EDITORIAL: Star Trek is broken – Here are ideas on how to fix it | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

EDITORIAL: Star Trek is broken – Here are ideas on how to fix it September 1, 2013

by Joseph Dickerson , Filed under: Editorial , trackback

At last month’s official Star Trek Convention in Las Vegas, I had the privilege to speak about “Treknology”. The experience was great – I was thrilled at the response of my fellow fans to my presentation. What struck me was the response from Jordan Hoffman’s “One Trek Mind” panel on the best Star Trek movie. The feedback from fans was pretty unanimous – the best film was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and the worst… was Star Trek Into Darkness.

Fans were more kind when a similar vote took place at the Seattle Star Trek Convention a few days later, where STID ranked 6th, but even then the fans were very vocal and very critical of the film. The sometimes-rabid criticism, much of which was echoed by some film critics and online commentators, gave me pause… and as I reflected on this reaction I came to a conclusion.

Star Trek is broken.

Star Trek, like all long-running entertainment properties, has had peaks and valleys – Some very high highs… and very low lows. In my opinion, Star Trek is at (yet another) turning point.

Star Trek reestablished itself as a cultural phenomenon with the 2009 reboot, and now the franchise is… not quite working. An noted above, lots of old-school fans are unhappy with the newest film, and after talking to some casual fans I doubt Into Darkness will have the same success in bringing new fans into the fold like the ’09 reboot did.

More than that, Into Darkness had underperformed at the box-office – while it was a moderate success and is in the Top 10 films of the year, it is nowhere near the billion-dollar blockbuster that Paramount had hoped. With many other competing geek-friendly properties on the market, Star Trek just isn’t appealing as it once was, and a lot of people are pointing their attention elsewhere.

What can be done to bring Trek back to the forefront, to once again be the seminal piece of entertainment it was before? Here are my thoughts on some things that could be done.

It’s about the Mission Statement

The best television series’ have a “mission statement” – a phrase that describes what the show’s premise is and what it’s all about. Decades ago, that premise was often expressly stated in the lyrics to the show’s theme song (The Patty Duke Show, Gilligan’s Island, etc.). Even today’s shows have an “elevator speech” description that the producers use to make sure they never lose sight of their premise (Breaking Bad’s is “Mr. Chips turns into Scarface”). Star Trek’s mission statement is clear and obvious, and we see it at the very beginning of every episode of the original series:

“Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.”

The best episodes of Star Trek never lost sight of this very simple statement, and still provided excitement as well as provocative ideas. Where was this mission statement in Star Trek Into Darkness? At the end, just like in 2009′s Star Trek. The placement was appropriate in the first film, as it was less about seeing out new life and new civilizations and more about “putting the band together.” That they put it at the end of STID was also correct… because they STILL haven’t done it yet.

When you now have two films that don’t live up to the basic premise of the concept… you have a problem.

It’s about exploration and new ideas

In order to once again “live” that mission statement, Star Trek has to once again be about exploring the unknown, about going beyond what we are comfortable with. About moving forward, finding out what’s “out there.” It could be a Doomsday Machine, or the Horta, or the Guardian of Forever, or Apollo… or something new. Star Trek was a reflection of the “wanderlust” that is a key part of humanity, and how we continually strive to learn, to grow, to understand.

Actor Karl Urban recently stated in an interview that he wanted the third film to be “an original story” and not a rehash of characters or plots from earlier films.

“I really think that what we should do from here, in my personal opinion, is strive to be original. Strive to be something different and new. You know, let’s not forget that Star Trek as envisioned was about space exploration. And it would be really wonderful to harness the spirit of that and apply it to the next film, so that we do something different than a revenge-based picture.”

Hear, hear. Another issue that many critics had with STID was that the “fan service” references to The Wrath of Khan were not well done and made the new film look worse in comparison.


It’s about exploration

It’s about good characters

Making Star Trek once again about exploring the unknown isn’t enough. When you encounter the unknown, when you come across something that no one has ever seen before… how do you react? What do you say or do? That’s about character, who the people you see on the screen really are. The appeal of the best of Trek is when you respond to the characters and understand them – we all know who Kirk Spock and McCoy were on the original series because they were clearly drawn and well written. The outcomes of many episodes were informed by their reactions and decisions, and the best Star Trek – the best FICTION – is about character. Good character (and good acting) can elevate bad material and make it better.

The issue many had with STID was that several of the characters were either not the characters we are used to seeing (from the original series) or thin caricatures (Carol Marcus). You can gloss over that first criticism (it IS a different universe, after all) but the second is more of an issue. Trek without solid characters could end up being… well, a live-action cartoon.

It’s about breaking from the past

Most science fiction on TV before Star Trek was, effectively, children’s programming. Shows like Space Cadet or Lost In Space, where fantastical concepts and action sequences were more important than dramatic storytelling and strong characterization. Star Trek and other shows like it broke from that juvenile cycle and were adult stories targeted at intelligent viewers. Looking at Star Trek Into Darkness, one sees the same storytelling trend that other summer blockbusters are suffering from – an over reliance on action sequences and bombast, where visual effects supplant acting and story. It’s more like Space Cadet on the big screen than Star Trek.

Just as the original series broke from convention to tell adult stories, Star Trek needs to once again break from the past and stop being about the Enterprise and crew. Yes, I know, this might be a scandalous idea to many of you reading this, but think about it: We have had hundreds of episodes and almost a dozen movies about the crew of the Enterprise. We need to look at a new ship, a new crew, and explore new ground. Have a link to the past (maybe a crew member or two), but Star Trek needs to move forward.

And that means saying goodbye to what came before, in a clean break.

It’s about good writing

A lot of critical barbs were aimed at the writers of Star Trek Into Darkness about the script and plot of the film. I won’t join in that chorus, because writing a multi-billion dollar film is something I have never had to do. The pressure must be IMMENSE, and there are many hoops that you have to jump through to produce a script for such a project. That being said, Star Trek at its best has always had top-notch writing, no matter the series.

How can we once again elevate the writing in Star Trek? Simple: Go outside of the Hollywood bubble and hire some science fiction writers. Lots of science fiction writers are also Trek fans, and asking writers like Neil Gaimen or John Scalzi to write new Trek would immediately elevate the profile of Trek with many fans.

Having writers such as these working on a big-budget Hollywood screenplay is not the best idea. You need to let them play in a bigger, more expansive playground. Which is why the final and number one way to fix Star Trek is…

It’s about being on TV

Where is the quality writing coming from right now? No offense to the writers of Hollywood films, but the best writing is on television right now. Shows like Homeland, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and more demonstrate that the golden age of entertainment isn’t in cinemas, it’s on TV. Star Trek started out on TV, and it is the best medium for the property. Even William Shatner recently said that Star Trek is best suited to TV, and he makes the argument better than I could. Here’s the relevant quote:

“When you get into the small screen, you need stories… entertaining, interesting, vital stories that have a philosophy and also have an excitement about them, so that the viewer stays with it, but receives the philosophy as a byproduct. Those were the best of Star Trek, those kinds of stories. And that kind of thing, there is always room for that. That kind of imaginative approach that stirs young people into wanting to be connected with science.”

Right on, Mr. Shatner. Star Trek should be back on TV. Period.

Closing

There you have it, some very direct ideas on how to “fix” Star Trek and make it relevant and exciting once more. What say you? Respond in the comments with your ideas on how to make Star Trek the groundbreaking entertainment property it once was… to once again bring new blood and new viewers into the fold. To continue to boldly go…

Comments

1. dot not - September 1, 2013

intodarkness worst st movie? i dont agree
its again your opinion not of everyone

2. dot not - September 1, 2013

$457 million worldwide, Star Trek Into Darkness is no flop and will eventually make money once Trekkies buy the Blu Rays.

3. Elias Javalis - September 1, 2013

Star Trek back on TV, Agreeeed!!!

4. Seb - September 1, 2013

I agree with everything.

5. sander - September 1, 2013

Disagree…..think the movie was a good action packed movie and looking forward to the bluray.
and it was no flop……so deal with it

6. Tommy Amundsen - September 1, 2013

Think most fans agree even if you liked the new movies or not.

7. summoner2100 - September 1, 2013

Great article..

The biggest issue I found with STID, was that from the very beginning that said that the 2009 film had given them the chance of doing their own stories. They even delayed the production of STID to “get the script right, which from memory was covered on this site at one stage.
Knowing this, I was thinking, great an original story. Good. So what did we get? A re-hash of one of the most popular movies. Why? There was no need, and Spock\Kirk don’t have the chemistry yet to accomplish it. In Wrath of Kahn, they had 5 years (or 10 depending on your view) plus the first movie to grow their friendship.

I agree with Karl Urban’s quote more than Shatners. They need to do more original stories. Yes, Star Trek does well on tv, and it’s where it started, but it can do well on both–as the good Star Trek movies, like Wrath of Kahn, etc have shown.

Bottom line: Original stories, please..

8. Melllvar - September 1, 2013

What a constructive article!

I do really hope everyone pays attention to the last few lines in which the writer requests that we focus on positive ideas for moving forward, rather than sharing your two cents on why the last film didn’t live up to people’s expectations NUMBER 3!!

I agree that the best move would seem to re-energise on TV; some of my favourite Trek memories definitely came from episodes, the premise of which would not work at all on the big screen. Metamorphasis comes to mind.

I really loved the continuing story line from ST: Enterprise season 3, would love to see something epic unfold like that again. The Iconians could play some part, with their wormhole like portholes which can take you instantaneously from one place to another… but I should admit that I’ve recently become obsessed with Stargate and maybe that’s why I like the idea so much :p

Wouldn’t mind a little Organian intervention, they certainly qualify as something new and unexplored…

9. Mel - September 1, 2013

The galaxy wide working transporters were really annoying. Section 31 could simply beam a huge bomb to Kronos and get rid of the Klingons there. That makes reviving Khan and building that huge black space ship completely obsolete.

I also think the whole Star Trek II rehash didn’t work so well. Spock’s Khan yell was an extreme caricature. It looks like what you would expect in a Star Trek spoof movie. Overall Spock going in each movie into rage mode and beating up people is just getting ridiculous. All the full human characters have more control over their emotions than him. It is also not particular entertaining. Bruce Banner in Hulk mode is more entertaining. In Avengers some Hulk scenes were even really funny.

The beginning of the last movie was the best part of the film. Niburu looked great. They should do more things like this. Something new. All the time earth being in danger gets old. And I hope this whole conspiracy crap will stop. Star Trek is about a better future. Earth being attacked all the time and the Federation/Starfleet being undermined by shady organizations is the opposite from positive.

I am pessimistic though. I suspect the next movie will be about a huge war with the Klingons and maybe other races. Earth will again be in danger. Section 31 will again do something shady. Spock will have a hand to hand battle with Kang, Kor or Koloth and the transporters will be used again completely inconsistent. Sometimes they will work, sometimes not, sometimes they are only able to beam a short distance, sometimes they will beam across the galaxy.

10. Mel - September 1, 2013

@ 4. Melllvar

“The Iconians could play some part, with their wormhole like portholes which can take you instantaneously from one place to another…”

We have instant travel already. It is called transporters. Khan could beam from Earth to Kronos.

11. Emory - September 1, 2013

It would also work if, instead of all the space ships shooting at each other, the reboot universe would focus on scifi ways of exploring and criticising social constructs, “morality”, race and gender roles the way most of previous Trek did.

12. pilotfred - September 1, 2013

its an enjoyable film.are they problems with the film yes,however name one trek film thats dose not have problems?and yeah the great and well not that great star trek 2,for real they never notice a planet missing, for that matter why were they even there!plus in all of the galaxy that was the only planet without life! i love trek 6 however Spock kind of mind rape someone on the bridge in front of everyone,kirk and sulu don’t even try and disable the Klingon ship and it seem don’t even think about it either.the thing is this film would never be in the billion dollar club,it should of made 300 million,and i wonder if it had would the story be a little different!!! i do agree that star trek lives better on TV,and homeland,dexter,bsg work become they have a arch,doctor who works because it has a arch,i wold love to see star trek back on TV with a season long arch like enterprise season 3 or do a ds9.but for the films its just going to be a fun ride

13. Victor Hugo - September 1, 2013

I´ve always read the books casually along the years, sometimes picking what was on the shelves, but now, with this Trek book “blackout”, i´m chasing over the hundreds of books i have missed.

So, in turn, it happens that I didn´t run out of Trek at all, it´s just that a lifetime seems short to read everything that was written out of Star Trek.

I think not everyone here read all the books or all the comics from all the publishers, most of them from the 1990´s a real golden age of published Trek. Maybe they should look them up as well.

14. Melllvar - September 1, 2013

#6 Mel

Yes, this is true over short distances (with of course the exception of the Kronos beam in the new film) — but the Iconian technique was not limited in any way in quantity and distance, or so I understand it. I remember in TNG they were in awe of that technology.

Oh and thanks for all of your positive ideas (sarcasm savagely intended) — I would like to refer you to the end of the article;

‘Respond in the comments with your ideas on how to make Star Trek the groundbreaking entertainment property it once was’.

I understand everyone’s frustration about the film, but is anyone else out there getting sick of constantly reading about how ‘i hated this’ or ‘i hated that’?

The next film could be bad or good, but I definitely DON’T think it’s necessary to assume the worst… hell, we’re the fans right? Let’s try to make this thread an amazing collaboration of what everyone WANTS in the future, as opposed to what we disliked about the past!

15. The Keeper - September 1, 2013

LOL
That is funny.
When I suggested that Paramount rid themselves of the current writing team and cull stories and ideas from real scifi writers just like the various series have done the message was deleted by this very site.
Probably because it was looked on as an attack…which of course it was.
Free speech has never been a trade mark here on this site any way.

Don’t worry, we will be seeing Khan vs. the Klingons. Vs the Federation for the third film. These writers can’t write any thing thought provoking and original…but will be paid huge sums of money for toilet water scripts.
Which is a shame, the cast is wonderful and very talented. what a waste it will be.

Also, you forgot to mention that Star Trek fans are cheap. They perceive TV as being “FREE”
They don’t want to “pay” to watch Star Trek.
This is the number one reason why Star Trek Toys have never taken off in stellar sales.
These part time fast food employees don’t have the loot to spend on movies and toys.
Besides they have to save their money to buy customs to play dress up and attend conventions.

16. njdss4 - September 1, 2013

“nowhere near the billion-dollar blockbuster that Paramount had hoped.”

If Paramount expected STID to do THAT well, they’re completely insane. I still liked STID for what it was, but there was no way it would make a billion dollars. I’m starting to see more and more that production companies like SquareEnix or Paramount/CBS completely lose touch with reality and expect blockbuster success when nothing points to it (see Tomb Raider, Deus Ex HR, and Sleeping Dogs to back up my SquareEnix reference). Plus, STID still did pretty well, making over $450M worldwide, which makes it even harder to swallow that they look at STID as ‘underperforming’. That’s well over twice its budget.

I’m rooting for the success of the new movies so it can pave the way for Trek to come back to TV, where it belongs. Hopefully that’s when the top notch writing comes back, too, because Trek won’t survive without it.

I’m really hoping that someone will bring Trek back as the type of shows that are critically successful these days, like Breaking Bad or House of Cards. That means shorter seasons (~12 episodes per season), focused stories, and high budgets per episode. I want to see someone come in and say something like “I know exactly what each episode will be for the first 3 seasons, and a framework for the two after that” so that we don’t have so many useless filler episodes that plagued Trek at times. If it gets the same old episodic, throwaway filler with nonsensical decision making and shallow characters (Voyager, Enterprise) then the show will fail and the franchise will truly die.

17. calbs - September 1, 2013

Constant cynicism from aged star trek fans is the thing that breaks trek.

They are unwilling to like anything. They remind me of a man i met that was absolutely insistent nothing existed after the original series. Like his brain would melt whenever anyone talked about tng or voyager.

At first i though yeah ok we all have our likes and dislikes. Then i thought well actually thats just sad and somewhat pathetic.

You don’t have to like anything but holy cow, the lesson across all 5 treks and all the films is one of tolerance. So why is it when people do not like something they abhor it. They spit poison into comments and forums as if it is the literal death of the franchise.

You know what has broken trek? Fans.

18. raffie - September 1, 2013

Good assessment, i must say i agree with just about everything. A TV series akin to some of the cutting-edge shows we’re seeing or have seen on TV, that’s what Star Trek needs.
If only…

19. Melllvar - September 1, 2013

#10 The Keeper

If you don’t like this site then why do you still come here, or better still, why don’t you just make your own??

What’s with all the negativity bro?! If your lack of confidence in the potential future for the Trek if truly so non-existent then perhaps you would be a happier person if you stopped visiting a site dedicated to this ‘dying franchise’. And I for one would be a lot happier with the site no longer being plagued by your unproductive depressing negativity!

Star Trek is supposed to be about hope for the future. I want to badly to live in the future depicted in the Trek universe for it’s refreshing optimism and positive outlook with respect to our potential as humans to throw aside all the capitalist bullshit and greed that seems to be everywhere in the present.

And so, my fellow trekkies, let us follow the example of this wonderful depiction of the future and at the very least approach the future of Star Trek in an optimistic fashion!!!

