JJ Abrams: Directing 3rd Star Trek A ‘Possibility’ + Talks Shatner ‘Compliment’ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: Directing 3rd Star Trek A ‘Possibility’ + Talks Shatner ‘Compliment’ April 24, 2013

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

According to JJ Abrams, there is still a chance he could return to the director’s chair for a third Star Trek movie (even though he is set to direct the next Star Wars movie). This revelation and more comes from a new lengthy Playboy interview with Abrams. JJ also points to a young director he has his eye on and talks a bit about William Shatner too. Excerpts below.     


Abrams: Directing Next Star Trek Still A Possibility

Playboy magazine has a very lengthy interview with Star Trek Into Darkness producer/director JJ Abrams. Maybe the most newsworthy bit is that JJ has not taken himself out of the running to direct (in addition to producing) the next Star Trek, saying…

PLAYBOY: Let’s talk sequels for a minute. Since you’re doing Star Wars, does that put you out of the running to direct the third Star Trek movie?

ABRAMS: No. I would say it’s a possibility. We’re trying to figure out the next step. But it’s like anything: It all begins with the story.

As discussed here at TrekMovie before, with the next Star Wars movie due in theaters in the summer of 2015 the logistics would prevent Abrams to direct a Star Trek movie in time for Summer of 2016. Since it is expected that Paramount would target the 50th anniversary of the franchise, 2016 is a very likely target for the movie (and Abrams Bad Robot producing partner Bryan Burk has also hinted that 2016 is a target date).

The only realistic way to get both Abrams in the directors chair and to hit 2016 would be to target a holiday release. That would require Abrams to start shooting the third Star Trek almost immediately after he delivers Star Wars Episode VII. That would mean that post-production on Star Wars would overlap with pre-production on Star Trek. Of course if Paramount chose to have another four year gap, then it shouldn’t be too for Abrams to direct the next Trek and deliver it in the summer of 2017.

Playboy sits down with JJ Abrams

The logistics of the next movie butting against the 50th anniversary have lead many to assume Abrams would chose another director, like he did when he tapped Brad Bird for Mission: Impossible: IV (Abrams directed M:I:III). If you want to look for another data point on the hint list, in an unrelated part of the interview Playboy asked Abrams about other directors he likes and he pointed to Looper’s Rian Johnson.

PLAYBOY: Who’s an up-and-coming director to keep an eye on?

ABRAMS: Rian Johnson. I love what he did with Looper, the scope of the movie and the emotion—and that moment when we discover who the Rainmaker is is one of the most chilling, awesome moments I’ve seen in movies in a long time. He has a big career ahead of him.

If you aren’t familiar with Johnson, here is a Looper junket interview with him.

Abrams Talks Shatner ‘Compliment’

There is much much more from Abrams in the Playboy interview on Into Darkness, Star Wars, his TV shows, etc. So it is worth reading but here is another fun gem, with JJ talking about Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner…

PLAYBOY: Did Leonard Nimoy or William Shatner drop by the [Into Darkness] set?

ABRAMS: Leonard did. I love him; he’s always a joy. The cast and crew got to applaud him and give a fraction of the thanks he deserves. He’s just an absolute gentleman. Shatner? [sighs] I haven’t spoken with him in a long time, but I did read something where he gave me a fantastic underhanded compliment. Something like our movie was a fun action ride and maybe one day it’ll have heart. A great compliment only to pull the rug out in a way that only Shatner can do. I adore him.

Abrams is probably referring to Shatner’s January 2013 interview with CNN when he said Abrams was a "great filmmaker" but that the original Star Trek films had "more soul."



Comments for articles with spoilers allow discussion of spoilers in the comments section – but try to limit to spoilers discussed in the article.

Discussing potential spoilers not posted at TrekMovie.com and/or linking to other spoilers will result in deletion and instant ban.


1. Tanner "The Dude" Waterbury - April 24, 2013

LOL I’m loving the 3rd movie logo! Doing a bit of pop culture titles I see. Last time it was Ghostbusters, now its Godfather. Coincidence?

2. Josh C. - April 24, 2013

The one and only time anyone here could legitimately say they bought Playboy for the articles lol

3. Sci-Fiddy - April 24, 2013


great logo.

4. sam - April 24, 2013

please no matterwhat, no four year wait for next movie

5. Josh C. - April 24, 2013

P.S. Star Trek Part 3: Kirk vs. Borg. make it happen

6. Phil - April 24, 2013

Hey, JJ, I’m guessing Paramount is going to want the third installment before 2020. That kinda rules out you directing….

7. jkimgant - April 24, 2013

You know what this means?
If we want JJ to direct Trek III/XIII Orci, Lindelof and Kurtzman need to bang out an amazing script pronto so he has no excuse to delay once Star Wars is in the can. Next Trek, 2016!!

8. JohnRambo - April 24, 2013

i really hope that JJ will direct the 3rd movie!

Star Trek needs JJ!

9. WillH85 - April 24, 2013

I hope JJ finds someone else to direct the next film and just produces it. We shouldn’t have to wait an even more ridiculous amount of time just so he can go off and direct his real love. I know this probably sounds dumb and is unrealistic, but I’d love them to bring back Frakes to direct.

10. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 24, 2013

I think Star Trek Needs to be done on then 50th Anniversary. Another Director would be a good thing. But. I also Love J.J

11. Calastir - April 24, 2013

Please god no.
Please don’t let JJ anywhere near Star Trek ever again!

Shatner is right. His movies are like rides without a heart.

12. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 24, 2013

3 years is plently of time to get Bob Orci and the court to come up with a script and get the ball rolling. It can be and should be done!.

13. Epowell - April 24, 2013

brad bird wouldn’t be a bad choice for Star trek director though.

14. RedShirt232 - April 24, 2013

Rian Johnson making Trek ’16 would be incredible. “Looper” was about as plot-hole free as you could get when it comes to sci-fi. His earlier film “Brick” was amazing.

15. marty - April 24, 2013

part 3? here’s what i want: for all that is holy CORRECT THE TIMELINE.. use Q, the borg, temporal agents.. whoever. get new writers(if spoilers are true). the 50th anniversary should be epic and serve the fans (but not in the into darkness way). lose the lens flares, and bring other star trek actors in for cameos as their characters. let it lead off into the worf tv series, or into another series on showtime or syfy. 2016 should be a year of celebration for star trek and boost it back into the limelight.

16. Capt. Roykirk - April 24, 2013

@15. Well said!

17. Phil - April 24, 2013

@15. So, put on the big screen everything that is shitty about the franchise that drove it to the point of extinction. Good luck getting that green lit – I don’t even think a fan production would touch that with a ten foot pole…

18. Paul - April 24, 2013

Sorry JJ but Rian Johnson would be a terrible choice for Star Trek Looper was a horrible confusing mess. Paramount should hire the screenwriters now the live action can be captured whilst prepping for Star Wars in early 2014 or how about letting a certain S.Spielberg direct a Star Trek movie……

19. Khan 2.0 - April 24, 2013

@1+3 yes im also liking that AP is going through all the ‘3’ logos

so far BTTF and GF

what next?

Trek III (movie font)
Alien³ (cubed)
Superman III (crystal font)
Jurassic 3 (slash)
X3 (claws)
Episode III (sith style)

20. Josh C. - April 24, 2013

@19 having Star Trek 3 with 3 light sabers (or the clearly Star Wars roman numerals) as the provisional logo would so mess with everyone

21. Disinvited - April 24, 2013

#11. Calastir – April 24, 2013

Actually, Shatner was addressing its soul and no the heart.

