2013

JJ does have a point, I am not a hater.

I rewatched the film again, It had been over a year since I last saw it and have to say I enjoyed it. As I said earlier I probably focused on the parts of the film that did not work rather than the bits that did work, and there was a lot to love in the last film.

I am looking forward more to Into Darkness now. I do prefer the Prime Universe but I do want to look forward as that is what the vision is all about.

Yes I will always prefer Shatner as Kirk but rewatching the movie again reminded me its okay to watch others in the role and have fun with characters based on the ones you loved.

84. Rick - April 9, 2013

@MJ-Thanks man. I honestly didn’t think people would take THAT. The wording made sense to me but now I suppose I can see how people would take it differently. I’m kinda used to see some people claim racism on these when someone says something they don’t agree with about Uhura. If I’m not racist I’m probably sexist, when really it’s just sucky to see my hero team dismantled. Oh well.

85. MJ - April 9, 2013

@83. Captain Neill,

I wanted to alert you. I just called Lucifer, and he informed me that they are having major heater issues down in hell right now. The drop in temperature is freaking them out. It is freezing over down there now.

86. Red Dead Ryan - April 9, 2013

And in other news, Harry Ballz is on a hot date with Erica Durance, while scientists have discovered signs of intelligence inside Snooki’s head!


87. captain_neill - April 9, 2013


What you are surprised I liked the last movie?

I always did, but the hard core Trekkie brought up the parts that did not work rather than the good stuff. I rewatched it over the weekend and forgot how much fun the film was.

I have been too unkind over the years and its time to just enjoy it for what it is. Abrams film is part of the legacy, it does not eclipse the previous stuff. The opening ten minutes were still awesome, felt that was one of the strongest moments. There were moments in the film that totaly honoured the spirit of TOS.

My only wish is that the story was a tad stronger, and it seems that Into Darkness will have that.

88. captain_neill - April 9, 2013

Yes he made changes that as a fan was not happy that he did but when i was rewatching it again and like the first time I saw it I got absorbed in the fun and excitement of the film.

it’s different and not the same but its making Trek relevant again and new fans are coming on and checking out the other shows and movies as a result, which is great.

89. MJ - April 9, 2013

Glad to have you on board, Cpn.

90. gingerly - April 9, 2013



My perspective is that people tend to say really problematic things and then, be like “but you’re calling me racist, right?! I”m not a racist or a sexist!!”

…When nobody said that.

Again, far too many folks are more concerned about being called that than the possibility of any -ism going on, because everybody always overreacting/making stuff up, am I right? :-/

Often people are saying exactly what MJ said, that it comes off pretty badly.

And they are trying to be helpful by informing you.

That said, my POV is that you seem like a person who feels safe and kinda’ possessive of what you wrongly perceive is the only “right” sameness in the state of Trek, when in reality Trek has always been ever-changing.

Heck, even in TOS it wasn’t the same people going on the missions every week.

Sometimes, Spock had the conn while Jim and Bones beamed down…Sometimes, Scotty had the conn while Spock and Jim beamed down…and so on.

And hey, there was even that little layover that Chekov and Uhura had with the tribble.

It just weirds me out to see Trekkies panicked because a character that got shorted because of the times (seriously, look it up, Spock, Kirk, and Uhura got the most fanmail) is finally getting some shine.

And even if it weren’t about that, you can’t infer logically why it would make sense that she’s on the promotional material (hello biggest box office star in the movie) and not make any actual judgments about the actual size of her role until the film comes out??

I’m just saying calm your boots until know for sure. But the premature panic and the trend to blame Uhura, is not a good look.

91. gingerly - April 9, 2013

Also, gotta say, yes Karl Urban was amazing, but you know what??

…So, was everybody else, and Zoe Saldana had arguably a much more difficult role.

She and Zachary had to play against the status quo and still be sympathetic.

No slight to Karl, but he basically played his role very straight and on the nose, so it wasn’t particularly challenging.

What’s hard is infusing just the right emotion in those naked moments when there is no sound and the camera is right in your face. Any little wrong note or nuance is going to be magnified.

Zoe did that amazingly well in the turbolift scene.

So, again. It boils down to “He’s the same/closest to Kelley. I like when things are the same and so please keep it the same.”

92. Rick - April 9, 2013

@Gingerly- Actually, it was said. Read #75. Yea, racism is definitely implied, even if it didn’t say the word. I never said Zoe didn’t do a good job. I just think, as others do, that Karl Urban was the best. Your opinion, my opinion. I know Zoe was in Avatar, and though I can’t think of anything else, I know that it makes her the most bankable of all the cast. I’m finished with this particular topic, too much drama and people get way too worked up.

93. gingerly - April 9, 2013


Hard to read tone on the internet but I’m not worked up.

But clearly from your inability to articulate a decent response and flounce you are.