20. Agent69 - September 1, 2013

Rabid fans are the death of Star Trek. They are a reason you have lame episodes that use some contrived explanation for Klingon difference in appearance instead of actually doing interesting stories. I say no to a Trek TV show. Let the films do their stuff for a while.

21. CsMisi - September 1, 2013

You know what: I can take this summer blockbuster approach to the Star Trek movies as long as we have a TV series beside it. It doesn’t need to be on the same era or universe, just give us our TV series. I understand that Paramount doesn’t have the rights to produce anymore TV series, and they want to do something with their license, but please, CBS, bring back our Star Trek to the small screen too. I really hope that the 50th anniversary present to the fans will be a new TV series. 2 years and something to go, so get on with the planning. I don’t mind if it comes earlier, I want our TV series as soon as possible without being rushed …

22. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 1, 2013

I’m not convinced that the next movie will feature another ‘huge war’ with the Klingons. It appears the Klingon and/or Romulan conflict is the subject of at least the next few issues of the ongoing comics. Perhaps this will be dealt with there and enable the next movie to break into something completely different.

I think I would like the next movie to be a new storyline, however much the temptation to reimagine The Doomsday Machine or (insert favourite episode or villain here). Let the Enterprise boldly go and explore strange new worlds. Let’s not have another reimaginging of something we’ve already seen play out in the prime universe.

And yes, the best place for Star Trek is the small screen. The movies are, and always have been, a rather different animal. In my opinion, it is the episodic Star Trek that can inspire the next generation (pun not intended) with optimism for the future and the desire to be involved in making it happen.

To use a cliche-ridden metaphor here : Star Trek movies are the icing on the cake of the Star Trek universe; but without new Star Trek stories on the small screen, we end up with all icing and no cake…

23. Eryce the AOS fan - September 1, 2013

I’m not a fan of the Original Series, and have no real knowledge about the original characters other than the most basic facts. I loved loved loved STTNG. And I can’t watch the original series without laughing hysterically.

I must say, I actually like the reboot movies. Having no preconceived notion of how the characters are and how they go about doing their thing actually makes it interesting for me, to see how they grew from movie to movie. I liked Khan as portrayed by BC. I like the new cast. Basically, I’m a fangirl of this alternate universe. Is it perfect? Of course not. Do I want original material in the next movie? HELL YES! But it’s not the disaster that everyone is moaning about. It actually converted a couple of my fans who were NOT fans of Star Trek in the first place. And that, to me, is what a movie is supposed to do. Draw you into another universe and make you interested to actually want to explore more.

I agree that Star Trek needs to be on TV. But to be frank, even my beloved STTNG had terrible episodes and movies. They have to do the next TV series right, maybe play in the alternate universe sandbox with a different ship and crew. A darker, more cynical universe but still having the same optimism to go where no man has gone before.

24. Anthony Lewis - September 1, 2013

You are aware that the first ‘poll’ was basically strung along by the host of that particular event. I mean it was covered by Bad Ass Digest, lets not pretend this is some kind of AP Poll.

Even the second was conducted by ACCESS HOLLYWOOD! Good lord, these things inspired you to write an entire article about how Trek is ‘broken’?

We are talking about a very vocal minority here, and while they have a right to voice their opinions they are a very small representative of the whole.

Critically the movie did excellent and it made more than Trek 09 at the Box Office, and crushed 09′s overseas performance.

I would like for you to provide a source on your claim that Paramount thought Trek would be a billion dollar blockbuster. The only places I saw anything related to Trek and a billion dollars were Box Office sites that were speculating which movies COULD make that much money. Paramount did overreach on their expectations considering the circumstances, but even then they were never that far out of the park.

Star Trek is a brand, it is a business. I know people don’t like to think about that because big corporations are evil, but it is. And you judge how broken a brand is based on how it sells.

So far the last two Trek movies have been critically loved, and made more money than any Trek projects in history and continue an upward climb.

The exact flavor of Star Trek you love isn’t broken, it just isn’t being featured anymore, and that is what irks you so.

Trek has a lot of flavors, if this isn’t to your liking, then I suggest another flavor, there are plenty to choose from.

25. Beamer - September 1, 2013

One thing you didn’t put on here is something that is also very vital to the franchise: Allegorical Stories. At it’s core, Star Trek Was and is an Allegorical statement about humanity. During it’s original run in the 60′s it talked about a wide variety of topics relevant to the day such as the Vietnam War, Civil Rights, and the Human condition.
Star Trek (09) had originality but it lacked, as you said, good writing and to an extent Allegorical undertones. The last film (and don’t shoot me for saying this) I liked more due to it’s allegorical statement. Where it failed was it’s lack of originality. What we need with this next film is an original, allegorical story that is truly relevant to our culture today and makes a bold statement.

26. loungeshep - September 1, 2013

I agree with Karl Urban, they should be doing more original stories. I liked Into Darkness, but I was let down when they revealed he was Khan. That was the ultimate cop-out I think, showed a lack of originality, and then that whole engine room scene. Total cop out. Khan is such a huge character, he held the world in terror in the Eugenics Wars, he held a starship in terror, and he stole the Genesis Device, which was the only thing that killed him. Not Spock, not Kirk, Khan set off a bomb and blew up. So turning a Section 31 agent into Khan is not only a disservice to Khan, it’s actually a huge disservice to John Harrison who in his own right was turning out to be a pretty good villain. That the writers seemed to have a need to make him Khan shows a lack of faith in their character, and that is never a good thing. The audience is smart, the audience will pick up on that. And the fact that this movie was criticized shows that there’s a weakness on their part to sell us on John so they made John Khan so we would accept that he is Khan instead. But, they had us up until they revealed Khan they had our attention, then they reveal he’s Khan and lost us. Now by having Khan work with Kirk to stop the Mad Admiral, okay, but then nope, Trek 2 obvious reference lost us again.
No, the next Star Trek movie has to not only wow the norms who go to the theater, but it has to make us Trek fans want to come back for more. Reboot 1 did that pretty well, reboot 2 not as much I think. The next Trek really needs to be about their 5 year mission at this point, Star Trek is not a giant blockbuster movie, it never was. And I don’t think Trek at the movies will ever really go away, I mean Final Frontier, Nemesis? No, I don’t think Trek is broken: Remember, Spock’s Brain. that TNG episode where the crew mutates. That Voyager episode where Janeway and Tom mutate. that Enterprise ep where some of the crew mutate? Oh how about Sub Rosa? What Star Trek needed was some off air time, time to reboot itself, and right now I think it’s being worked on, and it’ll take time. Star Trek has always been about reinvention and exploration, and sometimes you have to rework it. But in my opinion, Star Trek itself will never go away.

27. crazydaystrom - September 1, 2013

Thank you Mr. Dickerson! And thank you Trekmovie! These things needed to be said on this site in an article and not just in the comments sections. While I don’t agree with every single thing in the article – I’m happy to see new stories about the original crew – I’m in agreement most of what was written. In particular the need for SOLID science fictional ideas. The current writers have proven they can produce money-making blockbusters but they have not show they can write good science fiction.

And BTW, it’s ‘ Hear, hear’ not ‘here, here’… a little pet peeve of mine.

28. Mel - September 1, 2013

@ 9. Melllvar

I made clear suggestion for improvement. Use technology consistent. They should make sense in the Star Trek universe. What transporters can or can not do changed constantly from scene to scene in the last two movies. That is bad writing.

The characters should be better developed. I don’t buy Kirk and Spock being the best friends ever so far, when we haven’t seen a reason for that yet. I mean at the beginning of the last movie Spock clearly betrayed Kirk and cause him to lose his command. Not what you would expect from a really good friend. But Pike handily dies 10 minutes later and that conflict is soon forgotten and they are BFF again timely for the Kirk death scene.

Spock should act also more like a Vulcan. He is showing more emotions on his face all the time than the rest of the full human characters. It makes the character far less interesting and less alien, which is a bad thing. There are enough other very emotional characters already. There is really no need to turn Spock into another one.

And I want to see a POSITIVE future. No conspiracies in the Federation/Starfleet, no terrorist attacks, Earth should be save for once.

I rather see new alien worlds like Niburu. Something new. Not Klingons and Romulans again. The Enterprise having to fight against a big bad black space ship controlled by a male baddy bend on revenge is also getting old. It has also nothing to do with exploration.

Not that voicing opinions here will influence the writers in any way. If the clear majority of posters on this site will say something it doesn’t mean, that it will happen. There were for example many polls about Khan on this site in the past and he was still shoehorned awkwardly into the movie, despite hardly anyone wanting it.

I posted those polls before. Here they are again:

Villain for Star Trek sequel?

Kang/Klingons (40%)
Khan (10%)
Borg (6%)
Other past Trek villain (8%)
New character/race (36%)

Total Votes: 1,293

Start Date: May 19, 2009 @ 1:57 pm

——

Khan in Star Trek sequel?

Good idea (10%)
Unsure/maybe (29%)
Bad idea (61%)

Total Votes: 735

Start Date: June 26, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

——

Khan in Star Trek sequel?

Yes, he is the superior villain (6%)
Maybe, but with a different spin (25%)
No, been there, done that (twice) (69%)

Total Votes: 780

Start Date: November 3, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

——

Villains for Star Trek sequel

Klingons (50%)
Romulans (3%)
Khan & Genetic Augments (5%)
Other TOS era villain (10%)
Borg (6%)
Cardassians (1%)
Other TNG era villain (0%)
Internal Federation villain (8%)
New race villain (10%)
Force of nature villain (7%)

Total Votes: 456

Start Date: October 26, 2009 @ 12:17 am

——

Choice for Villain for STAR TREK 2012

Khan (11%)
Klingons (37%)
Other TOS villain (11%)
Other TNG or ENT villain (8%)
New villain (33%)

Total Votes: 3,431

Start Date: September 11, 2010 @ 11:00 am

——

Villain in Star Trek sequel?

Khan (6%)
Kor, Kang, other Klingon (29%)
Romulans (2%)
Tholians (5%)
Gorn (6%)
Borg (6%)
Other TOS villain/entity (5%)
Other TNG, VOY, DS9, ENT villain/entity (3%)
New villain individual/race/entity (10%)
New villain ‘concept’ (28%)

Total Votes: 2,790

Start Date: April 5, 2011 @ 12:56 pm

——

Khan For Star Trek Sequel?

Yes (9%)
Only if done in new way (25%)
No (66%)

Total Votes: 510

Start Date: November 18, 2011 @ 3:12 pm

——

Guess what role Benedict Cumberbatch is playing

Khan (7%)
A Klingon (10%)
Garth of Izar (4%)
Gary Seven (5%)
Q (12%)
Other known Star Trek character/race (10%)
A new alien villain (28%)
A new human villain (24%)

Total Votes: 2,382

Start Date: January 5, 2012 @ 10:09 pm

——

Your guess for STAR TREK 2013 Villain

Gary Mitchell (21%)
Garth of Izar (9%)
Khan (11%)
Other augment/Botany Bay survivor (8%)
Other known Star Trek character (8%)
New character (43%)

Total Votes: 1,079

Start Date: February 24, 2012 @ 9:46 pm

——

Guess Cumberbatch Into Darkness Villain

Gary Mitchell (47%)
Gary Seven (1%)
Khan (20%)
Garth of Izar (10%)
Charlie X (1%)
Joachim (or other Augment) (6%)
Other (15%)

Total Votes: 3,614

Start Date: December 7, 2012 @ 4:15 pm

——

(After seeing Trailers/preview) Guess Cumberbatch Into Darkness Villain

Gary Mitchell (10%)
Gary Seven (0%)
Khan (38%)
Garth of Izar (3%)
Charlie X (0%)
Robert April (1%)
Joachim (or other Augment) (12%)
Just ‘John Harrison’ (new character…nothing more) (32%)
Other (4%)

Total Votes: 3,288

Start Date: December 17, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

——

A few polls are unclear without the article belonging to them. You don’t know for sure, if people were asked, who they think the villain will be or who they want as the villain. But others are more than clear. The clear majority of this site’s visitors didn’t want Khan. They also didn’t believe for a long time, that Cumberbatch would play him after he was cast. I guess, because he doesn’t look at all like Montalban or Indian.

That is why I don’t think voicing an opinion here will help to change the writers opinion. I have also read the recent comics. They clearly indicate a huge war coming involving the Federation, Klingons and Romulans and a lot of section 31 manipulations. It is unfortunately also often the way of sequels. They try to surpass the previous movie with more action, more explosions, a bigger scale, more things at risk, etc. A huge galaxy wide war would suit this schema.

29. CmdrR - September 1, 2013

Hollywood makes my heart hurt.
$450+, number seven film (I think) of the year, and still Paramount is whining about how it didn’t bring home a billion dollars? Geez!

I agree with most of the points in your article, JD (can I call you J?). You see to be saying that a movie could launch a new crew, and I’m not really sure the audience would accept that with a billion-dollar hug. It would seem that that would take a slow build, a la TV series, to work. I’d tune in, but I’m not sure I’d buy tickets.

With all due respect to Bob Orci, YES, please bring in some radical minds. Or buy some property and adapt ‘em! I hear Hollywood has had good luck stealing shamelessly from this Billy Shakespeare kid.

And I agree with poster that there’s no either/or as to whether Trek belongs on TV or movies. It can be both, if done right.

One thing you left out: promotion. Paramount ran a fairly conventional promotional campaign for this movie, with TONS of cast appearances and a fair amount of commercials. But where is the between-film stuff? I harp on a lack of toys… since it really is about constantly bringing in kids who buy tickets. But, there are other ways that people in these threads want: a cartoon series, for one.

I really hope Paramount is listening… or else that they SELL Trek to a studio that will do it right.

30. Marc Henson - September 1, 2013

My hope is that maybe something will come from this “Star Trek: Renegades” project. Renegades on TV would be fantastic.

31. Hugh Hoyland - September 1, 2013

I just cant agree with the idea that Star Trek in “broken” some how. It doesnt add up, especially coming off the two highest box office grossing films of the franchise.

Is Trek broken on TV? Well ya, in fact it doesnt exist there right now. And that stinks. But it seems CBS is in NO rush to get Trek back on TV anytime in the near future (not even an animated series). Hopefully that changes, but I’m not holding my breath.

So yes TV Trek isnt doing so good at the moment, but film Trek is rocking. I just wish BOTH parties would work together! It would be a great benefit to the franchise as a whole if they did IMO.

32. Optimistic Doodle - September 1, 2013

Star Trek is NOT broken.

BR however… ;-)

33. Anthony Lewis - September 1, 2013

In regards to #18 Beamer
“Where it failed was it’s lack of originality. What we need with this next film is an original, allegorical story that is truly relevant to our culture today and makes a bold statement.”

The story was original for Star Trek. As original as any story can be since everything is derivative of everything else.

Also I want to thank you for at least acknowledging that there is an allegorical tale told in STiD. You’d be amazed at the number of people who can’t see what is right in front them.

But I would disagree to a point. Back in the 60′s even up into the 80′s you could tell those kinds of stories because the number of people talking about them didn’t have a way to reach a larger audience. Allegory was powerful because movies were a way to connect people with ideas easily.

While I appreciate the allegory in STiD I also know that it is 2013, and there is nothing being said in that movie or questions asked that have already been debated a millions times over in a million places on the internet.

I mean the questions posed on STiD are good ones to ask, but people have been asking themselves those questions for years now.

It will be tough to be bold when movies take years to make and the internet already provides a tool for people to connect and discuss in real time.

34. jai - September 1, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness is one of the best films of the year — a tough-minded, modern take on the Star Trek universe. Beautifully made — it’s an amazing looking movie in a world tired of computer animation — and featuring genuinely strong story-telling (and this comes from a great admirer of WOK), and strong, impressive performances from Misters Pine, Cumberbatch and Ms. Eve. The Klingon sequences set me on edge and the revelation of Khan made an audience member behind me gasped. I think Mr. Abrams and his team should be congratulated on reinventing a classic.

35. Mel - September 1, 2013

@ Hugh Hoyland

I really wonder why they don’t even have an animated series. The way they market Star Trek now, it is only one big popcorn movie every few year, which are fast forgotten by most viewers after watching it and nothing else. Not a way to treat a huge franchise and especially not a way to gain new fans.

My young nephews, who haven’t watched any of the Star Wars movies yet, are still huge Star Wars fans. They watch the animated series, are collecting Star Wars cards, have Nintendo DS Star Wars games, etc. That is a way to get new fans.

They also do this with Avengers. There aren’t only the big movies. There are also animated series, toys for children and soon there will be even a live action series for adults with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Star Trek really need to be back on TV with a new series, at least an animated one, but ideally a live action series.

The new Star Trek movies are enjoyable as short time entertainment. The first one was a good start and some things, which didn’t make so much sense in it when you thought more about it, can be excused, because they had to established the characters anew. That was some effort.