22. Khan 2.0 - April 24, 2013

For the threequel 50th anniversary movie (ST’s Skyfall) maybe they should do something that will tie JJ Trek in to the original timeline like the new XMen thats being made – a ‘Star Trek Days of Futures Past’ – maybe working in some of the original cast (obviously Nimoy again, and maybe even Shatner finally), perhaps it could be something about having to return old Spock to the Prime timeline for some reason (maybe something to do with the Borg? – they know about time travel/alternate realities after all). and maybe connecting to TNG (Patrick Stewart cameo for the end scene set in the 24th century?) perhaps even going so far as converging the JJ crew with the TNG crew somehow (either Prime or nuFuture TNG) sort of like how XM DOFP is doing with merging the First Class and X1-3 casts and like the way everyone kind of thought Generations would do a Yesterdays Enterprise. It will have been over 25 years since Yesterdays Ent by 2016 and the YE two crews thing hasn’t been done on the big screen yet (like the way elements of certain episodes have been redone as movies – TMP with Changeling/Doomsday Machine/Immunity Syndrome, TVH – Tomorrow is Yesterday/Assignment Earth/City on the Edge, TFF – Way to Eden/Who Mourns Adonis, & even FC – BOBW & ST09 – YE). And if the film featured Kirk and Co dealing with the borg (building on the hint of borg in ST09) then even more reason to involve TNG in some way as a kind of all encompassing Trek film for the anniversary…(funnily enough 2016 will be FCs 20th anniversary). It will have been 14 years since Nemesis, enough time to heal the wounds and have fans anticipating some TNG again J

So it would be like part 1 (2009) breaking from the original Star Trek timeline to create the new timeline with the aid of a major original series actor (like the way Generations kicked off the TNG movies with the help of Shatner to pass the flame)….part 2 (2013) an original tale involving the nuCrew (as STID looks to be – like First Contact was the first solo movie adventure for TNG)….part 3 (2016) going back to part 1 (and ‘Countdown’) tying everything up (like TDKR sort of went back to Batman Begins and tied it all up)….mending/converging the timelines – without wiping out the JJ timeline of course.
Itd be kind of left field – no would would see it coming espeically after the Timeline wasnt reset to normal at the end of the first movie thus making out that its a complete reboot from now on – only to sort of do it at the end of the 3rd one. (plus itd prevent any further films/tv shows ‘screwing’ with what could be a perfect standalone trilogy as itd be a universe unto itself – like Nolans Bat trilogy)

also set a good few years after ST09/STID to work in some Trek II-VI era ships, Trek III mushroom spacedock, TWOK style uniforms/phasers etc for the nuCrew (i.e. Starfleet would be moving more toward those type of designs as the years go on as in the original timeline)

just thinking out loud anyway – whatever happens it will have to be a special event thing for the 50th – like Skyfall/Dr Who anniversary episode

as for director if no JJ then it has to be Singer (he would be ideal for an anniversary picture that harks back to the originals– i.e. Superman. Plus now time travel/converging casts Xmen DOFP)

23. guest - April 24, 2013

Though I enjoyed Looper and it’s basic plot, I couldn’t help but think throughout that whole film how poorly it had been directed. The ‘surprises’ were given away too easily and the flow and style of the movie was terribly inconsistant, to the point where I suspected it had several directors, each doing different scenes! I’m very sorry to say this about anyone but I hope that Mr.Johnson isn’t let anywhere near Star Trek.

24. Theatre Historian Levi - April 24, 2013

Great article Anthony, and love the Godfather part III inspired logo.

Did you try it out with a small version of the enterprise before going with the delta logo?
in any case love the logo and love the article.

25. Danie1701 - April 24, 2013

Has anyone had the thought after whatching star trek (2009) that john harrison could be kirks brother (johnny) who seemed angry at the world and at starfleet who could be blamed for there fathers death just a thought?

26. Theatre Historian Levi - April 24, 2013

My thoughts on JJ, if he is willing and is able to have a excellent script and movie ready for 2016, then I am all for him staying on to direct Star Trek XIII after he completes Star Wars Episode VII

As I really think think that the next trek film should coincide with the big anniversary. (hope he shoots in IMAX again for the next one as well)
If for some reason that can’t happen then I think that paramount/CBS should do something special for the fans to commerate the anniversary on the small screen then.

If they did that I would be ok with a 2017 release, over the prefered 2016 anniversary release.

27. Tony Whitehead - April 24, 2013

Hmm…let’s see. The third movie. I think it’s high time for a reboot.

28. Mark - April 24, 2013

Star Trek lll….The search for another ridiculous re-do. How about making the tribbles the size of a T -rex and giving them magic blood?

29. SirMartman - April 24, 2013

I hear Shatner might be in the next Star Trek movie!!,, *sigh*,,if only,,

I would love to see Mr Shatner once more in another Trek movie,, yeh undo the crappy Kirk death,, but hes 82 years old, if the next trek takes another 4 years as of today to come out,,with a part for Mr Shatner, he would be 86, and if he misses that Trek,,another 4 year wait and hes going to be 90 !


30. Captain, USS Northstar - April 24, 2013

One idea I keep coming back to is — what if we find out they shot the third installment of this trilogy while filming “Into Darkness”? This would be especially effective if the storyline of “3” immediately followed the events of STID.

It could be that Paramount, JJ and his team are waiting for all the premiers and openings and then — along about Weekend #2 into the North American release, we get this huge 50th Anniversary announcement that skyrockets STID into the heights of awesome box office performance.

Now that would be a great publicity stunt!

31. SirMartman - April 24, 2013

gee,, lots of movies were filmed “back to back”


32. Smike - April 24, 2013

NO! The new timeline is the BEST thing that could have happened to Star Trek. There is absolutely NO way to get back to the old timeline, because it’s outdated, worn out and dire. While TOS and TNG and most of the old movies are all-time classics, the visuals and technology depicted has not stood the test of time. We’ve got cellphones far ahead of TOS technology.

The new timeline solved all these problems. Now you can have fancy-looking, futuristic technology in OUR future but still got the classic characters.

Furthermore you’ve got endless dramatic opportunities, for they can completely redesign everything, come up with great combinations of stuff seen before and fresh elements. It’s the absolutely perfect playground for 20+ years of all new Star Trek… and it still acknowledges what came before as the old timeline is there foreever on DVD and BluRay and continues to exist as a parallel universe…

Please spare us with a Captain Worf series or any other lame spin-offs of outdated spin-offs… if going back to the 24th century, only with a freh new take in the NEW TIMELINE…

The only classic Trek era worth revisiting is ENT: Foundation of the Federation, Romulan War etc…because it’s the past of both timelines now.

33. Aurore - April 24, 2013

ABRAMS: No. I would say it’s a possibility. We’re trying to figure out the next step. But it’s like anything: It all begins with the story.

‘Makes sense, but…

No, no, no! No more! Not this time, Mr. Abrams.

No more hesitation, no more discussions, no more “tricks”. I give you one message: I want you…

…to direct the third Star Trek installment.

If not, it’s all-out war: we go to the mattresses.


34. Robman007 - April 24, 2013

I’d like to see Abrams back, but another director could bring a different view. Who knows…I’d go for Chris Nolan, but I doubt he’ll convert over. Maybe a Sam Mendes or if you want a throwback film, a Tarintino. THAT would be a wild film.