The only person who was like, ‘omg I’m not a racist’ was you.

Here’s where people, like yourself get caught up. There’s a difference between saying… “Hey, I know you didn’t mean it, but what you said was totally racist.”

“You are a racist/sexist.”

Nobody thinks you’re a racist, but even you acknowledged that what you said( probably from being worked up so BTW thinking you were being called a racist)….could be interpreted as such.

You may think Karl Urban is the best, but you didn’t really articulate why aside from “other people do, so that verifies my opinion”.

So yeah…

Flounce away, I guess?

94. captain_neill - April 9, 2013

The Undsicovered Country did what Star Trek does best, it took a present day issue and put an SF spin on it.

THe destruction of Praxis bringing about peace between Federation an Klingons parallels the Chernobyl disaster and the peace was inspired by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. Klingons in TOS were an allagory of the Russians. It also dealt with a fear of change. Kirk’s faith in peace is restored by the end of the film, even though he has felt bitter due to his son’s death at the hands of Kruge. But he accepts and realises the importance of peace and is able to overcome predjudice

Star Trek does not need to be exploring in the literal sense, Trek is also about exploring ourselves, the human condition and striving to continue to make us better.

95. captain_neill - April 9, 2013

There are fans who don’t seem to like some of the spin offs, are they considered not true Star Trek fans?

Not everyone likes the ABrams movie, not everyone likes Voyager, not everyone likes TNG. But does not liking one of these shows or movies make any one alny less a fan? No.

Every fan has his favourite Trek, although I have to admit I hate the TNG bashing here as it is still a great show and loving seeing it on HD.

I rewatched the Abrams film and I enjoyed it, I found the film a lot of fun and it made Trek popular again and I cannot wait for the next one. But I still prefer the prime universe because that is the Trek I grew up loving but at the same time I can enjoy the new movie but it is different.

I guess in time I focused on the aspects of the film that my hard core side was not keen on seeing changed rather than the good parts that brought a great sense of fun and strong nods to the show I love.

But I would like to ask why any person who did not like the last movie would be considered a non true fan but yet seem happy to criticise Voyager or Enterprise. Voyager is my least fav show and Enterprise developed into a great show when it was taken off but they are both bonafide Trek in my opinion.

Just food for thought.

96. MJ - April 9, 2013

@91. Gingerly, I think Uhura is outstanding and I am very much on your side against some of these othters’ of my own sex who keep complaining about her and belittling her.

That said, I completely disagree with you about Karl Urban. His role was at least as difficult as Uhura’s, and his performance ended up being the best of the entire cast in terms of capturing the essence of their TOS character.

Don’t reduce yourself to the level of these sexist morons who are trashing Uhura by being critical of Urban. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And besides, you are better than that.

97. MJ - April 9, 2013

Rick, I was not referring to you in my above post. You are good people!

98. whatever - April 11, 2013

Why even have all characters, JJ. We have seen more of random extras than we have seen of Chekov so far. Forget liking or relating, people won’t even know who that is from the marketing that’s been done so far.

99. Captain Peabody - April 11, 2013

I liked Urban the best because I thought he did the best job of capturing the magic his character possessed in the original show, and because I’m also big fans of Dr. McCoy and DeForest Kelley. Honestly, just watching Urban work was perhaps the most fun and magical part of the ST09 movie for me, worthy of inspiring many a silly grin.

For me, that’s what it’s about; not pure acting skill or difficulty, but capturing that magical essence of the character that made them resonate so much. All the characters did it some degree, but I feel Mr. Urban did it most completely and most naturally. I’d like to see much, much more of that, if at all possible; and I’d like to see it for all the characters.

I like Uhura also, though admittedly I’m more of a fan of Nichelle Nichol’s Uhura than I am of Zoe Saldana’s at this point; I’m not sure if Ms. Saldana and the writers have completely managed to capture the quiet elegance, confidence, and playfulness of Ms. Nichol’s performance, though obviously Mrs. Saldana did an excellent job in a difficult role, and obviously in-universe Uhura is yet to completely mature into the character we all know and love.

It strikes me as a little silly, though, to hope Uhura doesn’t have a big role in the sequel. I would love for everyone to have a big role, I would love to see everyone go even farther in recapturing the magic of their respective characters; I would love to see this for Uhura. As a McCoy fan, I definitely want the good doctor to have as big a role as possible, but that doesn’t mean I want to see other characters short-changed for his sake. There’s nothing particularly positive about that.

100. John H - April 11, 2013

BREAKING-J.J. Abrams exits STAR WARS VII: “I’m through with narrative film” http://wp.me/p2Z9Vh-5u

101. Keachick - April 11, 2013

OK, this link appears to be a hoax. Since when would JJ Abrams leave a podium with the words, “F*ck the audience”. Without an audience, a film maker is *nothing*.

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