But the second movie should have stopped with the numerous plotholes. A clear storyline should come first. It just feels like the writers had a few ideas and scenes in mind and then were trying to write a storyline around those, which didn’t always worked so well. And I really didn’t like this whole DARKNESS direction. Star Trek is about a positive future. Making the futures so bleak and humans stabbing each other in the back is exactly the opposite from it. They talked so much in the interviews about how it is a 11th September allegory. I really don’t think people hope that the future will look like a bad period of the past.

The last Star Trek movie was mostly nice in the moment you watched it and was blinded by all the special effects. But there was nothing lasting about it and when you thought more about it, it was a disappointing sequel. It wasn’t all bad, but it could have been so much better. I mean I am a huge Star Trek fans, but I was still more entertained by other big blockbusters movies from the last few years.

A new series would probably concentrate less on special effects and more on good stories, ideally here and there something thought provoking. If they make a new series I hope though, that they don’t go the DARK route there. It doesn’t suit the Star Trek universe. So nothing like new BSG or SGU, in which everyone is distrusting everyone else and everyone is scheming against the other.

36. Dom - September 1, 2013

I thoroughly enjoyed STID, but that’s because I’m a lifelong fan and knew who Khan was and ‘got’ the in-jokes. And that’s a condemnation because the parallel universe was supposed to allow new stories.

I disagree with the author about needing a new crew: for me Star Trek has always been about Kirk, Spock and McCoy, the archetypal warrior, priest and doctor as representatives of ‘us’ and they are Trek’s greatest asset. In the same way, the classic Enterprise with its historic naval name and uncomplicated design kept the focus on the mission, not the technology.

The last thing the Star Trek franchise needs is yet another new crew and another starship that is essentially the classic Enterprise with knobs on and thus over-complicated and ugly! Reboot it properly this time – no past actors providing cheat sheets. Just hire some good actors to play Kirk, Spock and McCoy, optionally use the other secondary cast characters, but feel free to replace them/regender them, get some great science fiction writers who can come up with concepts and explore them, rather than soap writers who write ‘tech tech’ as a cover for a pseudo-science fantasy plot. And actually, maybe ditch the Klingons, Romulans, Borg and so on. Start with a clean sheet: Kirk, Spock and McCoy on the Enterprise, far outside Federation space, away from Starfleet exploring strange new worlds.

I want to see a proper Star Trek series, not a series about Star Trek.

37. DaveK69 - September 1, 2013

Where does anyone get the idea that Into Darkness is not a successful movie?
$460 million worldwide on a budget of $190 million. It did worse in the US but by far better overseas. Saying that it didn’t bring in new fans is absurd. With the advent of the internet and video piracy I’m sure many many others have seen it without paying for it and that’s unfortunate.
The movie has been number 1 on amazon.com since it was put up for preorder and will make plenty more from digital being sold since August 20th.
People have complained about extras for the blu ray being broken up into several different retailers as exclusive, but i’m sure youtube will take care of things people don’t see on the specific one they buy.

Face up to the fact that it’s hard to make the morality plays that Gene Roddenberry did back in the 60′s. TNG was less about morality and more on the aspect of exploring but there are still antagonists. It’s just reality that it takes more these days to make a tale like Star Trek into a motion picture that attracts all types. Core fans seem to not want to let Star Trek grow and move on with current times. It’s not going to happen where you introduce todays public to 1960′s Trek…They have no interest in it. The Star Trek being written now is not made for core Trek fans alone, but core fans want it that way. Sorry, move passed that.
Star Trek 2009, and Into Darkness were both great movies…You know how I know that? Not by my opinion, but by the all the critics and fans that made their own ratings and rated 2009 95% and STID 87% all despite the nitpicking by the die hards including myself.

38. AJ - September 1, 2013

Truth to tell, I am over it.

I’ll continue to give “Trek” my time in terms of new filmed material, but turning it into shit does not work like it did for Star Wars and Indiana Jones, which made billions even when they were presented in their latest incarnations to the public as unwatchable garbage. When Trek is unwatchable, it just loses money for the filmmakers, and the fact that it made $459M worldwide, and is still considered a failure by some is simply a testament to the quality of the final product.

No investment in the fanbase (cartoons, actually playable videogame tie-ins, toys for people under 30), and lying to the fans about Khan as the villain, and the reason for the film’s delay (it wasn’t to write a better film…it would’ve been better if that had been the reason) are both big minuses, let alone the major screw-up in the Blu-Ray releases’ extras content.

The only hope is the wonderful set of actors they somehow managed to get into the latest film series.

It would also be a wise move to get a “show-runner” type character back in the fold who would shape Star Trek’s vision for the future, rather than JJ and his guys-for-hire who seem to show up only when something else isn’t keeping them more importantly engaged. As someone important once said, “One man with a vision!”

39. Jonboc - September 1, 2013

“Star Trek just isn’t appealing as it once was…”

And, exactly, what aspect of the 400 million-plus worldwide box office dollars brought the author to this conclusion?? Into Darkness is the most successful Trek movie ever produced….yet “Star Trek isn’t appealing as it once was…”. Not really sure how to react to that. Lol. A case of sour grapes I suppose.

it isn’t appealing as it was….for a very few perhaps. Witness the forthcoming DVD sales. Trek IS popular, people DID love Into Darkness, they WILL buy Millions of DVDs…it WILL make even more money and there WILL be more movies.

Contrary to what Chicken Little and his friends are crying, the sky is not falling. Not by a long shot.

40. Hugh Hoyland - September 1, 2013

@27 Mel

Me to, and I think a lot of other fans have mentioned an animated series would be just what the Dr ordered for Television (at least for a start). But from what I understand CBS said nope, no thanks.

Which is why I dont see them making a new Star Trek series anytime soon. Because you would think CBS would have jumped at the chance to put out something connected to the surprise hit that Star Trek 09 was. Heck even Tron: Legacy got a short run anima series. Not to mention Star Wars, Tranformers, Batman, Superman ect. But Trek, nothing.

I’m no studio exec but it would seem to me if you want to grow a franchise you want to get kids to like it since they’ll be adults one day with money. So an animated series would be a great start.

Right now we have the comics, which are great. But thats not enough IMO.

41. Phil - September 1, 2013

I’m not sure I’d characterize Trek as broken, but more in need of a tune up. There were enough nagging issues in Trek 09 to suggest that focus might become a problem, and that manifested itself in STID. When the talking points of STID continue to be it’s mistakes, there are a few weeds in the garden….

42. anotherscott - September 1, 2013

Easiest one-step approach to improving Trek:

Give it to Joss Whedon.

43. DaCanuck - September 1, 2013

Just because a movie makes a lot of money, doesn’t mean that it’s of the highest quality. See: Star Wars Ep: I-III. While I don’t believe STID is the worst film among the 12, I also don’t believe it is the best; it could have been much better. I agree with much of what the author of this article had to say in his critique. With that said, I also don’t outright condemn the writers of STID because I do think they delivered an entertaining movie, I just hope they gracefully take into consideration some of the constructive feedback for the next one.

Cheers.

44. JB - September 1, 2013

Whether you agree with the article or not, it does raise some great questions as to what defines the Star Trek format and when does ST cease to be ST. Obviously the author has his own views on these questions, as do many of the commenters. This ongoing debate is partly driven by the fact that the original ST premise provided such a flexible format for telling all kinds of stories – it supported science fiction stories, pure action/adventure (aka space opera), comedy, romance, etc. Clearly some fans define ST by the characters and the universe they live in, whereas other fans – including the author – believe ST has to include the speculative fiction aspect (btw, if you’ve never seen Gene Roddenberry’s original ‘pitch’ of ST to the TV networks, it’s an interesting read – a copy can be found here: http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/1_Original_Series/Star_Trek_Pitch.pdf.)

I think those fans who pine (oops, no pun intended) for the original format can expect continued disappointment. First, as the author alludes, it’s pretty hard to do on the big screen – not impossible, perhaps, but hard to do well. By default, the stories on the big screen are more likely to focus on the character arcs, and thus are more likely to be of the space opera variety. The Abrams team has 3 2-hour films to work with, not 26 50-minute episodes. Second, and just as important, Paramount wants mainstream blockbusters, the current definition of which would seem to preclude the more thoughtful elements of the ST format. Today’s mainstream movie audiences are generally not buying (at least not in large numbers) what Gene Roddenberry was pitching in 1964 (although Inception might be a notable exception). So whether the two Abrams films fit your definition of ST or not, I do not think anyone should expect the third film to be any different. Paramount doesn’t want it, and the writers aren’t focused on it. The current ST ‘brand,’ as one commenter put it, will entertain you but it’s not going to make you think. You may or may not be satisfied with that.

45. Jeffery Wright - September 1, 2013

Star Trek was brought back, on TV and the fans rejected it.

The series Enterprise embodied the spirit of Star Trek, as described above and was cancelled for its trouble.

For better or worse, the Abrams Trek is box-office success and the entertainment industry is a business, which will ensure at least another motion picture for this offshoot.

Hopefully, one that might kick off a television series that gives good writers a platform to bring thoughtful, exciting and above all, entertaining stories to the small screen.

A reboot worked for the excellent Battlestar Galactica, after all.

46. Dee - lvs moon surface - September 1, 2013

Star Trek is not BROKEN… BORED universe is!

just saying… anyway, I respect the article!
……………………………………..

Btw, where’s AP these days? :-)

47. Sybok's Secret Brother - September 1, 2013

Go back to TV.

The movies were fun, but not as good as the shows.

Television has always been the best format for Star Trek because Star Trek was created for television.

I vote for an anthology series. ;D

48. Philip - September 1, 2013

What is wrong with the fanbase right now? Saying things like Trek is broken, Into Darkness wasn’t a true and faithful Trek film just seems a bit egregious to me.

JJ Abrams and his team have stoked the furnace of making Trek relevant again in pop culture. Having said that, the film’s aren’t supposed to be some methodical storyline that can only fit into a 2 hour window. The latest film did successfully channel the themes of friendship, losing a loved one, betrayal, etc That’s still pretty good for just a 2 hour running time, but sure, if you want the deeper stories, get Trek back on TV. And given how successful the latest two films have been, I don’t see why Trek would be “broken” to the point where a new TV series can’t happen.

Just seems like the so-called die hards are whining and complaining over too many things. There’s a lot to love about Into Darkness, you just have to look for it amidst the faster and relentless action scenes. It’s also a very well acted film.

Loosen up people! We managed to get two new Trek films in the past 4 years that I’m honestly surprised even saw the light of day considering……………. Trek WAS broken back in 2002! Nuff said

49. Sebastian S. - September 1, 2013

Agree with many but not all of the points.

A new ship and crew have also been done to death (VGR & ENT anyone?). People seem to prefer the classic characters and ship. Star Trek is about the family of characters, IMO.

And a return to TV.
Yes, someday perhaps… but I could wait a while longer.

The first part of the editorial made the most sense; the show has to return to its original mission statement; to explore strange new worlds, etc. ST at this point reminds me of NASA; an agency in search of a mission. A once proud thing that lately has had to serve too many public interests. In the process? It’s kind of lost itself.

ST, in it’s attempt to be the popular kid, has now tried to turn into a spacefaring super-hero/action movie (complete with super-villiains hell bent on revenge). It’s lost itself. The optimism and hope for a better future that once flowed through ST’s DNA is now a glimmer seen only at the very end of the show. Now? We have the crew battling terrorism and a villain who is a KINO (Khan In Name Only). I’m surprised Starfleet and Section 31 didn’t just flash the bat signal….

THIS is what’s wrong with ST; Star Trek is about more than just stopping terrorists or beating up super villains. It’s about reaching common ground; learning to live with differences rather than just hating and destroying them. I see almost NONE of that humanism in the latest incarnation of STID. Yes, Kirk finds out the bad guy has a reason for his heinous crimes, but guess what? He’s still a bad guy who needs to be stopped (and re-frozen) at all costs anyway! Again, it’s Batman not Star Trek….

TOS’ “Devil in the Dark”, “Arena”, “By Any Other Name”, “Spectre of the Gun”, “Day of the Dove” and yes, even “Space Seed” all had examples of ‘villains’ were weren’t just killed or stopped; they reached an understanding with our heroes. They each met on common ground, and learned to live together and not wipe each other out. That was the critical difference of old ST to the new.

And it’s this quality more than any other that new ST needs. In our current climate of paranoia and fear over terrorism, we need to demonstrate a future (however fictitious) where the best parts of ourselves can overcome our darker impulses.

50. Barney Fife - September 1, 2013

I’m for a new trek series but I prefer the typical cable TV or premium channel model where there’s only 10 or 15 episodes a year. That’ll keep the quality of the shows higher. The show should be the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. And I’m all for a parallel theatrical movie every few years that’ll pull in more of the mainstream audience. Pulling in mainstream could increase the ratings of a TV series – worldwide.
It would be nice if someone from inside the business could talk about what is preventing Trek from coming back to TV. Is there a Snowden-like person working for CBS that can get the word out??? ;)

51. Who cares - September 1, 2013

@ The Author. 100 people on a panel out of nearly 12000 people attending the Vegas Con does not equal unanimous agreement of anything, they weren’t even a representative sampling of the people present, and they did not and will not ever speak for me.

52. Lou Sytsma (@OldDarth) - September 1, 2013

Hear! Hear! I hope Bob Oric and the rest of the writing team reads this, prints this, and pins it to their writing offiice wall.

Get some SF writers in there to spin some original ideas.

Your point about this iteration of Trek getting back to the original series MISSION STATEMENT is spot on.

Write a story that does not rely on hokey Trek babble to resolve the conflict. Examine the implications of any new tech going forward before using it as a story device. Transwarp beaming is the prime example. It is the worst kind of story crutch – a get out of jail free card. Plus with it who needs starships anymore?

Pick a social issue and Trojan Horse into the story.

53. Critch - September 1, 2013

At no point did Paramount ever state they were planning on this being a billion dollar franchise. STID was rated well, came out amongst high compettion and still ended with the highest gross the franchise has ever had. The only people who seem to be upset with the movie are the same people who were upset about the last Trek movie: Old school fans that didn’t want the 50 year old status quo to change despite 2 disappointing shows (one cancelled) and two straight flops at the box office.

Star Trek is fine. It’s the fans that are broken.

54. KingDaniel - September 1, 2013

The Las Vegas convention that voted ID as the worst Trek film was from a poll of 100 fans – from 15,000+ attendees. It being used as evidence of Trek being “broken” is a complete joke. But why bother doing research when you can repeat internet hyperbole as fact, right?

ID was a box office disappointment? It may have done less than we and Paramount hoped, but it’s still made more money (adjusted for inflation) at the box office than any prior Star Trek movie.

55. Eric from realityland - September 1, 2013

With the exception of a new series, you’re full of shit-respectfully. The reason why 2009 Star Trek was such a high hit was because it was new. A new crew, new actors. It had the newy wow factor. Everyone in the world saw it and liked it. You can’t capture the newy wow factor twice. Now it’s just another Star Trek movie. I liked it a lot. Paramount didn’t get what it expected in terms of revenues because the Hollywood bank rollers are fucking stupid! They make seven two hundred million dollars flops a year now instead of 14 good movies for 80 million. Star Trek Into Darkness was as good as its gonna get financially unless Channing Tatum, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Johnny Depp, Robert Downey Jr. or that Aussie good looking dude who plays Thor are cast as Capt. Kirk. Get used to it. It was a good movie that made a boat load of money. Declare success and leave the field happily. Star Trek will never be Harry Potter, the Avengers, or Batman.

56. Anthony Lewis - September 1, 2013

What happened to this place? Does Mr. Pascale even hang out around here anymore?

57. PaulB - September 1, 2013

#43 Critch: “The only people who seem to be upset with the movie are the same people who were upset about the last Trek movie: Old school fans that didn’t want the 50 year old status quo to change…”
***
Wrong. A lot of us who dislike STID are the same people who LOVED ST09. You, like too many others, assume that our dislike of STID means we disliked ST09, and you assume it’s a desire for the old status quo.

I loved ST09. It brought Star Trek back to life after too many crummy films and episodes. The new cast is amazing, the new Enterprise is lovely (outside, at least), and the film won us over: Star Trek was back, and it was going to do new things!

Then STID came out, and some of us were severely disappointed with it.

I spent at least $200 on ST09 (tickets, model, novel, and dvd/blu-ray) but only $20 on STID (and that’s it, no more).

So don’t assume that we’re all old farts who dislike nuTrek altogether. Some of us loved ST09 and then hated STID for wasting the new opportunities set up by the first film. (In our opinions)

Star Trek is broken for some fans. For others, it’s just fine. No need to generalize about either group.

58. Curious Cadet - September 1, 2013

So in the absence of Anthony we’re getting trolled by Trekmovie contributors? LOL

Star Trek is NOT broken.

59. John"the wise"Rambo - September 1, 2013

I agree with the Article BUT i don’t see how Star Trek can work on TV again.
I mean TV really? I haven’t watched TV in the last 4 years or so.

And when Star Trek is back on TV which audience are the target?

I don’t think that you could bring Star Trek back on Tv without changing it radical. and that’s honestly not what i want.

60. Lurker - September 1, 2013

The last 2 movies have made a combined $845 million so far. And now we have a vocal minority saying Star Trek is broken?