35. Smike - April 24, 2013

@30: Not likely. They would have announced it before going into production for expository purposes. However, they MIGHT do Treks 3+4 back-to-back for the 50th anniversary. Now that would make sense. Two movies coming out in 2016, one in May and the sequel right for the anniversary in fall.

36. Kev - April 24, 2013

ugh ounce of hope pound of despair, was hoping we could get franks to direct the third one.

37. The Great Bird Lives - April 24, 2013

If he goes with another director, I hope JJ is thorough with his vetting process, and doesn’t just chose a director because of his track-record. Star Trek is- as he should know by now- a strong, but very delicate property that needs to be treated with surgical precision. What Star Trek needs now is a movie that focuses on the unknown wonders of exploration. Sure, phasers, and photon torpedoes are cool, yet the Enterprise is ‘a ship of exploration’, outfitted with defensive countermeasures. But what else has she got that’s cool? Let’s try, and focus on her other abilities, and do something she was designed to do- like go where no one has gone before. It doesn’t have to be cerebral to showcase the scientific curiosity that lies within us ALL.
While at the same time it can be fun, and enjoy the heartfelt drama, and moralistic equation that is the nucleus of everything Star Trek.

38. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 24, 2013

I’d like to see the third movie directed by JJ Abrams. I’d also like to see the movie out for 2016. I hope they do find a way to do both, but I’m not hopeful…

39. Andrew - April 24, 2013

As much as I would love for Abrams to do the next one I would be disappointed if it meant a postponement and missing the 50th anniversary in 2016.

40. Basement Blogger - April 24, 2013

@ 34

Like your choices. Nolan, Mendes etc. Yes, Quentin Tarantino’s Star Trek would be wild. But seriously the man does know dialogue. And Star Trek could use a movie with great dialogue about ideas along with the great action.

Brad Bird is also a great choice. Duncan Jones and Neil Blomkamp (District 9) are also good choices to direct the next Star Trek movie.

41. NuFan - April 24, 2013


Hilarious! Well done!

42. Factchecker - April 24, 2013

Don’t do another one if your just going to rehash old ideas….please.

43. Crone - April 24, 2013

Joss Whedon.

44. Jason - April 24, 2013

I want a 50th anniversary film. Sure Abrams COULD finish SW for summer 2015, then jump over to ST and hopefully get fall 2016. But that’s pushing it.

My top choice, and a bit of an unusual choice would be Seth MacFarlane – who’s a proven fan and understands what Roddenberry’s vision truly was. That or Brad Bird.

45. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 24, 2013

Here’s a Stupid Idea. Let’s get George Lucas to Direct Star Trek.
I Keed’s I Keed’s.

46. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 24, 2013

I would not mind a James Cameron or a Ridley Scott Directing Star Trek.

47. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 24, 2013

Aurore. Are you ok. You seem a little Tense.

48. Mantastic - April 24, 2013

Since Star Trek has clearly gone off the rails logic/storywise and has Shatner correctly put it, lacks soul, might as well just go for broke and make the third one a Star Trek/Star Wars crossover.

It would make stupid amounts of money, finally shut up all the hardcore fans on both sides on which side would win, and we can get all the whiz bang explodey boomedyboom action that seems to draw the mainstream crowds these days. Hell, while we’re at it, get Michael Bay to direct it.

49. Aurore - April 24, 2013

“Aurore. Are you ok. You seem a little Tense.”

I am.

‘Got a problem with that ?


50. Aurore - April 24, 2013

If what I have heard about the new movie is true, there is one thing I might not like. AT ALL.

However, Mr. Abrams is still the man who made me care about the Star Trek franchise again.

So, I will try to be as open-minded as a great man ; Ricardo Montalbán.


51. John from Cincinnati - April 24, 2013

That guy Shatner. That says it all

52. Dee - lvs moon surface - April 24, 2013

#51. Aurore

I’m a little tense, too… Why do we hear things? ;-) :-)

btw I heard about a premiere in Paris on April 26… Who will be there? I only heard about JJAbrams.

53. Marja - April 24, 2013

I hope JJ can direct the third ST, but he must bust a hump to get it done in time for Holiday 2016. He seems to have boundless energy [just watch the 2009 blooper reel] and might be able to do it – as long as there are no other projects besides Star Wars.

Is it possible to turn part of SWars’ post-production over to a trusted member of the Bad Robot team while JJ directs ST3? If JJ really wants to direct the 3rd movie, I imagine he’ll figure out a way. I just hope it doesn’t involve another four-year delay.

Otherwise GET JOSS WHEDON just kidding I’m sure he’ll be tied up in the Marvelverse for years to come. It is a fun thought tho, seeing that part of a certain ship bears a striking resemblance to “Firefly’s” Serenity :)

After that … will we be able to play in the AU for years to come? :D yayyy

54. weeharry - April 24, 2013

Re-setting to the original timeline would be a bad idea.

Assuming we want to tell the story of kirk and his crew, re-setting to the old timeline would re-create what was one of the fundamental conceptual flaws in the star wars prequels. ie: we all knew how it ended, because we knew anakin was vader, we knew the twins would be separated, yoda go and live in a swamp etc etc etc………he took three long dreary films to get to that point too!
When the outcome is known there is a distinct lack of dramatic tension.

That’s also why spoilers are bad mmmkay :-)

55. Aurore - April 24, 2013

“Who will be there?”

Well Dee, let me tell you who will be there ; some lucky people obviously!

“Et il sera présent à Paris vendredi 26 avril prochain afin de présenter Star Trek Into Darkness à la presse et à quelques chanceux triés sur le volet : ce sera également l’occasion pour le réalisateur de donner un cours de cinéma qui sera retransmis en direct sur Première.fr !”

(Link if authorized, here):


56. kevan - April 24, 2013

I hope jj and crew do the third movie. Star trek needs to carry on they why its going for a fresh start and longevity. I have been a fan for 30 years and do not want the old way. However, i still like the old stuff and will read about it in books. I personally would love more films for star trek in the bob orci jj universe.

57. Gath Faction - April 24, 2013

Star Trek 3: Whale of a Tale

In the third and last Trek, JJ Abrams has taken the most popular TOS movie and revisions it as Space Whales go through space destroying the whole galaxy out of revenge for the horrible plot twist at the end of ST2.

58. Svorr - April 24, 2013

Star Trek 3: An Actual Original Idea

59. Tom - April 24, 2013

Put Shatner in the third movie and then he will REALLY compliment you JJ. Come on man should have happened already!!

60. Disinvited - April 24, 2013

#54. weeharry – April 24, 2013

So then you are planning to see it once and advocating the same for everyone else? Because once you seen it, subsequent viewings will pale with their lack of dramatic tension.

61. L4YERCAKE - April 24, 2013

I think JJ will direct the next Star Trek, he said the same thing after 2009’s, it all begins with the story. Long as Orci & Co. come up with the right story I’m betting he’ll be on board. The question is, where do they go after STIDarkness…?

62. Danny - April 24, 2013

@22:This is bonkers.

I SOOO want this to happen as an ‘anniversary speical’ but it never will!!

63. Mad Mann - April 24, 2013

The third movie does not need JJ as the director. I’m sure it would do fine with someone JJ trusts, like what happened with Brad Bird with MI:IV. If Orci, Lindelof, and Kurtzman write it and Burke and Abrams produces it I’m sure it will have the same look and feel off the other two.