I guess technobabble CAN explain away anything…

61. Alex - September 1, 2013

Very good article! We definitely need more of that. Trekkies are a very bright and smart species, and trying to have a constructive discussion suits us much better than this very tyring this-sucks-that-sucks-debate.

The numbers of STID were hurt by two things, first, mediocre marketing (which we heard caused some bad blood between Abrams and Paramount/CBS). I’m absolutely behind Abrams here that trying to advertise his incarnation of Trek while the market is flooded by merchandise for Shatner-Trek isn’t that smart of a move. Missing tie-ins, a crappy video-game and no big media partners also didn’t help. Second was bad timing. Fast & Furious didn’t hurt Trek, and neither did anything else opening after it. What really hurt the numbers was the missing female audience, who went to see Gatsby the week before and helped that one to overperform. Look at the demos for 09 and STID, we lost almost half of the female crowd.

As for content, well, it wasn’t that bad of a movie. Actually, it was really enjoyable. But it was not memorable. With half a dozen other decent to very good SF movies coming out the same year, Star Trek needs to impress me beyond brand recognition. And it didn’t. It did everything right, it just forgotr to add something bold, new or original to differentiate itself from the masses. We had the same discussion about Enterprise 10 years ago, which was so middle-of-the-road and pointless during its first two seasons that even a hardcore trekkie like me lost interest in the show. At the moment, we’re just one of many brands, nothing more. I understand that challenging audiences might not be a smart move from an execs point of view, who just invested 150 million dollars in the property, so here’s a radical suggestion: why not go smaller? Scale back the budget, focus on storytelling and skip all the shiny effects that add no real value. I think the break-even of a Star Trek movie is around 50 million, that how much Nemesis made, and it had zero appeal to anyone. Not even trekkies, after word of mouth spread of how bad it was. Add inflation, you have 80-100 million. That budget and carte blanche for the authors to do whatever they want. I mean, that was the original reason we did the time-travel-stunt, right? And then you start fresh, can do everything – and end up kind-of-remaking Wrath of Khan. That’s also my core issue with STID. Heck, half of the comics are kind-of-remakes of TOS episodes. What’s up with that?

On a side note: am I the only one who thinks that Team Abrams is a little scared of going all out nerd? So far, we had 2 human or very human looking antagonists and no real alien action whatsoever – except maybe 5 minutes of Klingons who could have been some punks from my local neighborhood. So please, a little more “strange new worlds” and a little less “CSI: Star Trek”.

62. Mr Phil - September 1, 2013

Regretfully, I agree with the article. The franchise has headed off in totally the wrong direction, and completely lost focus on what the core of Trek was. STID felt like a big budget fan film, with some massively ill conceived ideas of what makes a good Trek story.
The Khan/super blood/scream MacGuffin’s were amongst the worst parts of Trek history. What a waste, a few fairly minor changes could have made this into a respectable picture.
I guess the temptation to pay homage (badly) to the best elements of TWOK was too great. But in doing so, the writers have lost their credibility with me. In their words, I dare them to do better, but somehow doubt they will.

63. Barney Fife - September 1, 2013

This Trek fan (since 9/8/1966) does N O T think Star Trek is broken right now. But it was broken by the time Enterprise was cancelled. I thought it would be 30 years before Star Trek returned but JJ & Co. managed to come to the rescue by reviving & updating the franchise for the worldwide audience.
Star Trek is back and it is not broken.

64. Razgriz - September 1, 2013

It’s broken because the purists are ruining it.

65. Red Dead Ryan - September 1, 2013

The problem here is not the movie itself, but how it was NOT marketed.

Four years inbetween movies — and all we got was some comics rehashing TOS episodes and a tie-in mini-series. And a 100 page magazine special.

No toys, no “art of” or “making of” books. No fast food tie-ins, either.

The ridiculous strategy of keeping the villain an absolute secret. A number of us predicted it would be Khan — Bad Robot and Paramount should have played him up, and built hype and marketing around him, instead of just trying to keep things under the lid.

No Comic-Con coverage. This was a dumbass strategy. You have to get word of your movies out there, and Comic-Con is the big venue now for superhero, fantasy, and sci-fi movies these days.

The fact that the bonus features for STID aren’t included in one Blu Ray release is a slap in the face to us fans who already had to put up with a four year wait in between movies, with diddly-squat in that time frame in regards to tie-in novels, animated series, etc. Now we’re expected to pay 4-6 times the regular price to access all the STID special features that are spread across several store-exclusive discs and online streaming sources? An absolute insult and shameless ca$h grab on the part of Bad Robot and Paramount.

STID is easily one of the better Trek films, even though it isn’t as good as the first. But the piss-poor marketing really hurt the movie in North America. Paramount and Bad Robot each took the fans for granted here, and assumed that mainstream audiences would just show up. Paramount obviously put more effort into the overseas markets, as it showed in the overall box office revenue, but premiering the movie up to three weeks ahead of the U.S. and Canada allowed for the movie to be spoiled completely online.

These problems MUST be fixed next time.

66. Red Dead Ryan - September 1, 2013

Also, these convention polls that have STID being unpopular with the fans are absolute crap. We have eyewitness testimony from one poster here that attended the convention a few weeks ago and who witnessed the “poll”. He said it was a “gong show” of like-minded haters.

67. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@Red Dead Ryan

“Paramount obviously put more effort into the overseas markets, as it showed in the overall box office revenue, but premiering the movie up to three weeks ahead of the U.S. and Canada allowed for the movie to be spoiled completely online.”

Yep, I tried to avoid spoilers but it is almost impossible these days, what with Facebook & Twitter. That was very stupid of Paramount to release STID first outside North America.

The article is spot on, they need to fix the issues that we saw in STID. I still hope they will hire new writers & a director who cares about Star Trek.

68. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 53. Red Dead Ryan – September 1, 2013

“Also, these convention polls that have STID being unpopular with the fans are absolute crap.”

You don’t need these polls to know that STID is unpopular. Just look around you here on Trekmovie & other Trek sites.

69. Mikey1091 - September 1, 2013

Trek should be back on TV! Of course, if I know CBS/Paramount, we all know that won’t happen, for we know how much they care about what the fans want, which is close to how much Disney cares about what their fans want: Very little or not at all. Should Trek be back on TV? Yes, I as well as probably any Trek fan you ask say it should be. Will it come back to TV anytime soon? Probably not.

70. Red Dead Ryan - September 1, 2013

From a few weeks ago:

92. Gary Seven – August 18, 2013

“Re: the World Record – the moment was electric and Terry Ferrell’s appearance was a great capstone! Suspect we will be leap-frogging the record for some time to come – so plan to enjoy the next ride!
Re: The poll – which seems to be the primary topic of conversation – it wasn’t a poll. I applaud Jordan Hoffman and the StarTrek.com group for engaging those who were able to make their OneTrekMind sessions in spirited discussions, but the attendees could not hope to represent the fan universe and there were no ballots; no counts. Jordan and crew offered up Galaxy Quest and while it was supported by the Okuda’s it did not originate from the group. The “scoring” was based on a Gong-show type assessment of the audio response to Jordan’s placements. Accuracy was subject to where you were seated in the room. Seated in the room, there was clearly a group that hated STID. A clear majority – I’m not so sure. So, great fun – yes! Meaningful at a level that merits the preceding discussion – no.”

This is from the Terry Farrell/Las Vegas Convention thread a few weeks ago testifying to the unreliability of fan polling at conventions. The Las Vegas poll somehow included “Galaxy Quest”, which isn’t a Trek movie, but a Trek PARODY film.

STID was ranked dead last — below “Galaxy Quest”, “Nemesis”, “Insurrection” and “The Final Frontier”. On that alone, the poll lacks any credibility.

I doubt the Seattle convention poll is any more reliable. Its most likely conducted by the same type of folks who did the Vegas one.

The “results” of these “polls” should just be brushed aside. They simply aren’t credible.

71. GarySeven - September 1, 2013

I love this article, and I have posted many times sentiments congruent with the ideas expressed here. Star Trek was always about ideas, philosophy, exploration, and strong characters with loving bonds between them.
But I must point out one thing. The writer of this piece talks about how STID was not the commercial success it was expected to be. The problem is he is confusing commercial success with quality writing and superior art. I want Trek restored as an intelligent, inspiring entity. Commercial blockbusters are often appeal to less thoughtful work. Just as Britney Spears is not one of the greatest musicians of all time, yet she had great commercial success.
Let Trek go back to its origins. Perhaps a television show, not with a huge budget whichnwould force it to achieve high ratings to pay for itself. Let Trek be what it was meant to be…a thoughtful, philosophical show while also being entertaining, and that doesn’t have to, or even try to, appeal to the Transformers crowd.
Basically what I am saying is let Trek be quality over quantity. That’s why Trek WAS great, and why it endured.

72. Picard, Jean-Luc - September 1, 2013

I think stalled is the right way to describe Star Trek right now, the mystery box failed miserably with Into Darkness and the lack of momentum maintained after 2009 really did hurt Star Trek the brand name and whilst Into Darkness was great, it wasn’t original and for it to have taken Abrams 4 years to do it, it simply wasn’t worth the wait. In 2005 Star Trek just needed a break but now I think going forward it needs to be approached in a fresh, CONFIDENT manner and the studio’s need to come together and focus on smashing it out of the park so that they both make a Sh*t load of money… Enterprise: The Romulan War’s on Netflix, 5 seasons of 15/16 episodes produced by Braga, Moore and Coto with science fiction writers providing the stories for it, an animated TV series based on an entirely new Starfleet vessel, Star Trek 3 in the cinemas focusing on exploration and yes the mission statement as Karl Urban has pointed out. I would love to see the opening of Trek 3 to be: ding dong ding dang ba ba baaaaa ba ba ba ba baaaa with Chris Pine reading the monolog and then all the intelligent action just kicks off. I think it would be a good idea to have science fiction writers write with Orci and Kurtzman this time and MOST IMPORTANTLY…. Star Trek being confident about being STAR TREK. Without Star Trek coming out of the gate shouting and screaming at people who would turn a blind eye, this franchise will have failed. It needs to show people that it is an incredible, exciting, adventurous and intelligent franchise whilst not trying to pander to newbies as well as hard-core. You think Roddenberry cared who he made Star Trek for? He just wanted to tell original stories… Lets get back to that, fuck the fans, fuck the mainstream, just do something original and awesome.

Toys, games, everything lets just smash it, Paramount, CBS, Bad Robot just smash open the mystery box, release the horse and lets get Star Trek back as a multi-platform, all encompassing franchise that has something to offer everyone from the kids, to casual fans to hard core fans and to the mainstream. Lets show those Star Wars bastards how space is really explored and lets make this franchise not just a fun, forgettable time at the cinema every 3 years, lets make it something people will invest their money into time and time again, year in year out, week in week out and lets show joe public that Trek is far superior to the 2 dimensional Star Wars and super-heroes that plague our cinemas. Kirk needs to kick arse again and without the use of super-blood (I mean WTF was that)

73. Picard, Jean-Luc - September 1, 2013

Also continue transferring and updating TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT to blu-ray and then start redoing the movies in the same way.

74. cugel the clever - September 1, 2013

What absolute nonsense written by an old fanboy who longs for the return of the dayglo colours and cardboard sets of the original series. The premise about exploring strange new worlds was hypocritically stated in TOS but was not achieved in TOS films any more than it was achieved by STID.

Look at the TOS films…

I – A rehash of the TOS episode “Nomad” using a bigger budget and yet another villain intent on destroying Earth.
II – A rehash of the TOS episode “Botany Bay” with yet another villain intent on destroying the Federation (by starting as war with the Klingons).
III – No exploration at all….. simple actioner featuring the over-used villains from many TOS episodes, the Klingons.
IV – A comedy featuring a bunch of old, overweight people stumbling around San Francisco. A brief chance at exploring a mysterious new race was lost when nothing at all about the alien probe was “explored”. Most of the movie takes place in the past on Earth. Great way to save production costs (costumes, SFX, makeup, etc).
V – The only TOS film with even a remote connection to exploring strange new worlds. Too bad that it was also by far the worst Trek film ever made…. atrocious acting, writing, and special effects. I’ve watched every other trek film multiple times, even Nemesis. I watched Final Frontier only once (at the theatre) and it was painful to stay to the end. I did it only out of loyalty to a great franchise.
VI – A good film, but again, no exploration and “strange new worlds” whatsoever. Simply an actioner with the over-exposed, reliable, time-tested Klingons (again).

None of the twelve ST films have bothered to be much about exploration. It’s unfair to pick on STID alone for that fault.

75. KC - September 1, 2013

Hate to burst your bubble but to the big, bad adult world Star Trek doesn’t matter. To the teenage world, this film was great – and that is what matters. That is where the money is and who buys the tickets these days. So us dinosaurs can either join the ride and enjoy it or get off. The type sci-fi you want will not sell tickets (witness Prometheus).

I do agree that Trek is better for TV

76. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@60. cugel the clever

“IV – A comedy featuring a bunch of old, overweight people stumbling around San Francisco.”

Really, a bunch of old, overweight people !! And you call yourself a fan !!!!

Maybe you should stick with Star Wars where you will find the young, hot sexy people that you are clearly looking for, a**hole.

77. steve - September 1, 2013

It’s ironic that this commentary points out many of the problems in STiD that many of us did upon first viewing, and yet when we pointed it out, we were mostly called “haters” in this forum.

Hopefully reality has now set in with most people, and an intelligent discussion can now be had. Bob Orci has done a great job in this forum of explaining the creative decisions, whether we agree with them or not. My overall take is that the majority of the blame for STiD goes to Damon Lindeloff, who apparently was the champion behind the Khan idea.

The recent Forbes article about the poor marketing decisions of the film really spelled out another huge problem: they selected Khan as the villain to supposedly appeal to the hard-core Trek fans, but then kept it secret, not allowing them to even market the film properly.

I’m guessing most ideas around moving Trek forward will center on new stories for the existing film cast, plus an entirely new take on Trek for television. That’s clearly the way to go.

How should the effort begin? First, STOP listening to Trek fans. For some bizarre reasons, Trek fans mostly seem to want only more of the same, decade after decade. It’s been clear in this forum, with incessant demands for retreads of characters and settings from previous Treks. As your article points out, the ’09 film did a great job bringing new viewers into the fold, with a GREAT “get the band back together” movie. But now it’s time to forget all previous Trek incarnations, and develop this new film series, with it’s excellent cast, in the rebooted timeline with all new stories, species, conflicts, etc. No Klingons, no Romulans, no Gary Mitchell, no Borg, NONE OF IT! Keep the Trek movies focused around the new cast, with new stories.

As for bringing it back to television, the first priority needs to be posting guards around a new creative team, with orders to fire warning shots immediately upon any Rick Berman sighting.

Take the new Trek TV inspiration from the great serious dramas you mentioned, but also be inspired by the original Trek and shows like Farscape, which managed to do it all: drama, comedy, romance, intrigue, etc.

But given the strange business relationships surrounding Trek on TV, I seriously doubt it’ll happen. First of all, I can’t see any chance of CBS EVER airing a retooled and edgy Trek series. It’s just not in CBS’s wheelhouse. And yet I don’t see CBS actually producing/licensing it for another network. I think it would take years just to untangle the mess around the legal/business issues to get Trek back on TV.

78. number6 - September 1, 2013

Star Trek isn’t broken. Some of its fanbase never got the memo that Star Trek is a business and doesn’t simply produce for the pleasure of the dwindling hardcore fanbase. The film franchise is about establishing a new fanbase. Some of the old fanbase will never get over someone tinkering with “their” show and it always shows in their “criticisms” of what ever the new Star Trek is, whether it is produced by JJ Abrams, Rick Berman, Harve Bennett, or whomever.
The new films did well at the box office. The one’s proclaiming its “failure” were doing so before a frame of film was shot. End of story.

79. Brett L. - September 1, 2013

I’d even be open to the HBO/Showtime/AMC model of 12 episode seasons if it meant the high quality T.V. often associated with those shows. Not that Trek couldn’t succeed on the old networks, but it seems that cable offers better production values, more creative freedom for character development, and the kind of risk-taking that Trek could very much use these days (i.e. no reset buttons…actions have consequences).

80. Buzz Cagney - September 1, 2013

Wow, i’m so happy to see, at last, opinion appears to agree with how I felt about Into Dorkness!
It was not good. After a 4 year wait it could- and should- have been better.
The franchise needs bigger thinkers. For sure the current guardians of the franchise can turn out a popcorn flick, and do it very, very well, but Trek is not and should not just be about being something to watch while munching on junk snack foods.
The writers have a good grasp of the characters. They have a solid understanding of Trek’s lore. They do humour well too, pretty much. No argument. But they need help with constructing a smart, new and compelling story.
There would be no shame in getting some help in that regard.

81. Commodore Adams - September 1, 2013

@ 59. Picard, Jean-Luc – September 1, 2013

Agreed. I would love to see the movies, mainly the TOS movies done the same way. I want directors cuts, extended movies, scenes used which were cut. In TMP when the Big E is leaving space dock you can see a bunch of black specs on the film when the dish passes over. Go back and clean the film and start from the film, not transfer upon transfer upon transfer.

One scene deleted from the blu-ray version of TUC was the scene where the “klingon” falls out of the window at the peace conference. In the original version Michael Dorn’s character touches the red blood and says “this is not Klingon blood.” Then the mask is removed and OMG, its a colonel Wes, a human and Starfleet office! In the blu ray version after the Klingon falls it goes right to Sulu beaming down and the Chancellor asking “what’s the mean of all this.” It is never revealed that the Klingon was a human wearing a mask. They create different perspectives! To me its much more powerful to found out that a human Starfleet officer tried to assassinate the president rather than a Klingon which would not have been all that surprising a person to carry out such a task.

82. Curious Cadet - September 1, 2013

@51. Barney Fife,
“it was broken by the time Enterprise was cancelled”

No, it wasn’t broken then either. Neither was it broken with Nemesis.

Such hyperbole.

There are good movies and bad movies, good episodes and bad episodes, good novels and bad, of every franchise, producer, director, and writer.

The Berman/Braga era suffered from becoming stale at the end. Fans quit watching, because there was nothing new they hadn’t seen a dozen times over by that time. But it was hardly “broken” — the same formula that made Star Trek successful in the first place still works, and taken individually there are plenty of compelling episodes in Enterprise. And not only was Nemesis stale, it was badly written and directed — the ideas at the core of Nemesis were identical to ST09 which was comparatively a massive hit; execution makes all the difference.

Clearly Star Trek is more popular worldwide at the box office than ever, so not “broken”. But it’s not without problems. Roddenberry said he fully expected others to come along after him and make new Star Trek, changing those things that improved the original ideas and made it better. Im not sure he would agree all of the changes Abrams has made have made it better, and likewise, I’m certain he would not have wanted Berman to stagnate either.

83. cugel the clever - September 1, 2013

@62 Ahmed

No, I don’t need to go to Star Wars…. I only need to go to ST09 and STID to see young, attractive, fit, energetic, excellent actors working in films with good writing and production values.

Did you actually see Scotty and Uhura in ST IV ???????? The material used to make their uniforms could have clothed dozens of impoverished people in asia and Africa.

84. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 1, 2013

Well said, Mr. Dickerson.

85. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

Abrams is an overrated director. He is just another Michael Bay but with lot of lens flares & a bit more brain.

I’m sure he will do wonder with Star Wars, because SW is the kind of movie that he excel at. Fast action scenes with little character moments & tons of CGIs.

86. T'Cal - September 1, 2013

The original post is filled with subjective opinions about STID that apparently aren’t shared with the movie-going public judging by ticket sales and pre-order disc sales. This movie was a flat out success. They played with your beloved Khan and you thought it was blasphemy. It wasn’t. It worked. Very well, in fact. Let it go. We never have had the input as to what “should” be on the screen. The producers, directors, and writers do that. Sit back and enjoy it or don’t, but stop crying that you didn’t get what YOU wanted when clearly the majority of movie-goers did in this film.

Beyond that, I agree that Trek should be on TV as well. Let JJA do the nuKirk thing a couple more times but put TV Trek in someone else’s hands. The best Trek IMO had larger ensemble casts in which the writers developed not just characters but their unique relationships with one another, and the best stories were ones in which our heroes were placed in a “damed if you do/don’t’ situation to resolve.

87. Trek Lady - September 1, 2013

I agree with much of what was said in this article. I know some will label me a “hater” or a “whiner”, but I had issues with the 2009 film. Still, overall, I enjoyed it. For a long time Trek fan like me, I loved watching the net explode with new interest in the series, and especially in TOS (which is my all time fav series.) New fans popped up everywhere, creating art, fiction and discussion forums…and for the most part, they were open to the original TOS as well as the new crew. It was good!

Overtime, things quieted down…and then the wait set in. Four years in a long time in a fandom. New fans move on to other things. Younger folks are much more used to instant gratification these days. Unlike us oldies, who knew what it was like to wait years between “movies” younger fans found other media to keep them entertained. I was eagerly awaiting STID in hopes it would revive the interest in the new crew and Trek in general. But honestly, that did not happen. After ST: 2009, sites exploded with posts, fan fiction, commentary, post parties, fan-vids, etc. This time, there was very little interest. Sites that had dozens of posts in a day after ST: 2009 now had dozens of posts in a month. Even this site did not have the traffic I was expecting following the release of STID. I think that was merely a sign of an overall lack of enthusiasm for the new film. People had moved on, and STID just did not inspire the way ST: 2009 had done so. I saw it twice – and I am a long time, devoted ST fan who has seen every release in theaters. It was an entertaining summer movie, but it did not stick with me or inspire me the way Trek of the past has done. My dad and I have gone to every Trek movie that has ever been released. Not all were great. Some were pretty lame, but after four years to write and film, and a big budget, I was expecting more from STID. We went to see STID together as well, but unlike in the past, where we then spent a couple hours discussing what we’d seen, this time we exchanged a few comments in the car, and went our own way. In comparison, I saw ST: 2009 five times.

Why? There are likely numerous theories and opinions. ST: 2009 was better marketed. It was new, and thus drew the curious. Too much time passed between films. I saw one essay that addressed the fact that in search of ever greater profits, Hollywood films are being written, not for the US market, but for an international market, and as a result are being written with less complexity, simpler dialogue, less character development, and more physical action in order to make them easier to translate into other languages and cultures. It seems to my STID reflects this trend, which is a shame if true because Star Trek in general has been one franchise that aimed for ideas over action. I like the fact that the new films have embraced the “action” aspect that was a part of TOS. I personally found a lot of pontificating of Next Gen rather tedious, but they seem to have forgotten that generally those “action” scenes were in pursuit of some higher purpose. All these efforts to explain why the film did not have the draw that was expected merely reflect my impressions that there were some very real problems with STID. Even ignoring bothersome points like the introduction of a long range transporter for plot convenience without taking into account how it would totally eliminate the need to actually starship travel, etc. I feel there were deeper problems.

I think the whole idea of using Khan was a huge mistake. New crew. New voyages, and yet we regurgitate a previous character that has already been done well and did not need revamping. All that did was make the writing team look uninspired and unoriginal. There was simply no need for it. The story would have worked fine without the whole Khan angle. I know the whole end was fan-service, and long time fans like me where supposed to appreciate it, but frankly I cringed through the whole thing. I liked that Kirk and Spock were finally developing that legendary friendship, but the whole “Khan!” thing just struck me as shoe-horned in and unauthentic. These new characters do not yet have the history to pull it off in a convincing manner, and since I was not convinced of Spock’s feelings for Kirk, the whole ending scene did not work for me. Rather than moved, I spent most of that scene completely thrown out of the moment by the word for word repetition of the lines from WOK.

The scene on the shuttle was another cringe worthy moment, as Spock and Uhura engaged in exactly the type of behavior that non-frat regs are supposed to prevent. In the middle of a dangerous mission, when their focus should be on their surroundings and the mission at hand, they were venting like a couple emo teenagers. And Kirk demonstrated a complete lack of professional leadership by not calling them on it, and rather getting involved. I think it was that moment that I realized the film was catering to the Twilight demographic. “These are the voyages of Enterprise-High!” Kirk beating on Khan. Spock going nuclear on Kahn. I expected a bit of this in the first film, since the crew was mostly composed of academy cadets, but by STID, I would have liked to have seen a more professional crew.

Perhaps, most troublesome is the overall sense of despair in the film. What happened to boldly going? What happened to brave new worlds and new civilizations? What happened to hope for the future? So we rebooted Trek into a universe where everything sucks? Where Starfleet is corrupt and all is death and destruction? That is never what appealed to me in Trek. I grew up on Trek, and it inspired in me a hope for a better future. It made me strive to work towards a better world. This new universe inspires nothing more than defeatism. There is more than enough darkness and despair available on TV and the movies these days. I was looking to Trek to be different. To inspire rather than depress. Why bother doing the right thing? You’re just going to get screwed over anyway. Have the folks behind Trek forgotten what the underlying message was supposed to be? That we could overcome the darkness and triumph if we worked together? Yes, our heroes did some things right, and made some of the right choices, but the writers have placed them in a world where even Star Fleet has become a mechanism of evil. And I do not see how they are going to manage to dig themselves out of that hole with only a film or two left.

Please, bring back the Science fiction. Bring back the new frontiers and new civilizations. Bring back the hope. Bring back characters I can admire and respect. Bring back the heart of Star Trek.

88. DonDonP1 - September 1, 2013

@2 I agree as well. Let’s hope CBS would launch a new small-screen adventure from “the final frontier,” whether it would air on CBS or on the CW.

89. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 69. cugel the clever – September 1, 2013

“No, I don’t need to go to Star Wars…. I only need to go to ST09 and STID to see young, attractive, fit, energetic, excellent actors working in films with good writing and production values.”

Of course, ST09 & STID are more like Star Wars movies than Star Trek. You are absolutely right.

“working in films with good writing and production values.”

Again, you are correct abut the production values, but “good writing”, seriously !!! You are greatly mistaken here, my friend. ST09 was a movie with a good writing, STID was rubbish.

90. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 1, 2013

I don’t understand this thread. :-( STID is excellent.

To all Montreal ST fans: Cineplex(Forum) has STID showing Sep5 but not the 6th. There is a gap until Sep 19. So the 5th may be the last showing.

91. Vespasian - September 1, 2013

This article raises an interesting point: it seems a lot of fans are in denial regarding the success of STID. Why? I have an idea.

1) The Star Trek fandom has always been a little separated from the mainstream public, and, for better or worse, the fans took pride in that.

2) Now, JJ Abrams brought the franchise into the mainstream. Which means the property itself moved out of the traditional Trek-bubble while a lot of fans are still in that very bubble.

And these fans cannot accept that Star Trek ’09 and Into Darkness were hugely successful.

So they pretend they were utter failures, and that the franchise is broken.

It’s not. And I think you should just deal with it.

92. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 1, 2013

ST09 STID fixed ST. They made lots of money for Paramount. They found a new cast that is very close to TOS. Mr. Spock and Bones are awesome.

The big screen is meant for action. I’m confident CBS will eventually do a ST TV series, which is where ST can be more philisophical.

If you ask me, STID not only fixed ST, it is a cinematographic masterpiece.

93. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 78. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W – September 1, 2013

“If you ask me, STID not only fixed ST, it is a cinematographic masterpiece.”

LOL, that is the best joke I heard today :)

94. Commodore Adams - September 1, 2013

Joseph, all very accurate observations, and all true. Well done!

I loved 09 and STID, but I would not say they are the best. I love the use of the latest CG, the amazing warp effect, the ships, cuz I am a whore for that kind of stuff, but the new movies are indeed broken. The casting is wonderful, the actors are great at portraying their characters but you can only act as well as the script and screenplay are written. I respect Orci and JJ but that is the seed of the problem, the writers, screen play, and the director, only because they have to jump through Paramount hoops. The new movies are not meant to be taken serious, its a ‘whip it up, slap it up’ job like G. I. Joe. I can respect that a lot of effort went into the movies but in the wrong way and the wrong places. The new movies are meant to show that Star Trek can be big and bombastic like Iron Man and Transformers….although it does not mean that it will be good for Star Trek or make it better, we are all witness to that. Star Trek has NEVER been lowbrow, the new movies are just that. And the new people these movies are supposed to attract are casual and would much rather see Star Wars, I know this cuz I have many friends in this category.

But im the guy who loves The Motion Picture and my favourite movie is still The Undiscovered Country, followed by First Contact, and then TWOK. You want to talk about what truly is Star Trek…The Undiscovered Country is more trek than Wrath of Khan. The Undiscovered Country covers subject matter and issues far more important, poignant, and passionate issues than Khan coming back for revenge, Spock dying, and Kirk’s realization of his mortality and flaws.

Paramount asked CBS to hold off on a TV show until Paramount released three movies, with that in mind, they wanted to make three big, bombastic movies, possibly with the idea that Star Trek will be back on television.

“And that means saying goodbye to what came before, in a clean break.” I agree. Not by disqualifying anything that came before as non existent but the way DS9 and YOV moved forward. They still had ties to TNG but it was a new set of characters, dealing with new issues most importantly, new expiration. A new TV series in my opinion should continue in the original universe but 25th-27th century. A new crew, new ship, with new explorations, dealing with new issues of the future. I say keep in the destruction of Romulus in the original universe, it might encourage them to join the Federation sooner than we might have thought. We know the Ferengi, Bajorans, Cardassians, and Klingons will eventually join the Federation. There would be a plethora of new material to work with. I say do what TNG did, lets go another 150-200 years in the future…TNG was beyond successful. Its unanimous where we all want Star Trek to go, into the future, its inevitable… LET’S GO!

95. Martin - September 1, 2013

I think the current cast for the star trek films should have just done an ongoing tv series.

96. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 81. Martin – September 1, 2013

“I think the current cast for the star trek films should have just done an ongoing tv series.”

Yeah, none of them are stars yet & many of them are already working in TV series.

97. Commodore Adams - September 1, 2013

@ 64. number6 – September 1, 2013

That is a very correct point, and 100% factual. Its not something one can argue with because its the way it is. Granted Paramount did not make the amount of money they wanted but they made more than any other Star Trek film even after correcting for inflation. Although it is a possibility that adding in the things that this article proclaim are missing in Star Trek might take the next film closer to the billion dollar mark than ever. It still does not change the fact that you are proper and quite correct.

98. Flake - September 1, 2013

$462m dollars worldwide and still counting
Blu-Ray and DVD is the top seller and will sell many millions

87% RT
72/100 Metacritic
8/10 IMDB
91% of flixster liked it
4.3/5 on RT

Best reviewed blockbuster of 2013

Only under performed relative to over inflated guestimates.

All of this somehow equals Star Trek is broken?

Rubbish.

Want to know what was broken? Star Trek 1987-2005. This JJ Abrams version has breathed new life into the franchise beyond the wildest dreams of any Star Trek fans. The only ones who say it is broken are the ones who can’t stand change and will not let the old Trek die. I watch a love Star Trek in general. I am buying the TNG blu rays. I have watched it for as long as I can remember. Let go of this TNG-era hangover and embrace the change. Get a grip!

99. Dr. Cheis - September 1, 2013

This sounds like Enterprise all over again…

It will start to get really good by movie 3 and 4 and then it will get dropped because everybody made up their minds that they didn’t like it in movie 1 and 2.

100. Flake - September 1, 2013

Thumbs down for Transwarp beaming though ;)

101. rogerachong - September 1, 2013

The excellent Star Trek Into Darkness now at $462 million worldwide. I read that Paramount was hoping for $480 worldwide (but whatever the writer said). The last two movies can be seen together as a two part extravaganza (try it at home)!

Now the crew is together and I guess that the Klingon moon Praxis has already exploded in STID, we can then have a movie where the Klingons attack and the Enterprise encounters some unknown force from exploring strange new worlds. Kor, Koloth and Kang then unite with the Enterprise crew to quell a third party foe. At the end Kor, Koloth, Kang and Kirk are heroes and the impending war is now squashed in an original fashion (no Organians this time).

The ten minute (IMAX Prologue of course) intro will feature the Doomsday Machine just for fun and to see the Enterprise rise through the liquid surface of a Gas Giant planet (wow). Come on boborci you know that will be a sweet visual! Kirk is on the other ship ready to make the ultimate sacrifice and is beamed aboard the Enterprise in the nick of time. Cut to the title plate STAR TREK UNIFICATION.

102. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 84. Flake – September 1, 2013

“Blu-Ray and DVD is the top seller and will sell many millions”

Not going to happen with the way they are handling the Blu ray now

103. wbutton - September 1, 2013

Star Trek on film has always been adventure and action, and Star Trek on TV has always been about allegory and exploration. Keep this formula, and just bring Trek to TV.

Marvel is going to make it work. Why can’t Trek?

104. Captain Matteo - September 1, 2013

STID was terrific! The opening (Nibiru) sequence was incredible. The production team has brought great (star trek) joy back into our lives. I love the way they mix-and-match relationships and other TOS concepts. Some twists are spectacular, others okay and once in a while don’t work out that well (ie: turning this villain into Khan). Overall, these writers have done a great job. They should continue taking risks. My best hope for the next movie would be to move towards exploration — and it sure looks like they’re doing just that (starting the 5-year mission).

105. Flake - September 1, 2013

88: Most people don’t notice these things It is going to sell a metric fuckton

106. Kev-1 - September 1, 2013

I don’t know if Star Trek is broken, but it’s off course a bit. Yes, the last two movies had big box office, but they were also expensive to produce. And the foreign box office required greater investment; they also made more because they opened in new places. And the fact is STID sold fewer tickets than 2009; they would have had to make 280 million just reach the last one counting inflation — and they had 3D. The US audience is shrinking. And the merchandise sales are tiny compared to TNG and TOS. I think that’s a reflection on the current property. I’m conflicted — most movies today aren’t worth $10 — grudgingly, I have to say STID probably was, but I’m biased because I like Trek. I do think the current incarnation is hobbled by the character interpretation; they act like cadets rather than professionals, which limits story potential — you have to deal with Kirk’s maturing and Spock and Uhura’s love life. Even this site barely covers new Trek between movies.