That said, I hope the third closes the trilogy nicely, bring it full circle by playing on a lot of story threads and themes created in the first one. I think it would be cool to involve the Nero-time change plot line from the first somehow. Maybe Kirk and the Enterprise try to save Romulas’ sun from exploding in the future since they know from Spock Prime’s mind meld, and then set-off a chain of events that almost unravels all of reality and then they have to fix it. A “ticking clock” would keep up the pace and throwing in annoying Klingons and Romulans in the way for some spice, but it wouldn’t need an actual villain!

64. KG - April 24, 2013

JJ gave an interview for Playboy. Too bad no ones going to read it. Well, except forpeople that buy those kinds of magazines “for the articles.” *rimshot*

65. weeharry - April 24, 2013

60. I will absolutely see this many times, assuming it’s good (which I’m very hopeful of…really looking forward to it).

as a fan, subsequent viewings enrich the experience, but you can only ever see a movie for the first time once, and if there is no dramatic tension on THAT viewing, you have a problem, in my opinion. (again, also why spoilers are bad)

there were, of course, a multitude of other problems with the SW prequels, but as I said, that ultimate fact that you already know a predetermined point in the story arc is a conceptual flaw, which, I guess, applies to all prequels to a greater or lesser extent (bilbo doesn’t die)

anyway, hope we both enjoy STID as many times as we care to (loads!!!)


66. windelkin - April 24, 2013

I wonder if J.J. will create a new timeline in SW. Maybe now Han is Luke’s dad and Leia marries Chewie.

67. Dee - lvs moon surface - April 24, 2013

#55. Aurore

then just JJ and none of the actors? … and certainly some luck ppl will be there! ;-) :-)

68. The Sinfonian - April 24, 2013

As David Gerrold famously said about 40 years ago… “add a touch of Klingon”. Bad Robot’s style of Klingons are convincing. And Marc Okrand is worth the price to write convincing dialogue in Klingon. Star Trek could be an Errand of Mercy crossed with Arena tale: the crews of Kirk’s Enterprise, and Kang, Koloth, or Kor (or other appropriate Klingon… maybe Colonel Worf?) and his ship are sent on a mystery mission by the Organians, where the only solution is for Federation and Klingon to work together. In solving the mystery that threatens the galaxy (perhaps something like the early Borg), Kirk and K___ realize that together they can achieve more, and bring….. anyway. I’m dreaming. JJ, do the threequel! And set up the situation for fourth and later movies in the style of what Star Wars is doing.
Let’s see Sulu given the USS Excelsior and sent on a mission. Maybe John Cho would do this as a series on television? Obama’s term will be over… so maybe Kal Penn would be willing to co-star as his science officer. :)

69. GarySeven - April 24, 2013

You know, William Shatner has never struck me as a particularly thoughtful man, but if even a guy like him can recognize that JJ’s Star Trek is an action ride without soul, that really says a lot. Shatner is right. JJ of course doesn’t understand this, because he was never a Star Trek fan and wants to make it more like his favorite, Star Wars–hence making Trek into an action ride with avenging evildoers (USS Vengeance as a StarFleet Vessel? Why not just call it the “Death Star?”)
JJ blames it in Shatner’s personality, but in this case it Shatner is spot-on.

70. Disinvited - April 24, 2013

#65. weeharry – April 24, 2013

Thanks. I just want us humans to be honest with ourselves that we aren’t being logical when we say “dramatic tension” is uber uber extremely important to us but we know we are going to see it many times beyond the one in spite of the one viewing blowing the tension away.

And there’s nothing wrong with wanting it – it’s very .. human. But I’m not going to blow a gasket over it if some schmoe, my kid sister, or even my own curiosity makes that surprise not possible.

Maybe I have too many Hawaiian relatives or something.

Well, I can still wish you luck in seeing it the way you want, when you want.

71. Gold_Coast_Rob - April 24, 2013

I enjoyed the 2009 movie but, buy into Shatner’s comments too. It was Star Trek, but a different Star Trek – more action orientated and a little too fast for my liking. The quality of the acting was good, but the pace made it hard for the viewer to grasp the attributes of each character.

I’m looking forward to the new movie and, especially, the contribution of some stellar cast members like Cumberbatch.

72. Disinvited - April 24, 2013

#69. GarySeven – April 24, 2013

I’d say JJ is definitely having a hard time understanding if he’s confusing soul with heart.

There’s a BIG difference between saying JJ’s Trek doesn’t have the soul of the original and saying it has no heart.

73. Bob Tompkins - April 24, 2013

In this case, Shatner is 100% correct.
Michael Bay or Rolland Emmerich could step in and do this version without missing a beat.
Star Trek is no longer a thoughtful vehicle, and that’s probably the only way it survives in the theaters in 2013.

74. Ejohnnyk - April 24, 2013

Steven Spielberg left post production of Jurassic Park in the hands of others so he could start Schindler’s List. Anything is possible.

75. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 24, 2013

While I can’t find a ‘canon’ reference to the USS Vengeance in the Prime Universe, the name still has some pre-existing affiliation with Star Trek.

There are two non-canon references to a Starfleet vessel called USS Vengeance.

One is to a Constitution-class starship in service in the 2290s. (ST game: Klingon Academy).

The other is to a Miranda-class starship (NCC-26229), in service in the late 23rd century. (FASA RPGmodule: Ship Recognition Manual: The Federation).

So, whatever you might think of the name in a Starfleet context, JJ Abrams and company were not the first to consider using it in that context.

Finally, I think the name is not out of place for a ‘black ops’ ship built during a period of post-Kelvin paranoia – if that is in fact what it is…

76. Thomoz - April 24, 2013

Please, for heavens sake, NO Borg, NO Xindi, NO Khan, NO Genesis Device, NO V’ger – come up with something original for a switch. There is a whole universe of people and planets and potential villains out there – why not go where NO writer has gone before with Trek? I am tired of everything being so nudge & wink self-referential all the damn time!

77. porthoses bitch - April 24, 2013

Although I know Alice Eve is doing STID , how wonderful would a Trek audio book be featuring the remaining original cast?

Although I hate being double and even triple dipped… a reissue of TOS o blu-ray featuring Shatner and Nimoy doing audio commentary on Every episode.

Paramount needs to do something for the 50th if not a film or tv series. I remember Lincoln doing a big deal about the tenth anniversery in ’76 (somewhere I still have a coin). Lord willing Ive every intention of being in Vegas for the fiftieth.

78. Buzz Cagney - April 24, 2013

I’m sure Shatner *sighs* when JJ’s name is brought up.
As for it ‘starting with the story’, well, it really needs to start with a ‘good’ story rather than the ripped off cut and pastiches that these writers present.
Time for new people.

79. Navy - April 24, 2013

Since no one would ever hire me to make Star Trek as it would be over budget and too complicated for the average movie going audience, I hope that Seth MacFarlane would get to restart the prime universe.

I will go see the new movie, but I doubt very much it will feel like Star Trek to me. Just a movie that makes a ton of references to my favorite show.

80. DonDonP1 - April 24, 2013

@48 “Star Trek”/”Star Wars” crossover? Resectfullly, NO WAY! “Star Trek” is owned by CBS while “Star Wars” is owned by Disney/Lucasflim.

81. Admiral_Bumblebee - April 25, 2013

The third film should end something like this: The Enterprise crew has had to sacrifice a lot in order to defeat the “evil” which caused temporal disruptions and could destroy the whole timeline. In the end they are looking into an uncertain future, full of hope. “What may the future hold? Will we survive? Will our universe survive?” – “That is not for us to decide. We can only prepare ourselves for what is to come. Maybe it will be a new start, maybe everything will change. Or all will stay the same and simply go on. We will have to wait and see.”

So the third movie could either continue the adventures or everything could start anew again.

82. Jim Nightshade - April 25, 2013

star trek off the logic rails? oh really? (Two words) spocks brain…..plenty of others too…

83. Theatre Historian Levi - April 25, 2013

As much as I enjoy the alternate universe that JJ has given us so far, I honestly would not mind seeing someone come in after JJ and pick up after the Destruction of Romulus either in TV or movie form.

It wouldn’t be to difficult to do, you start the series/movie off with the destruction of Romulus and then move forward from there.
there is a lot of potential for a post Star Trek 09 prime universe

Having said that I also would be ok, with just moving forward into the Alt timeline post 5 year mission.

84. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 25, 2013

I’d certainly like to see a post Romulus Prime universe movie or series. Why should Star Trek Online have all the fun ;-) Maybe, even be a bit daring, and have it centred on the remnant Romulans/Remans themselves…

I’d also like a continuation of the Alternative universe. There are (so far) 3 comic issues due to come out post STID dealing with fallout from this movie and foreshadowing the possibility of all-out galactic war. I’m wondering whether they will deal with all this only in the comics, or would the next movie build on this? If so, how much time should have passed in-universe between the two movies?

I wouldn’t be too happy to see the ‘time line mend itself’, as some others are calling for. I don’t see the point of introducing a different universe, rather than just giving us an ‘origin’ story, only to say it doesn’t matter and everything is pre-destined anyway. What is the point of that? Certainly the characters need to grow to reach the potential we know they are capable of, but I don’t believe their situations need to end up exactly as they were in the Prime universe.

85. Calastir - April 25, 2013

I don’t see the big difference between the terms ‘soul’ and ‘heart’ either, as they’re both supposed to contain the human spirit.

Unfortunately this new Trek has neither.

86. china - April 25, 2013

I hope Cumberbatch doesnt do a third star trek but goes with JJ Abrams to the Star Wars films. Seems ideally suited to that franchise.

87. ajdczar - April 25, 2013

I also agree with Shatner about the soul. First Trek was like watching a Star Wars movie. Character driven, exciting…but Trek is plot driven, with Character’s there to take the audience for the ride.

I see this as a Movie vs. Weekly TV show problem. Trek shows developed characters over time. It was always about the morality play, where Kirk, Spock, McCoy and cast represented different aspects of personality.

In a feature film, you kinda have to focus on the characters, THEN develop the plot around that. So, yes, Shatner is correct. But considering the movie he helmed…he probably shouldn’t talk.

88. VOODOO - April 25, 2013

If Abrams + co. 3rd ST film is truly going to be their last combined that 2016 is the 50th Anniversary they should get Shatner + Nimoy involved in some fashion.

89. NoKhanPlease - April 25, 2013

The idea of the next Star Trek movie being a 50th anniversary film that corrects the timeline, and has Shatner and Nimoy involved is about as awesome and exciting as it is impossible to believe. Abrams would never do it.

Oh, and Shatner was right. Abrams’ movie was good, but it did lack some of the heart and intelligence of the the original.

90. Phil (going to UK IMAX Premier!!!) - April 25, 2013

#44 & #79 Yay Seth MacFarlane!!
Maybe there could be Red Shirt called “Ensign Ricky”?


91. Aurore - April 25, 2013

“…come up with something original for a switch….”


Saying that I will try to be open-minded is one thing…so long as I haven’t seen the movie yet.


“No remakes. No rehashes”…. is what I still expect….

92. OldDarth - April 25, 2013

A new director for the third movie would be fine. And probably a good thing.

New writers – one of which being an established SF writer – would also be welcome.

Time for new blood.

93. Curious Cadet - April 25, 2013

@79. Navy,
” I hope that Seth MacFarlane would get to restart the prime universe….I will go see the new movie, but I doubt very much it will feel like Star Trek to me. Just a movie that makes a ton of references to my favorite show.”

What are you talkng about man? Seth MacFarlane is the ultimate popular reference guru! People keep bring his name up to helm a glorious rebirth of Star Trek, but I can’t imagine his Trek will be much more than a movie that makes a ton of references to the originals, and probably a lot more jokes …

94. msn1701 - April 25, 2013

LOL Playboy? that is hilarious! woo JJ

95. just me... - April 25, 2013

would an online petition to persuade J.J. help him decide to direct the last of the Star Trek movies?

It would show him some love….and if we get on it now, he may feel a sense of obligation to see it through. :D At least one could hope.

96. Navy - April 25, 2013


That’s why I think Seth is next to perfect(I would be perfect!). Wheb you watch interviews and look deeper at his work you can see how intelligent he is. No matter what, we have to refrence treks past to bring it into the future, but I think Seth could do it tastefully. He has more experience than most at pushing the edge, so he should know how to be modest. I mean I had to pull back a tear when “Ted” died.

If I did trek it would need a massive inital budget, but would be built on a game engine. Use a premium game engine for physics and animation as well as establishing actual flight controls for the Enterprise. I would have a little more than a 1980s wireframe outline of the enterprise on the consoles as well…(*cough*ST09*cough*)

Using a game engine would establish certain fixed rules writers would have to follow as well as the basis for future trek games. We need a new producer that looks at the wider picture of trek, spends the money and does it right.

97. pg - April 25, 2013

All I ask is don’t let Bryan Singer touch this franchise. He used up his free card with almost ruining Superman and turning him into a dead beat dad, and window stalker.

I don’t care how much that guy claims he “loves” Trek, he almost ruined another franchise by getting all liberal with his storyline.

Anybody but him, please!

If anyone notices, the last shot of the latest Man of Steel trailer shows Superman Flying and throwing a solid punch in mid air…. Almost reassuring fans this won’t be another Supes film where he acts like a wuss.

If not Abrams, maybe Seth Mcfarlene, Brad Bird, or someone Abrams all around feels comfortable with who is an up and coming director.

I don’t care if The Usual Suspects was heralded, or if people enjoyed the first two X Men films, Singer shouldn’t be allowed to come within 100 miles of a new Trek feature.

98. Robman007 - April 25, 2013

Well, rehashing has been a time honored tradition in the Star Trek film history. Not sure what all the complaining is about. Let me prove it

The Motion Picture – Bad rehash of The Changeling.

Star Trek Insurrection – Rehash of plenty of TNG episodes. Vengeance fuled badguy

Star Trek Nemesis – Tried to be like Khan. Felt like a rehash of Attack of the Clones

It happens. With SOOOOO many hours of episodes and SOOOOOO many nitpicky fans, it’s hard to be original anymore. It can be done, but odds are it won’t happen.

99. Aurore - April 25, 2013

“Well, rehashing has been a time honored tradition in the Star Trek film history. Not sure what all the complaining is about. Let me prove it…”

You don’t need to.

Besides, I am aware of the fact that , Roberto Orci never said that it would not be a 129(?) minute long homage (or re-imagining) of an old episode or movie…

He just said “No remakes. No rehashes.”