107. Flake - September 1, 2013

88: Most people don’t notice these things, it is going to sell a LOT ;)

108. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 91. Flake – September 1, 2013

“88: Most people don’t notice these things, it is going to sell a LOT ;)”

I will believe it when I see the numbers & not before that.

@ 89. Captain Matteo – September 1, 2013

“STID was terrific! The opening (Nibiru) sequence was incredible. ”

What is so incredible about that dumb scene, which was done a lot better in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” ?

The whole Nibiru mission was stupid. Pike sent the Enterprise there for a “humanitarian mission”, what was that mission exactly ? Can anyone tell me that ?

109. Lurker - September 1, 2013

@ 88 – “Not going to happen with the way they are handling the Blu ray now”

Bluray.com:
Rated 5 out of 5 for both audio and visual quality. (2D version)

Digital Bits:
Rated A+ for both audio and visual.

AVSForum:
Rated 100 for both audio and visual.

I too am ticked at how the extras are being distributed, but there are people that read those forums that will buy the movie for just those ratings alone, and not give a rat’s ass about the extras. The overwhelming majority of posts at AVSForum are stoked for this release – even if it’s just to show off their home theater equipment.

And a sale is just a sale right?

110. Thorny - September 1, 2013

Paramount was expecting STID to be a $1 billion box office smash? Good Lord, in which parallel universe have I accidentally fallen into? Star Trek is never, ever going to reach the incredible heights of Avengers or Avatar’s box office performance. Let’s keep our expectations realistic, please.

Star Trek is not broken. It ain’t perfect, but then nothing is. Trek has to exist in the contemporary world, and STID is a product of that world. To complain that Trek is broken because it was made to the bulk of the current audience’s taste (or lack thereof) is useless.

111. Thorny - September 1, 2013

92… I thought Pike sent them on a “survey mission”, not a “humanitarian mission”.

112. Hugh Hoyland - September 1, 2013

The humanitarian mission on Nibiru was to neautralize the volcano that was going to destroy the planet.

113. USS Enterprise B - September 1, 2013

If you want to see a new story / something completely new, then you’re also saying you don’t want to see a reboot of Kirk / Spock and all the original characters. The 2009 Star Trek was also a re-doing of old material in many ways. But what worked about it was the new spin the put on it. I think STID was a great film, and it did really well with critic reviews, and with the non-trekkie movie fan crowd. Yes, it had some rehash moments you can nitpick, but I definitely don’t think those moments ruin the entire film. I don’t think the franchise is broken, but I do agree it is time for a new TV show. Definitely time.

Speaking of new stories / ideas, I always wanted to see a tv show / story which bridges the time gap between Kirk and Picard, focusing on the Enterprises B & C. It’s a lot of time to cover in the Federation / Enterpise story, and it was only teased in the original films / tv series. That’s what I want to see.

114. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@93. Lurker

“And a sale is just a sale right?”

Right, so when STID do what Oblivion did with the Blu ray sales, then I will believe that.

“The Tom Cruise actioner Oblivion rode its $89 million box office take to a solid victory on the national home video sales charts for the week ending Aug. 11, debuting at No. 1 on both First Alert and Nielsen’s dedicated Blu-ray Disc sales chart.”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oblivion-debuts-at-no-1-606635

I’m going to buy the “Oblivion” Blu-ray rather than these various STID crappy Blu-ray releases.

115. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 95. Thorny – September 1, 2013

“92… I thought Pike sent them on a “survey mission”, not a “humanitarian mission”.”

No, Pike clearly state it was a “humanitarian mission”.

@ 96. Hugh Hoyland – September 1, 2013

“The humanitarian mission on Nibiru was to neautralize the volcano that was going to destroy the planet.”

Again, no. If it was like that, then why Pike removed Kirk from his command after he done that ?

116. Thorny - September 1, 2013

96. Pike didn’t order them to do that. In fact, he chastised Kirk and Spock for doing that.

117. Flake - September 1, 2013

STID will sell double or tribble what oblivion is selling.

118. Steve Gennarelli - September 1, 2013

I don’t think “Star Trek” is broken. STID was an exciting action picture that got strong reviews and people that left the theatre provided positive feedback on it as well.
Yes, if “Star Trek” returns to TV someday, that would be great.
But for now, we just have the movie series,
I have faith in JJ and Co. to provide another film that pays homage to the original series (just as the last 2 have).

119. Horace Austin - September 1, 2013

Joseph Dickerson wrote:

“More than that, Into Darkness had underperformed at the box-office – while it was a moderate success and is in the Top 10 films of the year, it is nowhere near the billion-dollar blockbuster that Paramount had hoped.”

No Star Trek film has ever grossed half a billion dollars. Why would Paramount think that STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS would do a billion? Where does that expectation level come from? They’re out of touch with reality.

120. Flake - September 1, 2013

102:

Like I said, over-inflated guesstimates by internet warriors. I suppose they all must have been present at a Paramount board meeting?

121. Disinvited - September 1, 2013

#63. steve – September 1, 2013

In this “conversation”:

http://www.austinfilmfestival.com/onstorytv/season-3-episode-6/

I think Damon makes it very clear that listening to the fans is madness and was not done.

However here:

http://www.austinfilmfestival.com/news/interview-with-damon-lindelof/

in bio that he himself wrote:

“A life long Trekker, Damon also is a producer on J.J.’s STAR TREK reboot, which was released in May 2009. ”

It seems that, at least, one “Trekker” was heeded.

“Seriously. I think I suck. (insert internet agreeing wholeheartedly here)” – Damon Lindelof

122. Byron D. - September 1, 2013

A cacophony of people asking for more Star Trek on TV. It’s all I hear about this franchise anymore. Other than waiting for Deep Space 9 blu-rays, or reading some of the new Season 9 DS9 stuff, (I mean let’s be honest that’s what it is.) I’m done with Trek until it comes back on TV. ST09 was a great, fun romp. STID was too serious, too long, too complicated, too dark, and much much too unoriginal. Not to mention the script was atrocious. Honestly, I feel JJ’s Star Trek Era could have been great, but they found the wrong people to write the stories…

123. Byron D. - September 1, 2013

Also the next film will be about War with the Klingons. I mean, of course it is! They practically said it in the damn movie!

124. DeeCee - September 1, 2013

I’ve been watching Trek since the early 70s and I say it CAN’T be fixed. It has been drained dry of any creative impulse since the franchise peaked in the 3rd Season of TNG, but from there on out, guys like Rick Berman, Ira Steven Behr, Brannon Braga, Ronald D. Moore, and Michael Piller pilfered and pillaged the franchise, cannibalistically feeding the machine with rehashed, ret-conned stories that left the characters unchanged and had very little of value to say about the human condition. Voyager’s failure to accurately depict its own premise is another case in point. And don’t get me wrong, I write these things as a fan of Star Trek, or as much as I can be these days. Hopefully I’m wrong about the “fixing” bit…because I would love to see something new, exciting, and of high production value, come to the television screen again.

125. Flo - September 1, 2013

Thus article made me detest STID even more :(

126. ricardocube - September 1, 2013

Don’t agree that trek is broken. Just because you don’t like the film doesn’t mean its broken.

Two things spoilt into darkness for me:

- 4 Year wait between films (it lost momentum)
- Khan (and the scenes copied from TWOK)

I just dont think it had to be Khan. There was no benefit in it being Khan. I think for it to have worked, Khan should have been the only bad guy. By bringing in another bad guy into the mix, it kindof weakens Khan as a villain.
Also, I was simply not able to suspend disbelief enough to accept this white englishman to be the same person played by Ricardo Moltanban. To me there needed to be some explanation of why he was so different.

Has trek changed. Yes of course, but to me this latest trek is still closer to the original than DS9, nemesis etc. DS9 went completely against the notion “to go where no man has gone before” as it was stationary for god’s sake!

Despite the issues i have with into darkness, i still really enjoyed the film, there were some great character references, and Cumberbatch was excellent if underused, and under developed.

So for all those who are declaring this as some all-time low for Trek, you should go back and watch some of the rubbish that was put out in the 90s and early 00s in film and TV form.

Ok, trek isnt the same, but to me its in a better place than in say 1995-2008.

127. boborci - September 1, 2013

Fascinating.

128. Jason - September 1, 2013

STID had two huge problems:

1. the 4 year gap since the first movie. It failed to ride of the momentum from ’09.

2. The bizaar marketing with Khan as the villain but not being able to advertise as the villain. Whats the surprise in the reveal of a character modern audiences aren’t familiar with anyway?

129. Vultan - September 1, 2013

All good suggestions, Mr. Dickerson. Too bad though they probably won’t happen under the “creative” control of Bad Robot. The movie made a lot of MONEY, and as some fans point out, that’s the important thing here.

I just wish it wasn’t the only thing.

130. Hugh Hoyland - September 1, 2013

Yeah why argue over whats been done with these films. The point about bringing in sci-fi writters is moot. One of the writters for STID2 just popped in. :]

131. Hugh Hoyland - September 1, 2013

To many ‘t’s in writers up there btw. KB has been ruined since I last spilled beer on it.

132. Hugh Hoyland - September 1, 2013

I actually think that Kirk was demoted for breaking the prime directive. Not so much for tyring to save the planet.

133. spooky - September 1, 2013

Star Trek back on TV would be wonderful and so I live and hope.
I pray that they find someone with an original angle to tell the next Trek on TV, Manny Coto perhaps!

As for the next film, STID was big and action packed. I loved the scale of it but the exploration and awe of it was muted by nonsensical things like teleportation across light years, or the Enterprise under the ocean.

I don’t want to see the Klingons anymore. I am sick to death of the Klingons, the new ones were a failure in both design and execution.

They should focus on the other aliens who didn’t get big in the series and shift the power scale in the quadrant. Perhaps the Klingons are dying nomadic race. The Andorians could very much swell in numbers and power due to the death of Vulcan.

I don’t want to hear the characters just mention these aliens in off handed remarks. Look at Bones mentioning the Gorn in STID, when did he ever meet one when they haven’t gone on the 5 year mission yet.

I would also recommend they bring in some kind of consequence for the the Red matter that took out Nero’s ship in Star Trek 2009.
Perhaps it kept going, opening blackholes/whiteholes throughout time and space. Thereby having a weird timey whimey effect on this nu-verse.
Perhaps it opened a doorway in the past and then pulled something from there and pulled it into the future or present time. Or the reverse, it pulled something from Picard/Sisko/Janeway’s timeline.
The Borg, The Crystalline Entity, The Pagh Wraiths, Species 8472.

Or it could be something from Kirk’s/alternate timeline.

V’ger. Whale Probe (LOL), Doomsday Machine, or that Clint Howard guy! :D

134. dswynne - September 1, 2013

I have to disagree with some of the points made by the author:

1) There was already a group of Trekkies who did not like the idea of rebooting/re-imagining the characters of TOS from the get-go, which is in stark contrast to the JJ Abrams’ ‘Trek continues to bring in new fans to the franchise (who have been insulted by the older fans for liking NuTrek, and for not being “real Trekkies”).

2) In fact, these are the same fans who, over the years, did not like any of the concepts presented in TNG and subsequent ‘Trek spin-offs. They particularly hated the ideas presented in DS9, such as a station being used as the setting from the premise of the show, as well as the fact that the Bajorans were unabashedly pro-religious, even though their gods, the Prophets, were extra-dimensional entities/aliens. And as subsequent spinoffs happened, the overall viewership lessened. From this, Paramount made the decision to reboot the movie franchise due to the iconic status of Kirk, Spock, and the starship Enterprise in pop culture. Who remembers any of the characters from the other series, other than a Trekkie? Exactly. So, having a new crew and ship on TV isn’t necessarily going to jolt the franchise, if Kirk and crew have not, although, I could get behind a series featuring the crew of the USS Farragut, based upon this E-Surance advertisement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_jyBziPZw

3) You are forgetting that while the Trek franchise went on for 19 years uninterrupted, you had stiff competition from other Sci-Fi series, such as “X-Files”, “Babylon 5″, “Stargate SG-1″ (and its spin-offs), “Doctor Who”, “Farscape”, “Lost”, “Battlestar Galactica” and a host of other sci-fi programming. When you have so many programs that use the same type of tropes, you’re not going to do as well as you wish to. “Avatar”, the “Iron Man” and “The Avengers” did well because no one had done their respective stories on the big screen, and haven’t had the plethora of related outings that Star Trek has had to deal with. In other words, Star Trek is no longer a unique concept that could be marketed to have the billion-dollar impact that Paramount was hoping for…

4) And that brings us to problem I have with STiD: the writing. It’s one thing to have an action-based movie, but if you have nothing more than references, you’re not going to keep your core audience. Reason why WoK worked was because it was a sequel to a classic TOS episode (“Space Seed”). Even the last line of that episode essentially sets up for a return to that episode, when Kirk wistfully wondered what will come about after Khan and his crew were deposited on Ceti Alpha V. Reason why the Khan element didn’t work in STiD is not the fault of Benedict Cumberbatch, but rather the fact that there was no set up to the big reveal. Personally, it would have been better if Joachim, not Khan, had been the main villain, since his motivations could have been explored. If that had to use Khan, a second film that sets up to a third film would have been best. In fact, the “Countdown into Darkness” tie-in comic would have worked to enable this. And, the characters presented, such as the inclusion of Captain April and Mudd, would have been a lot more original, considering it was a direct result of the Nerada’s first incursion, after going into the past. On another note, I blame Lindelof for the Khan reveal, and lack of pay off, and Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman for allowing it.

5) Let’s face it: the marketing sucked big time. One, you had all these films with similar themes coming out this year (i.e. terrorism and government conspiracies). Two, Bad Robot lied about who the villain was for a year. Three, having the movie open a full two weeks in other countries before it opened in the US. If they don’t get it together, no amount of writing will help.

6) Finally, TOS worked because of the age it was coming from. You had JFK’s New Frontier (i.e. the quest to reach the Moon), as well as an era of great social change to draw inspiration from. Today, the US barely has a space agency, we’re still reeling from 9/11 and the subsequent wars, we have to deal our civil liberties being threatened (all in the name of keeping everyone safe from terrorists), and we’ve become so cynical and apathetic that a Miley Cyrus incident at the Video Music Awards makes the news. It’s not a wonder that TOS is seen as quaint, in the face of all this.

Ultimately, what happens now is in Paramount’s hands, as they search for a new director. But, as the actor Karl Urban said, the next outing should be original (minus the reliance on references).

135. Jason - September 1, 2013

One thing that really differentiates the two Abrams movies:

In the 2009 movie they did some gutsy things like killing Spock’s mom and destroying planet Vulcan. It was like they were boldly saying we can’t know what to expect from these new versions of the characters.

In STID, it was like they gave up on trying to carve their own path, they just decided to copy from the most sacred moments in TWOK.

I think that is what offended a lot of longtime fans so much.

136. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@109. boborci

Would you please inform whoever in charge of that crappy Blu-ray multiple releases issue that they are dumb & greedy!

And welcome back to the jungle :)

137. Adam - September 1, 2013

I think what is needed is a TV trek again, I know of an idea copy righted by a man named Theodore Moser that has some real promise, the entire series would be arcs and more arcs intertwining over the course of the show, season long arcs are great as Enterprise season 3 was.

138. Markus McLaughlin - September 1, 2013

STID is the new generation’s Trek V, I won’t add it to my Trek Collection. I have been re-enjoying TOS and DS9 on Netflix. Those were the days when Trek was cool…

My Trek Audio Project stalled because of other commitments, however, I hope to revive it in the future…

139. Vultan - September 1, 2013

If we’re looking for an example of a movie that gave us exploration in an action-adventure framework, with brains, with a great female character, etc., look no further than Raiders of the Lost Ark. That movie has everything, and does them all very well.

So give up on Wrath of Khan already. Great movie, yes. But it’s time to move forward. Trek movies aren’t “broken” necessarily, but they certainly seem stuck in a [story] rut.

Which is why TV is better, I suppose.

140. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 117. Jason – September 1, 2013

“In STID, it was like they gave up on trying to carve their own path, they just decided to copy from the most sacred moments in TWOK.
I think that is what offended a lot of longtime fans so much.”

Precisely. When Spock screamed Khannnnnnn, I was like, are you f**king kidding me ?? What is this rubbish ?
I get really pissed off whenever I remember these stupid scenes in STID.

ST09 on the other hand, was full of great & even emotional scenes. From the opening scene with the Kelvin & the destruction of Vulcan to the speech that Pike gave to Kirk in the bar.

These were great scenes. I hardly find anything like it at all in STID.

141. spooky - September 1, 2013

Vultan: What a great idea! An exploration movie similar to the Chase from TNG where several races were trying to find out the origin of what was it again… DNA or something rather. I haven’t seen it in awhile but what a great idea for the next trek.
That would give the crew a reason to explore several worlds and explore its ruins/cities instead of having these locations be nothing more than backdrops!

142. Jeffrey S. Nelson - September 1, 2013

Amen. To boldly go.

143. dswynne - September 1, 2013

@115: The Gorn mention was based upon the recent Star Trek video game, which featured the Gorn as the antagonists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hnBp7x2QAE

144. Hat Rick - September 1, 2013

I, too, want Trek to return to television, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t make it on the big screen, as well.

For an example of a sterling franchise that has had a longer history of successes in the theaters than Trek has had in its totality, look at the James Bond films. Bond was a creature of literature before it was a product of the silver screen. Its roots date back to the fervid imagination of an author steeped in World War II lore and supplemented by the Cold War that followed. And yet, we are but a year or so past its most recent installment, which raked in the big bucks in the cinemas.

I loved STID, and I still do. I think that if we inject a newer storyline into the next sequel, it will be as big a success as many of us want.

Let’s keep in mind, as well, that the four-year gap between the last two movies was probably responsible lfor an 80% loss of the momentum built by ST2009, if not more. In the time between 2009 and 2013, there could have been three, not two, movies. Momentum, once lost, isn’t easily regained. By the same token, inertia can be a rather formidable thing.

145. Vultan - September 1, 2013

#123

Absolutely. The Chase had a good concept. Just the execution was flat, I thought. Of course, Prometheus had a similar idea, so probably best to avoid the origins-of-life storyline for the time being.

Oh, and avoid seeking God at the center of the galaxy. That didn’t turn out so well either. Find a better MacGuffin.

146. T'Cal - September 1, 2013

STID was a much better written film than ST09 IMO. The earlier one had so many plot holes that it was distracting from an otherwise enjoyable film. The newer one had a tighter script that was genuinely funny at appropriate times while building tension successfully in others. Each of the main characters had at least one great and important scene that brought the story along while building their characters. What a few here saw as a rehash I saw as a respectful homage with a twist that modernized the tale. I was very happy with this film. As for the Blu-ray discs offering different extras, I’m a bit disappointed in that but truth be told, I’ll watch the deleted scenes once or twice but I’ve never watched a movie on disc and listened to a commentary rather than the original track. I’ll get the one that offers the features and extras I like the best and buy it. I’ll watch the rest on Youtube.

This post showcases once again Trek fans’ extreme splintering – one group likes only this, another likes only that, a third…, a fourth…, a fifth…, etc. TPTB are much better off ignoring us and doing what they want hoping to draw in as many of us plus the general public as possible. Give it up! They aren’t listening to you and they shouldn’t.

147. Keachick - September 1, 2013

I have only done a quick perusal over everything here on this thread, but one thing that keeps coming up that I do find somewhat amusing, is people calling for originality, then go to talk about doing a story around the Organians or some other folk that are already discovered and known about within the Star Trek TOS universe.

It seems to me that the major gripe among people is that you did not see the Khan story told just the way you wanted it to be told, played out on screen and are pissed about it. I do not believe there is little reason to believe that many would behave any differently if the writers used any other known character or people from the TOS series…

What I do think is broken is the goodwill and common sense among “fans” and people in general and I don’t think that was solely because of any producer or writer. However, if you did want to look where the break down (if there is indeed any) began, then look no further than Nicholas Meyer, along with your own selves.

148. dswynne - September 1, 2013

@Ahmed: Obviously, you need to rent STiD if you need questions answered.

149. spooky - September 1, 2013

127.
LOL… it doesn’t necessarily have to do anything with origins, how about advanced tech left behind by the Iconians, and I’m not talking about their Stargates, but some other things they (writers) could come up with. :)

150. TonyD - September 1, 2013

Gutsy article but I think the author is over-analyzing just a little bit. I think a lot of the problems with this iteration of Trek are largely self-inflicted. To wit:

- The filmmakers went overboard with the secrecy and denials and when the film finally premiered they got a pretty negative backlash from the hardcore fans and that probably affected the casual filmgoer’s opinion of the film.

- Waiting four years between films was just way too long and Paramount was foolish to give JJ and Bad Robot such leeway. It completely killed any word of mouth and new fan interest that the 2009 film managed to obtain.

- I have no problem with a more action-oriented Trek and the realities of a summer tentpole film mean that you can’t really do another TMP or Voyage Home but at the same time, lifting so many characters and ideas from prior films and shows again led to negative backlash from the hardcore fanbase and that probably again trickled down into reduced interest with the general public.

- Paramount needs to get its act together with regard to marketing and merchandising. Releasing the movie three weeks earlier in other markets killed any momentum the film might have had in the USA (which is still Trek’s bread and butter market); this decision was doubly stupid since it also made all the denials about Khan all the more ludicrous when they were disproved and posted all over the internet (did JJ and Co. really think everyone wouldn’t check the foreign reviews?). I think these staggered releases can really rob a film of its momentum, especially a property like Trek that was in a pretty precarious position fan-wise anyway given the log hiatus since the last film.

- Likewise, the merchandising effort on this one was non-existent: no making-of book or other meaningful print tie-ins and no toy line (at least give Art Asylum/Diamond Select a license to make a few models). I know part of this goes back to the split with CBS but it is still something Paramount/Bad Robot should have addressed.

So looking forward, try to come up with your own adventures instead of retreading so much of what came before, be a little more diligent and timely in your release schedule and promotions and don’t get so hung up on the secrecy (just to contrast, did Christopher Nolan try to hide who his villains would be while making his Bat movies?). Just doing that will go a long way towards “fixing” this new Trek.

151. Flake - September 1, 2013

I don’t need more Trek on TV, we got plenty of that 1987-2005

A movie every 2-3 years will do me :)

Cartoon would be nice though.

152. Flake - September 1, 2013

Someone write a Star Trek is not Broken article now please :)

These views need to be balanced rather than jumping on the internet hater bandwagon :)

153. Ian Bland - September 1, 2013

Well, I just saw STID for teh first time. It finished ten minutes ago. I didn’t go the cinema to see it, despite having since ST:2009 twice at the cinema, ethusiastically with my fellow Trekkie sister, because I was in the “No Khan!” camp here four years ago and when I heard the leak about the villain, my interest just collapsed.

So, having just watched it, how was it? Ho hum. I’ve come to the conclusion that Quinto is miscast, in my opinion, he delivers his lines like an irritated waiter in a Noel Coward play, but that is very subjective and I’m sure others would disagree.

A second complaint is the failed relationships in the movie. In the original Trek, Kirk and Spock and Bones had served together for years. These are mature men with deep respect and friendship. Trying to graft the same emotions onto these new characters who not only have not known each other for very long, but really don’t even seem to like each other very much (Spock and Kirk do not come across as old friends bickering, but as petulant rivals) just does not work.

Thirdly, comedy Scotty and his completely pointless sidekick. I don’t know why we have a comedy Scotty, let alone the sidekick, who adds no value. He needs reining back in to a serious character with light moments, please. Pegg is a good actor. Give him some proper acting to do.

But overall, these are niggles. The movie fails because it is bad fanfic. Now I’m not saying that it fails because it is fanfic, or written by fans. A fan can write a good story, if their motivation is, “I want to tell the best story I can”. But the reason nearly all fanfic fails is that it isn’t storytelling, as a proper writer does it. It is an act of collage.

And that is what we have here. The average fanfic writer stick together parts cut out from what has gone before, creating a frankenstein monster of a story, not new life. This isn’t just “nodding” knowingly at previous stories. It is, as I said, a collage of previous Trek, and nothing more.

I remember reading an interview with the Prometheus guy, and he said something to the effect of “we had to do Khan! He’s iconic!” and that is like the exact moment when they went wrong with writing this movie. That’s what a fanfic writer does. Not what a storyteller does. And that is really sad, because ST2009 gave them a whole new virginal universe to play in, and all they could play was an old tune. (And then having painted themselves into that creative corner, got stuck with an Indian villain, worried that would look racist, and ludicrously had him played by an Englishman. Apparently because in Hollyood, they think us common plebs all hate Indians, because all Indians are muslims, or muslims are Indians, right, and, er, 9/11, or… what… does not compute… or something, I dunno.)

It’s just stuff shoved together. Carol Marcus, but with no relationship depth (compare that to Shatner and Besch’s fully fleshed relationship, in a few scenes, in TWOK). A barely deeper relationship between Spock and Uhura, and a tiresome comedy bickering scene, because none of these people apparently have any professionalism whatsoever.

And when Kirk has sex, the girls keep their bras and pants on, bizarrely. Honestly, if you don’t want nudity, don’t do post-coital scenes, guys, it looks ridiculous. If my girlfriend still has her clothes on at the end, we weren’t doing it right. That’s the same where you live, isn’t it?

I can’t believe that professional writers would think that such a blatant copy of the TWOK death scene would be credible or work. Not just because this wasn’t so much a “nod” as a head butt, but again- in TWOK, we were watching two old friends with fictional years of deep friendship and real years onscreen, whereas in this we’re watching… these two guys… who barely like each other… and knowing full well that Kirk wasn’t going to be dead for more than five minutes anyway.

As to why Admiral Robocop ordered missiles containing Khan’s genetic supermen to be fired at Khan on Cronos… I remain baffled. But also find it hard to care. Or why nobody wanted to abandon ship, or why Spock wanted to stay on board, or how a giant starship can crash land and a couple of streets away people are just walking about and driving along, or what the pilots of aircraft are thinking and doing while people fight on their roof, can’t somebody get on the radio and say, “hey, there are people fighting on top of your plane, where the hell are you flying to anyway? Who are you guys?”…

The reboot universe still has potential. I’d recommend getting shot of those ghastly grey uniforms and peaked caps (why? why?) and why on Earth you killed Pike I have no idea. But it can still work. It just needs a proper story and good script.

Not this. This was just not good.

Also, I sure wouldn’t want to be an engineer on this ship. Your boss resigns, the Captain appoints some navigator kid to be Chief. No promotion here, no sirree.

154. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 130. dswynne – September 1, 2013

“@Ahmed: Obviously, you need to rent STiD if you need questions answered.”

Thanks, but no thanks. I seen it once & that was more than enough.

@129. Keachick

“It seems to me that the major gripe among people is that you did not see the Khan story told just the way you wanted it to be told, played out on screen and are pissed about it.”

We didn’t want to see Khan at all. We wanted new & fresh story.

155. Omegaman - September 1, 2013

What we need is Trek series that doesn’t focus on a single crew or ship. A different story each episode that ties in with a central storyline over the entire season. Maybe centered around a specific part of the fleet (more than one ship) engaged in a specific sector of space that’s important to the Federation.

156. James - September 1, 2013

@133 – I agree. Here are some salient facts.

Rotten Tomatoes ratings: 87% of critics liked it and 91% of the audience (over 227,000 reviews).

It is the most successful Trek Movie of all time in terms of box office and currently stands at $459 million.

Prominent Trekkies like Mark Altman and Wil Wheaton loved it.

It’s clearly not broken.

Y’know I remember loving TNG, but all the old skool fans who are now ripping into JJ’s Trek hated it. Data was a ‘dorky’ name and Picard was a rubbish captain etc…

My review:
http://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/star-trek-into-darkness-film-review/

157. Kirk, James T. - September 1, 2013

@boborci

I think people are annoyed (and rightly so) that the way Bad Robot/Paramount/CBS have handled Star Trek between movies and Star Trek Into Darkness itself. The 2009 movie perfectly set up this new universe, Spock Prime passed the baton and that should have been it. What should have come after 2009 is something completely original and clearly Star Trek Into Darkness wasn’t that. I liked the movie but now having time to digest it, it’s completely disappointing to see all of the same scenes from Wrath of Khan played out in this movie when your first movie was such a refreshing pace, it felt like you kind of ran out of original ideas and resorted in borrowing scenes from Khan and your 2009 movie. You had such an incredible cast yet most were sorely underused and really Cumberbatch was so brilliant that he didn’t need to play Khan at all. As for the women, OK Star Trek was sexy in 1966 but this is the 21st century and I think women deserve to be seen having brains rather than boobs.

I think changes need to be made going forward and why not bring some genuine science fiction writers to write the third one with you?

I think the whole notion of Abrams being more of a Star Wars fan and all of the talk about making a movie that isn’t for the fans was a load of bull. Lets celebrate the awesomeness that is Star Trek by being confident in Star Trek and not kind of justifying people’s pre-conceptions by saying that these Trek movies aren’t for fans… I guarantee Abrams wont be saying that about Star Wars….

The next movie has to be about that opening captain’s monologue… Space the final frontier, these are the voyages of the starship Enterprise… Her 5 year mission to seek out strange new life-forms and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one as gone before… Lets see something fresh, original that doesn’t pay homage or has Old Spock turn up… in fact kill him off, he’s the past, your Star Trek is the future, let these amazing actors stand on their own and carry this franchise on their own shoulders.

You will always have those who will hate your Star Trek but don’t pander to the fans by showing us villains or aliens we’ve already seen and give them more ammo to justify their hatred of your universe, create something new, unique to your Star Trek.

And please, if you have any influence on who directs the next Star Trek, make it someone who grew up watching Star Trek and loving Star Trek more than he/she loved Star Wars… Lets see your Star Trek really chart it’s own path, new universe, new rules, awesome entertainment but intelligently written and ORIGINAL.

Another thing, lets see an animated TV Series, lets see Enterprise season 5 plus on Netflix and lets see Star Trek really open up. SMASH THAT MYSTERY BOX, it’s useless for Star Trek.

Thanks

158. Ian Bland - September 1, 2013

Well, I just saw STID for teh first time. It finished ten minutes ago. I didn’t go the cinema to see it, despite having since ST:2009 twice at the cinema, ethusiastically with my fellow Trekkie sister, because I was in the “No Khan!” camp here four years ago and when I heard the leak about the villain, my interest just collapsed.

So, having just watched it, how was it? Ho hum. I’ve come to the conclusion that Quinto is miscast, in my opinion, he delivers his lines like an irritated waiter in a Noel Coward play, but that is very subjective and I’m sure others would disagree.

A second complaint is the failed relationships in the movie. In the original Trek, Kirk and Spock and Bones had served together for years. These are mature men with deep respect and friendship. Trying to graft the same emotions onto these new characters who not only have not known each other for very long, but really don’t even seem to like each other very much (Spock and Kirk do not come across as old friends bickering, but as petulant rivals) just does not work.

Thirdly, comedy Scotty and his completely pointless sidekick. I don’t know why we have a comedy Scotty, let alone the sidekick, who adds no value. He needs reining back in to a serious character with light moments, please. Pegg is a good actor. Give him some proper acting to do.

But overall, these are niggles. The movie fails because it is bad fanfic. Now I’m not saying that it fails because it is fanfic, or written by fans. A fan can write a good story, if their motivation is, “I want to tell the best story I can”. But the reason nearly all fanfic fails is that it isn’t storytelling, as a proper writer does it. It is an act of collage.

And that is what we have here. The average fanfic writer stick together parts cut out from what has gone before, creating a frankenstein monster of a story, not new life. This isn’t just “nodding” knowingly at previous stories. It is, as I said, a collage of previous Trek, and nothing more.

I remember reading an interview with the Prometheus guy, and he said something to the effect of “we had to do Khan! He’s iconic!” and that is like the exact moment when they went wrong with writing this movie. That’s what a fanfic writer does. Not what a storyteller does. And that is really sad, because ST2009 gave them a whole new virginal universe to play in, and all they could play was an old tune. (And then having painted themselves into that creative corner, got stuck with an Indian villain, worried that would look racist, and ludicrously had him played by an Englishman. Apparently because in Hollyood, they think us common plebs all hate Indians, because all Indians are muslims, or muslims are Indians, right, and, er, 9/11, or… what… does not compute… or something, I dunno.)

It’s just stuff shoved together. Carol Marcus, but with no relationship depth (compare that to Shatner and Besch’s fully fleshed relationship, in a few scenes, in TWOK). A barely deeper relationship between Spock and Uhura, and a tiresome comedy bickering scene, because none of these people apparently have any professionalism whatsoever.

And when Kirk has sex, the girls keep their bras and pants on, bizarrely. Honestly, if you don’t want nudity, don’t do post-coital scenes, guys, it looks ridiculous. If my girlfriend still has her clothes on at the end, we weren’t doing it right. That’s the same where you live, isn’t it?

I can’t believe that professional writers would think that such a blatant copy of the TWOK death scene would be credible or work. Not just because this wasn’t so much a “nod” as a head butt, but again- in TWOK, we were watching two old friends with fictional years of deep friendship and real years onscreen, whereas in this we’re watching… these two guys… who barely like each other… and knowing full well that Kirk wasn’t going to be dead for more than five minutes anyway.

As to why Admiral Robocop ordered missiles containing Khan’s genetic supermen to be fired at Khan on Cronos… I remain baffled. But also find it hard to care. Or why nobody wanted to abandon ship, or why Spock wanted to stay on board, or how a giant starship can crash land and a couple of streets away people are just walking about and driving along, or what the pilots of aircraft are thinking and doing while people fight on their roof, can’t somebody get on the radio and say, “hey, there are people fighting on top of your plane, where the hell are you flying to anyway? Who are you guys?”…

The reboot universe still has potential. I’d recommend getting shot of those ghastly grey uniforms and peaked caps (why? why?) and why on Earth you killed Pike I have no idea. But it can still work. It just needs a proper story and good script.

Not this. This was just not good.