Personally, I was quoting (him) more than I was complaining ; I haven’t seen the movie yet.



I’ll judge the movie on its merits when I see it.

100. T'Cal - April 25, 2013

Trek has its roots on TV. I would prefer a miniseries for the 50th anniversary that would be set post Nemesis so that the story could include characters and settings from TNG, DS9, and VOY. This could be the jumping off point for a new series, perhaps set in the new JJverse. I won’t even try to come up with a story or plot as I lack the skills. But talented writers are out there that know this era well and they could do a great job with it.

101. NON - April 25, 2013

Sometimes I cant understand if Shatner is being mean on purpose or its all in a joke.

I do like the idea of bringing everything full circle and restoring the timeline. Then they can make a new series on TV and then new movies in 2020, hasnt it been mentioned that this cast will probably not do as many movies as the original and next gen cast?

102. Disinvited - April 25, 2013

#80. DonDonP1

And yet PARAMOUNT is a partner with Disney in its Marvel movies. Checkout the IRON AN 3 credits. If that is possible Trek crossover is too.

103. Disinvited - April 25, 2013

#101. NON

In what way is say JJ’s Trek doesn’t have as much soul as Shatner’s MEAN? It’s not as if he said it had NO soul.

104. 47 - April 25, 2013

To JJ Abrams: go back from whence you came.

105. bringbacktrekagain - April 25, 2013

I only request this, find a way to get more of the original cast involved in the next one.

106. ruue - April 25, 2013

Time for Abrams to care about his one and only love, Star Wars.
Time to get rid of the stupid lens flares
Time to deliever a Trek movie on schedule…
Trek 13 must be released in 2016 in time for the 50th anniversairy

107. Lt. Bailey - April 25, 2013

I got a bad feeling that if JJ directs the 3rd film, we will not see it for 5 years from now based on all his other projects including Star Wars for Disney that are coming up. Its takes a lot to do so many films just like it delayed the 2nd film. I hope he can get a good script in a timely manner and start work soon if he does decide to direct #3. I read the Playboy interview when I got my issue, I thought it was just the opposite, he will turn it over to someone else and he takes up the Star Wars film which he expressed joy for.

108. Navy - April 25, 2013

Star Trek was just the stepping(getting stepped on is more like it) stone for JJ to get to Star Wars.

109. Keachick - April 25, 2013

I think that STID is more likely to have overtones of Fringe than either Star Wars or TWOK or other…

110. BillyBoy - April 25, 2013

Rather not remind people of Godfather III, it was a big step down compared to the first two. And sorry, just like the problems of call Into Darkness “Star Trek 2″, I’m not going call the next one “Star Trek 3″. JJ Abrams’ third Star Trek movie, perhaps. But “Star Trek 3″ was already made years ago, it’s directed by Leonard Nimoy and stars William Shatner and Christopher Lloyd. Once again, a film reboot doesn’t change the number of films in a franchise. Otherwise we’d be called Skyfall “James Bond 3″ It’s Bond 23 and the next Trek film is Star Trek 13. Sorry, Abrams fan boys.

111. McCoy;s#1Fan - April 25, 2013

I have been thinking about something.. has Abrams reboot made
the character of Spock unspecial?? With creating a relationship
with Uhura there is definitely nothing special about him showing
emotion. (I keep thinking about Spock;s joyful “JIM” at the end of
AMOK TIME) Now him showing emotion will be the norm and
more of a so what instead of a “..when pigs fly” moment.

Abrams directing the next movie… let’s hope not.. let him go to
Star Wars and not do amy more damage to Trek.

112. omegaman - April 25, 2013

Wish upon a star folks…

JJ never hurt Trek… he took a dead issue and revived it…
besides, there will never be a return to a non action movie of Trek… the new proven formats here to stay… regardless of who directs it…

113. Tom - April 25, 2013

With the 50th anniversary coming up I believe they will have some involvement with the original cast. Especially if they have mention of the original timeline in the story(whether they restore it or not).
If JJ likes Shatner so much , I think he can work him an Leonard Nimoy in

114. Navy - April 25, 2013


JJ did not take a dead issue and revive it. The owners of the intellectual property decided they wanted to cash in on us again and choose JJ to head that effort. The movie would have had to been horrible to actually tank, Star Trek fans have been desperate for anything new. I have never once accused his movie of being horrible, because it isn’t. It just isn’t Star Trek, because the people behind it don’t understand Star Trek. They’re too busy patting each other on the back rather than giving honest criticism. Even Shatner understands the emotional content Star Trek has. Little game for those who actually read a whole post, “hands up” if you teared up at the sight of the Enterprise in TMP. Not even a hint of a tear for the new Enterprise.

It’s really too bad how little the owners of Star Trek care so little about the people who have for the most part paid for Star Trek over the years by viewing.

It is very doubtful that we will ever have another Trek that inspires people to greatness like TOS and TNG did.

115. Keachick - April 25, 2013

People teared up in the first scenes which showed Jim Kirk’s birth and the sacrifice/death of his father – events actually happening to people which were to have a big impact on their lives later on, especially on the baby they called Jim.

116. Curious Cadet - April 25, 2013

@102. Disinvited,
“PARAMOUNT is a partner with Disney in its Marvel movies. Checkout the IRON AN 3 credits. If that is possible Trek crossover is too.”

I don’t follow this. Paramount had a deal with Marvel to produce Iron Man. Disney bought Marvel. Disney must honor the contract Paramount had with Marvel. Therefore, Disney and Paramount are partners contractually until the expiration of the contract.

Star Trek is owned by CBS. Paramount has a contract with CBS. I don’t see any reason for Paramount to partner with Disney to produce Star Trek.

117. Bob Tompkins - April 25, 2013

Star Trek/ Star Wars crossover happened all it is going to happen in the last Star Trek movie when R2D2 was included as a piece of debris when Starfleet was smashed by Nero.
That sort of a crossover is not something the general public would pay to see, just a few ultrageeky fanboys who live in mom’s basement.

118. Disinvited - April 25, 2013

#116. Curious Cadet

You don’t follow because you are uninformed. “Had” was the operative word. Disney got greedy and renegotiated. Paramount made out like a bandit. Unknown at this time when new deal will “expire” but right now Paramount would be very foolish if they let STID marketing hurt their IM3 cash cow..

119. omegaman - April 25, 2013

@114 Navy

Yes, he did. There’s no way in hell Paramount would ever do anything just to please a majority of the “fans”, that was never ever on the cards. Trek needed new life and more mass market appeal and it finally got it. ST09 pushed the boundaries of Trek to where it became fresh and exciting for the first time in decades… there’s no turning the clock back to the 80’s and 90’s… that style of Trek is dead… even for the next incarnation of TV Trek… if fortunate to be ever revived.

As a 58 year old who has watched every incarnation of Star Trek and enjoyed them all, I am excited about the future of Trek and I’m pretty darn sure there is plenty of new blood out there to be inspired…

120. Curious Cadet - April 25, 2013

@118 Disinvited,

OK, so be it, but I still don’t understand how that could ever turn into Disney patterning with Paramount to produce Star Trek. There was a logical path to the Iron Man 3 partnership. There’s absolutely no connection between them with respect to Star Trek.

121. Navy - April 26, 2013


I wanted to agree, that you make a good point about the first scene in ST09. However, that scene was well written and would have worked in any story line to envoke an emotional response.

They were not memorable tears to me(as I did tear up too), like the first time I saw the Enterprise A.

122. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#120. Curious Cadet – April 25, 2013

The point is business is business. If Disney could end up in partnership in a new agreement with Paramount over the Marvel franchise after trying to renegotiate them out then it is now not as unlikely that a partnership could be made over some other franchise. A bridge has been formed on the business side and JJ is a bridge on the production side. Lines of communication are open. Especially, if IM3 make both parties ooddles of dough. It is not as unlikely as it once may have been.

Also, I’m betting Disney would love to return the “favor” in Paramount’s superb negotiations on the Marvel Franchise. You have to remember Disney’s SW movie plans are ambitious with cranking out a SW movie of some sort every year. I could easily see a situation where a ST crossover could be the only thing around to fill the bill at some future time in which Disney gets in a bind.

123. Curious Cadet - April 26, 2013

@122 Disinvited,
Absolutely not. While anything can happen, you are not even considering CBS in this at all, which makes it just that much more complicated.

Disney renegotiated Paramount’s deal because Disney wants to own it all and doesn’t want to share anything, even if they lose money up front (they are even building a brand new studio in Glendale to get Marvel physically closer). I looked the deal up after you made me aware of it, and essentially Disney bought them out. Losing money on such a deal is typical, because Paramount had everything to lose on a profitable franchise and Disney had everything to gain.

Disney wants nothing to do with Paramount and vice versa. There is no partnership. There will presumably be no further Marvel movies with both logos on them. Star Wars is a competing franchise, Disney does not need Trek. Paramount does not own Trek, so their investment is limited. As soon as Trek ceases to make large box offices for Paramount, they will let CBS buy out their contract so CBS can shop it to somebody else.

Actual partnerships, which this most certainly is not, between big studios are rare in Hollywood. Titanic was one as the budget was so large Fox couldn’t produce it by themselves, and the arrangement with Paramount has caused years of rancor between the studios. The other one that comes immediately to mind is the Towering Inferno for similar reasons, and again notorious problems between Fox and WB. There are a few more, but it’s pretty rare, and as far as I know Disney has never done it.

124. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#123. Curious Cadet – April 26, 2013

A buyout? Hardly, but that’s what Disney wants it to look like:


”Disney and Paramount agreed in 2010 to amend that agreement, giving Disney the rights to distribute Marvel-produced THE AVENGERS and IRON MAN 3, the second sequel to the 2008 film that Paramount distributes. That agreement stipulated that Disney would pay Paramount a $115 million advance against future fees that Paramount would have earned.

Half of that fee was paid when Disney released THE AVENGERS in international markets.

Spokesmen for Disney and Paramount would not comment.

The two sides also agreed that THE AVENGERS would appear on the Epix online and premium TV service that Paramount owns with Lions Gate Entertainment and the MGM studio. That’s a big boost for the nearly three-year-old channel. Disney is obligated to show most of its movies on the Starz pay channel.

How large Paramount’s take will be depends on how big a hit THE AVENGERS becomes. The deal gets even better for Paramount in 2013, when Disney is scheduled to release the third Iron Man. Paramount will get 9 percent of the money that film will generate.”

Where there’s smoke:


”The success of Disney’s billion-dollar blockbuster, THE AVENGERS, has unleashed a Hollywood war of words worthy of Marvel’s comic book heroes.

Marvel brass think it’s odd that Paramount would boast of its distribution take in the wake of its losing out on future millions, these sources added.”

Marvel brass knew there had to be more to this than is being bandied about in the press and Paramount was happy to confirm it. It’s a tiered agreement with Paramount getting even more as certain BO levels are crossed.

With both Disney and Paramount not commenting no one knows how long this new agreement could go on or be extended. I doubt either one will want to rock the boat as long as the dough rolls in.

It would be interesting to know if CBS has veto power over who Paramount partners with in making Trek movies. I suspect not but freely admit I don’t know.

125. McCoy's#1Fan - April 26, 2013

No one responded to my supposition that the reboot has made the
Spock character less special. Of course, Quinto is such a weak Spock
that it doesn’t help either. Spock is such a unique character that
taking away at least some of his inner struggle diminishes him.

Something else, since Vulcan is now gone and Earth “is the only
home I have left” wouldn’t it be interesting to see Spock interact
with Amanda’s relatives?

126. Curious Cadet - April 26, 2013

@124 Disinvited,

I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. Disney wanted Paramount out of the picture and they are paying them off to get that. Disney had no power to negotiate since Paramount had an iron clad deal. Paramount was actually reasonable in their demands considering there was no incentive to exit their deal with Marvel. The fact remains, Paramount is doing absolutely nothing for these films, and getting paid for it. There’s no partnership, and certainly nothing that suggests Disney would want to enter into any future joint business.

As for CBS, not sure why you would think they have no control over their own franchise. Most agreements of this nature spell out specific conditions, both creative and business. On the creative front, I cannot imagine there are not stipulations about what can be done with the characters, much less combining them with characters from another franchise. As far as business, CBS and Paramount have a very complex arrangement with respect to merchandise profits, home video distribution, etc. if Disney got involved, Paramount would have little to negotiate with besides their own profits, without involving CBS, and I can’t really see Disney just accepting a share of the profits for use of their biggest franchise without any ownership of the film, which directly involves CBS since Paramount can’t grant ownership of anything having to do with Star Trek.

127. Johnny - April 27, 2013

Guys… what is with all this talk of “restoring” the Prime timeline? It doesn’t need to be “restored” at all… simply because it NEVER WENT AWAY. It still exists. It didn’t stop when Spock and Nero time traveled — it’s still going on, we’re just not getting to see it.

The new movies are focusing on the “Alternate” reality for a reason. Paramount wanted to reboot Star Trek with the original crew. Creating a straight up prequel would never gel with the continuity that has previously been established, and the storytelling would be predictable, given that we know what happens in the future. The alternate timeline is simply a “reboot” of Star Trek that actually respects and does not trample over continuity. It’s genius.

Again, the J.J. Abrams films are REBOOTS. I’m getting sick of everyone complaining that the writers should come up with “new” and more “original” storylines. If Paramount wanted that, they would have done a movie with new characters, instead of REBOOTING the old. It really is no different than The Dark Knight Trilogy. When you’re making a Batman movie, you have to have the classic villains — the mob, the Joker, etc. When you’re rebooting classic Star Trek, you need to include the familiar villains: Klingons, Romulans, and possibly Khan.

These movies are NOT the vehicle for “exploring strange new worlds”. If you don’t want a rehash, then don’t go and see them. But don’t complain that the writers aren’t coming up with anything bold and original — because it is *not their job* to. Their job is to reboot classic Star Trek and make it cool and accessible to a wide audience, and that’s exactly what they have done.

128. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#126. Curious Cadet – April 26, 2013

Well, according to Marvel they were already out of the picture:

“Executives at Marvel are upset after word leaked that Viacom’s Paramount will pocket $115 million in fees for AVENGERS and the upcoming IRON MAN 3 — even after it lost distribution rights last fall following Disney’s $4 billion takeover of Marvel.”

I’m reading that as Paramount renegotiated their way back in on pictures that Marvel claims Paramount lost distribution rights on.

And I’m saying in all the smoke the Marvel brass is blowing about it, they have an inkling there’s more to this than we are being led to believe.

Also, Les Moonvies doesn’t really seem all that interested in finding ways to NOT make money off of the STAR TREK name so I’m a little non plused that you seem to think that there’s absolutely no agreement that could be made in a Disney/Paramount crossover deal that he would find acceptable. Les claims he doesn’t understand STAR TREK so I doubt that he has some concept that he must preserve its integrity in any way let alone be saved from contamination by STAR WARS, crossover or otherwise, from the current production house.

Odd, but I seem to recall back in the day that Marvel had license to make STAR TREK comics and that they did a crossover in that format with some comic that I can’t recall but am pretty sure wasn’t STAR WARS. Still given all the wacky things Hollywood does I wouldn’t be surprised someone at Disney dug that up and ended up proposing that STAR TREK crossover, but I digress.

Surprising given all the partnerships Disney used to launch the various parts in its theme parks, Pixar, and Amblin that you think they couldn’t work this out with Paramount? But I get it that such a deal would be in a whole other league. And yet, something is going between the two that gets the Paramount logo on films the Marvel brass feels has no business being there.

129. Aurore - April 27, 2013

“…..But don’t complain that the writers aren’t coming up with anything bold and original…”

Why not?

Will complaining on the… Internet… scare them into writing something bold and original, if as you say “it is *not their job* to” ?


I may be wrong, but, every single person posting on this site will, in my opinion, probably see the movie….at least once….

130. Phil - April 27, 2013

@121. That scene worked because it was well played as a healthy relationship between a couple who were dealing with the realization that they were in the final moments of their relationship together. Agreed – it would have worked just as well if Ms. Kirk was six weeks pregnant as opposed to being in labor.

131. Phil - April 27, 2013

NBC just picked up another season of Revolutions. This should put to rest any chatter that JJ has time to direct SW and ST….

132. Curious Cadet - April 27, 2013

@128. Disinvited,
“And yet, something is going between the two that gets the Paramount logo on films the Marvel brass feels has no business being there.”

Yeah, Disney paid Paramount a fortune to buy them out of their deal with Marvel, and for literally not lifting a finger, they will continue to get paid handsomely, because Disney wanted them out so badly and Paramount held all the cards. This cuts into the net profits that Marvel gets to pocket after Disney takes their distribution share. That’s why the Marvel guys are screaming. They had no say in the deal Disney made with Paramount, but it hits them personally in the pocketbook.

As for this crossover non-sense, yeah CBS would likely be happy to take anybody’s money for Star Trek as long as CBS gets a stake in the project. And I don’t see Disney interested enough in doing such a thing to give away any ownership to CBS, and I don’t see CBS giving away ownership of Star Trek. I mean, ultimately, where’s the demand to justify such a headache? Ultimately the majority of the people who watch Star Trek also watch Star Wars (the reverse is not as true), so combining the two franchises which reduce overall profits for both studios, but not gaining a substantially larger audience just doesn’t make sense, especially for Disney which arguably owns the more popular franchise.

Because Star Trek is on the fast track to become a billion dollar franchise for Paramount, it is now a potentially direct competitor to Star Wars which Disney is essentially rebooting at some risk — another reason why Abrams won’t likely direct the next Star Trek. Abrams has essentially done what Paramount signed him up for, and Disney is offering him substantially more. He could walk away from the Paramount deal and it wouldn’t likely affect him adversely, whereas his future is with Disney. Star Wars could make or break him.

As for the Disney theme parks, well, they own Pixar, and Amblin is not bringing a franchise they own to the table, they are a work for hire producer. And crossover comics? Never heard of it, but that would be a far easier thing to do as a third party comic company would have no ownership of the product and essentially license both franchises as they would be anyway, assuming Disney (moreso than CBS) had no creative issues with it. But I suspect even then Disney might ask for the equivalent of 100% of their usual fee, as would CBS making it unprofitable for the comic book company unless they thought it would sell more than twice the usual volume.

133. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#132. Curious Cadet – April 27, 2013

Actually, I think what you imply is Disney is far more likely to do what has long been rumored and that is buy Paramount outright rather than form a partnership. That would make things interesting. We both agree CBS holds all the Trek cards. And yet Disney legal hounding away with whatever film rights to Trek the Paramount library retains would make for some interesting entertainment news.

To be clear neither I nor the rumor claims Disney is targeting Paramount for Trek, that’s just incidental.

134. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#132. Curious Cadet – April 27, 2013

Meant to draw the buyout inference from the fact you point out that they own Pixar now which they were partners with before.

Different topic: Reading how poorly Paramount treated Marvel in their former partnership, gives me new respect for Bad Robot’s ability to deal with them.

135. Unwanted - April 27, 2013

@132. While there have not been any Star Trek/Star Wars crossover comics done there have been TNG/X-Men (side trip on the way back to the 24th century at the end of First Contact), it is fortunate Wolverine had lost the adamantium and healing powers temporarily or Worf would have been hamburger.

Over on the DC side is the more recent TOS/Legion of Superheroes miniseries which cast classic DC supervillain Vandal Savage (an immortal) as the strange immortal Flint of the Trek universe. It’s a pretty fun ride, good Trek too.

Then of course there was the TNG/Dr. Who thing recently, didn’t really check that out as I am not a fan of the good doctor, but hey it could be good.

Lots of the Trek comics out there are fairly good Trek stories in their own right. I remember one TOS movie era story published just after ST6, where someone changed the timeline and Spock was dead and Worf’s grandfather Worf was his replacement as the Enterprise science officer, and the Romulan Empire had fallen 2 centuries earlier.

Never assume the medium the story is presented in prevents it being a good story.

136. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

#135. Unwanted – April 27, 2013

Agree about good stories. X-MEN? Wow, imagine if DIsney/Marvel tied their origins into Khan’s eugenics wars?

137. denny cranium - April 28, 2013

I keep saying it- it’s show BUSINESS- get bums to fill the theater seats and get them to buy popcorn.
I want to see this movie and hope for some Trek moments.
If you hate JJ trek, please go see this movie.
A bigger box office means more money for a potential TV series to be aired.
I expect this movie to go clunk in areas. Just like the last one did.
But I’ll give it a few viewings to fatten its wallet.
Re Shatner’s “compliment” to JJ? He needs to get over himself. He himself has admitted he’s gone “yeah, riiiight” when fans tell him what an inspiration he was to them. Any current Trek product produced with Shatner attached to it would get bogged down by his diva? demands.
I admire Mr. Shatner greatly, but he’s best lately when he’s doing a parody of himself.

138. Tim - April 28, 2013

Why isn’t anyone considering just not continuing Trek? In the scramble to make more and more, it’s making the franchise look like a fish flopping around on a beach.
Just enjoy the hundreds of hours of Trek already available and let go of this ridiculous need to keep it going. Wasn’t the problem always that they just kept it going and going when they should have ended it?
People need to just let go. Let’s get Hollywood away from reboot after reboot. I’m horrified to think that the next fifty years of my life will be Batman, Spiderman, Superman and Trek reboots over and over with MAYBE one or two original movies sprinkled in.

139. Johnny - April 30, 2013

@131 Phil

J.J. Abrams has very, very little involvement with NBC’s Revolution. Really, all he really did was pitch the show to the network, and help develop the idea and cast. The show is run by Eric Kripke, with Abrams’ “producer” credit amounting to not much more than his name being attached. I doubt he has any day-to-day involvement with it anymore.

140. Karindra Mulia Putra - May 17, 2013

3rd Movie All Out War Humans vs Klingon.. Hope JJ would consider it..

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