Also, I sure wouldn’t want to be an engineer on this ship. Your boss resigns, the Captain appoints some navigator kid to be Chief. No promotion here, no sirree.

(Sorry if this shows up twice, but my previous attempt didn’t seem to post properly)

159. Scott McC - September 1, 2013

133 Flake, I couldn’t agree more.

While I agree with some of the authors points, he lets himself down by referencing the “polls” taken at the conventions as evidence of current Trek (i.e. STID) being on the wane and like a number of frequent posters to this site over the last few months, is completely in denial regarding STID’s critical and financial performance.

Star Trek is not broken, and I miss Anthony’s influence and leadership of this once great site, which all too often seems to be overrun by haters and trolls who spin nonsense about STIDs box-office performance (it got nowhere near a billion dollars-LOL) to justify their claims that the movie was not successful. Get a grip and be thankful Trek got rescued from the dumpster and via ST09 and STID had some life breathed back into it.

160. Keachick - September 1, 2013

#134 – Some of you did and some didn’t. What I saw here just on this site was a lot of people saying, even screaming NO KHAN (I was one of them), but more often than not, people were writing story scenarios which involved Khan and/or Joachim and the Botany Bay as being something that might get to be part of the second Bad Robot Star Trek movie. The name “Khan” was ubiquitous; people here and elsewhere have been obsessed with the character.

Sometimes other story outlines were told but they also involved other TOS characters like Gary Mitchell or Garth or whoever. As I recall, there was no totally original stories told or suggested that did not involve someone/something not already told about in other Star Trek films or TV series.

I may be wrong, but I do believe that part of a short story outline I wrote and posted here, for Bob Orci’s benefit, was the ONLY original scenario offered anywhere (ie new alien beings and planetary system) and I got screamed at, sworn at, for posting a little part of the story.

Star Trek is only “broken” if people say so and, in their somewhat blind anger, are prepared to break another…To some of you guys here – thanks for nothing.

161. Vultan - September 1, 2013

Trek has new life in it, except it’s not so… new… exactly. A lot of callbacks to its own iconography and not much new to say, I think. Oh, profitable no doubt, but none too meaningful.

It’s sort of like those tables that sell memorabilia at conventions. They can make money, but only from what’s on the table, what’s in the box.

162. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@138. Scott McC

” Get a grip and be thankful Trek got rescued from the dumpster and via ST09 and STID had some life breathed back into it.”

I guess all of us need to thank the Lord for sending his messenger Abrams who saved us all, right ? !!!!

163. Jonboc - September 1, 2013

#52 “No Comic-Con coverage. This was a dumbass strategy. You have to get word of your movies out there, and Comic-Con is the big venue now for superhero, fantasy, and sci-fi movies these days.”

Sorry Red, but there wasn’t a person in attendance at Comic Con that wasn’t aware that Trek Into Darkness was coming. And I’m really having trouble, looking at Into Darkness’ record breaking totals, how the absence at Comic Con hurt the film in any way.

164. Hugh Hoyland - September 1, 2013

All I can say is that STID has made well over 460 million dollars, thats pretty dang amazing IMO.

165. Keachick - September 1, 2013

#141 – No, Ahmed, just a bit less bad tempered and a little more respectful…

166. Lee Butterley - September 1, 2013

I watched Trek ’09 three times at the cinema and bought the disc. STID I saw at the cinema once and I’ve no intention of buying my own copy. It was just dreadful.

Please lets have a film that isn’t about revenge, doesn’t rely on overlong, ludicrous action sequences, doesn’t play fast and lose with Trek technology (transwarp beaming I’m looking at you), and most importantly let’s have a film that puts the characters up front and centre, allows the fantastic cast to shine, and presents us with something thought provoking, original and positive to enjoy.

167. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 144. Keachick – September 1, 2013

“#141 – No, Ahmed, just a bit less bad tempered and a little more respectful…”

Some of the fans who loved STID can’t accept the simple fact that there are others who didn’t like STID & even hate it. They should respect our views & not call the critics “haters and trolls ” if they want us to respect their views.

168. Disinvited - September 1, 2013

#143. Hugh Hoyland – September 1, 2013

Under any business class I ever attended it did no such thing, as in to make $460 million it would have to have cost $0 to make and then some as the theater owners would have to have abandoned their take. However, if the point you are trying to make is that it caused moviegoers to fork over in excess of $460 million dollars to view something STAR TREK and that that is record-breaking and should be duly noted, I concur.

169. Red Dead Ryan - September 1, 2013

#142. Jonboc.

“Sorry Red, but there wasn’t a person in attendance at Comic Con that wasn’t aware that Trek Into Darkness was coming. And I’m really having trouble, looking at Into Darkness’ record breaking totals, how the absence at Comic Con hurt the film in any way.”

Except you’re forgetting something. The domestic box office totals were down by about 30% compared to 09. The reason? Lack of promotion in North America. Most of the marketing was directed at the international market. This is where Comic-Con would have helped. They could have shown an early clip, have J.J Abrams show up with a couple cast members for a big promotional event.

170. Riker's Dad - September 1, 2013

Star Trek is only ‘broken’ for the vocal minority.

171. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@Matt Wright,

Any chance of making a new poll here to see how many people on this site actually like STID ?

172. Riker's Dad - September 1, 2013

…who can’t stand prosperity. I’m going nuts with excitement waiting to get my physical copy of Into Darkness. What a treatment Star Trek is getting on the big screen. I’m happy. And the fans are lucky. …and angry and frustrated, I guess. How — ungrateful.

173. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 151. Riker’s Dad – September 1, 2013

“I’m going nuts with excitement waiting to get my physical copy of Into Darkness. What a treatment Star Trek is getting on the big screen. I’m happy. And the fans are lucky. …”

Guess you are going to buy all the various STID Blu-ray releases, right ?

174. Keachick - September 1, 2013

#141 – “I guess all of us need to thank the Lord for sending his messenger Abrams who saved us all, right ? !!!!”

No, I was not referring to your sarcastic comment toward Scott McC @ #138. I was referring to your tone in talking about the Lord and calling Abrams his messenger. It was rude and disrespectful. JJ Abrams and co., I doubt, ever set out to “save” anyone. He just sets out to make movies that he hopes more people will want to see and enjoy than not.

I cannot recall referring to anyone as being a “hater” or “troll” except when they make barbed, slightly personal comments about me or another poster.

175. Cygnus-X1 - September 1, 2013

DEAR JOSEPH DICKERSON,

Finally!

Great article and I agree with all of it. Quite a few of us have been complaining for a long time and it’s good to see this site deviate from what has too often seemed unconditional love for JJ’s version of Trek.

—How can we once again elevate the writing in Star Trek? Simple: Go outside of the Hollywood bubble and hire some science fiction writers.—

Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. Bring the science fiction back into this historically science fiction franchise. JJ has turned it into an action movie franchise because, as he’s expressed several times, he just didn’t understand the original Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry’s vision and what the whole franchise was all about. The solution to that problem is simple: get rid of JJ and bring back Star Trek, GR and science fiction.

—Star Trek should be back on TV. Period.—

Probably. I mean, it would be great to get a fantastic screenwriter to make a smart, compelling Trek movie, but the $billion-dollar$ expectations of Paramount make that possibility seem not much closer than a day dream at this point.

With the Trek TV series on Netflix, I’ve gone and watched all of DS9, Voyager and Enterprise in their entirety and come to the realization that I’d taken much of it for granted when it was on TV, because it had been on for so long and there had been so much of it. Granted, being able to watch several episodes at a time yields a much more satisfying experience than having to wait a week (and then 4 months over the Summer) in between episodes. But there really were many, many good stories, plots and especially themes in those later Trek series. Fans and the general public tend to be hard on Voyager, but there really was a lot of good stuff in there. That series pre-dated The Matrix and other highly successful sci-fi with similar plots as Voyager episodes.

One last thing:

—Here, here—

It’s “hear, hear.” As in “hear him, hear him” in regard to the person speaking who has just vocalized a point with which you wholeheartedly agree.

176. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@153. Keachick

” I was referring to your tone in talking about the Lord and calling Abrams his messenger. It was rude and disrespectful. ”

Rude and disrespectful to whom ?

177. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 1, 2013

And entire thread themed on how ST is broken; and now boborci posts, revealing he is reading.

boborci, don’t let the critics affect you.

I think there is a yearly Comicon convention in Montreal. Last year Shatner, Stewart and John de Lancie were here. You and Alex should come up. I am sure you will be warmly welcomed as the writer of what many consider the best Star Trek movie ever. I for one would definitely show up for an autograph.

178. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@155. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W

Guess these coordinates 45°N 73°W pointing toward the city that we shall not name :)

179. Phil - September 1, 2013

Right now I’d suggest being very careful with a poll. I liked STID, for that matter, I’ve liked EVERY Trek movie. I just recognize some are better then others. For me, ST09 is in the top third, STID, probably 7th or 8th down. Generations, at least for me, is still safe at the bottom of the pile.

180. Allen Williams - September 1, 2013

step 1: Ban Jar Jar Abrams for ever
Step 2: Hire Johnathan Franks to direct.
Step 3: success!

181. Keachick - September 1, 2013

#154 – Wow. You just don’t get it, do you?

I am finding that cleaning out guinea pig cages seems to be more edifying than trying to explain. Boy, do these little animals pee and poo a lot!

182. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@ 159. Keachick – September 1, 2013

“#154 – Wow. You just don’t get it, do you?”

Nope, I’ve no bloody idea what you are talking about.

As for “cleaning out guinea pig cages”, I have no experience with that but I trust your opinion when it come to them, little animals “pee and poo a lot!” !!!

183. Red Dead Ryan - September 1, 2013

#159.

“I am finding that cleaning out guinea pig cages seems to be more edifying than trying to explain. Boy, do these little animals pee and poo a lot!”

WTF???

184. Matthew - September 1, 2013

the comment that star trek is broken is just rubbish. I have seen every episode of the five tv series and all the movies, so I am not a new fan.
The trek that was made in the past can not be made anymore on tv and cinema, it wouldn’t be financial viable. In the world of home cinema and digital downloads movies like that have to big and bold and larger then life, something to bring them in to the cinema rather then wait to watch at home. Star Trek Into Darkness adjusting to inflation is the most successful star trek worldwide. That’s a massive turnaround from 10 years ago were star trek looked dead and buried. The old style trek in the end was considered boring and its for the geeks by the mainstream audience, the last two boxoffice takes of the TNG movies proved that. Only one movie before star trek 09 crack 100 million in the US and that the voyage home.
STID may have been disappointing in the US but to more then double the foreign take is an outstanding result for any francise which far then broken, you could almost say its booming. Maybe next time they should release the movie later in the year. The summer period is to jammed packed. Fast and Furious 6 was a massive blockbuster but only did 10 million more then Star Trek. If this movies was release in xmas like other movies have eg Lord of the rings, Tiitanic , STID would have cracked 300million in the US and made more overseas

185. John from Cincinnati - September 1, 2013

ST09 and STID were homogenized Star Trek. Characterizations of our beloved characters, and bad characterizations at that.

Star Trek going forward needs to have quality adult drama, adult humor, quality acting, quality writing and an element of having fun, all while boldly going where no one has gone before….on television.

186. Matthew - September 1, 2013

158. Jonathan Frakes has failed, none of his movies have cracked 100 million in the US, you can’t say he did a good job in Insurrection

187. fansincesixytnine - September 1, 2013

Frankly, I loved the movie. I enjoyed it from beginning to end.

188. realist - September 1, 2013

@10 Keeper

“LOL
That is funny.
When I suggested that Paramount rid themselves of the current writing team and cull stories and ideas from real scifi writers just like the various series have done the message was deleted by this very site.
Probably because it was looked on as an attack…which of course it was.
Free speech has never been a trade mark here on this site any way.”

you are right! I had said something last week very close to what #9 said “I understand everyone’s frustration about the film, but is anyone else out there getting sick of constantly reading about how ‘i hated this’ or ‘i hated that’?”

and I was deleted.

again, this is what is messed up about this site.
we are here for STAR TREK.
a peaceful future, and when we ask for it, we get deleted.
no one wants to fight, i’m guessing, but trekmovie loves deleting anything and anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

I did not like the new movie at all, and saw it as a ripoff though.
but I said nothing about that because when I spoke out about all the problems with star trek 2009, I was deleted then, too.

I think Trek belongs on TV. The only real good writers/directors/producers for TREK were:
Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy and Harve Bennet. They made trek films good.

Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman….they should not be writing trek.
they don’t write character and exploration stories. they write action adventure (very formulaic) films.

that’s not trek.
I like this writer of the article here. he makes sense. he is the first good writer I’ve ever seen on this site. I hope he keeps writing.

189. JakartaTrek - September 1, 2013

If JJ-haters can’t agree and reach one solid conclusion who should replace JJ, I was a strong supporter of JJ. And in this case, STID is one of good Star Trek films.

190. Jonboc - September 1, 2013

#148. “Lack of promotion in North America. Most of the marketing was directed at the international market.”

Agreed, the promotion of this movie here n the states was puzzling at best, if not practically non-existent. But, having said that, and being fully aware of the international focus, it’s absolutely incredible how much the movie made here. You’re right, it wasn’t promoted but what I find amazing, is how the strength of the brand, along with good word of mouth, carried the film to bring in what it did. Yes, Trek Into Darkness could have probably brought in even more money, but the fact that it made what it made, with such little marketing, is astonishing.

Broken, my ass! lol

191. Thomas Vinelli - September 1, 2013

My feeling is Stid was Starwars in a wrapper, everybody know that , and thats the way Paramount wanted it. Its the nature of what people want to see in movies. Maybe not you or me , but most. People don’t want to think about things like the old Trek as far as story.
Just action,action,and more action. I’m an old Star trek fan ,back all the way to the 60′s, but the fanboyism has to stop. Star Trek of the past is gone , gone ,gone!! You want good stories..guess what your not going to get them,at least until the market goes that way. Lets not be too hard on the writers, maybe the delay was because they wanted to do something new , the studio said no. I bet anything Paramount had a lot to do with this .They are a cheap company that always plays it safe. And Star trek has always been there cash cow , why upset that cart. I was here when the poll went up saying ”no Khan” .Most of us didn’t want Khan, what did we get. I agree that a new story is in order, maybe a new crew ,everything. And a lot of us said that a year ago, what did we get!!! Folks save your breath, Paramount will do what it wants to do and screw you and me .Yeah i know were the ones who pay to see these movies and buy the dvd’s and Blu-rays. When you get that its about money , not Star trek ,maybe you’ll calm down move on. The Trek we knew is gone.Until they rebuild it from the bottom up it will keep dying and interest will be lost. Sad ,but true

192. Michael French - September 1, 2013

Actually Star Trek broke as Star Trek Nemesis labored into release which is why they stopped making the movies. JJ and team were brave enough to bring Star Trek kicking and screaming back to life and that they did with two storming movies!
STID was a massive box office success which will probably end up about $100 mill more than ST 2009 – which all ST fans called a massive box office success – go figure.
Plus ST is NEVER going to me a mega money maker like Star Wars or Marvel movies – its just not that big – that’s it – period. JJ has got as much money coming in on these movies as is possible.
TBH fans slagging off JJ and these movies etc just like aging spoilt children – grow up! Indeed as Bill Shatner once said – ‘Get a life’!!!

193. Brian - September 1, 2013

It’s about not completely copping the end of another movie that likely 1/2 the people who went to see the film had already seen.

194. Michael French - September 1, 2013

who cares – the writers were just trying to say that just because the timeline had changed certain events may still unfold in a similar way. they aint paid millions for nothing.

195. The Keeper - September 1, 2013

@13 Melllvar (with 3 “L’s”)
Good choice of a name from a Futurama episode about obsessed fans…

Any way, before you go any further understand this: I was all for and still on board with the concept of Star Trek 2009 as a fantastic way of reintroducing the original series characters to a brand new generation of potential Star Trek Fans.
I myself am an old time fan, watching the TOS when it was first aired.
I am and still open to this new updated interpretation of the classic series.
The new cast in my opinion is far superior to any of the spin off series regulars and in many ways better then the actors of TOS.
That might be considered blasphemous to say by all of the Die Hard fans out there…but it’s the truth as I see it.
Offended by my of cheap Star Trek fans…oh well, too bad.

You know my words may be hard to swallow or even face, but they are designed not to make YOU upset, but to get the attention of Paramount and even these weak writers in charge of the current franchise.

I am not saying that the STID was a financial failure, I am saying it was a lot less inventive and original then what could and should have been the first grand leap into a wonderful new direction for the Star Trek brand name.
This is truly an opportunity lost.
I am not a writer. But as a long time fan of TOS and of films in general, I expected more, a higher quality product telling a new original story since the first film set us up for a much more wider ideal of adventure.
I wasn’t expecting to be deceived over the course of two years with blatant lies and double talk about what this new film would be about.
No, I didn’t want to know what the film was about, I wanted to be surprised and excited for it. Instead it merely served to in destroying all my hopes and dreams of getting on with it in a new and totally advanced way.

And after viewing films by these writers outside of Star Trek and witnessing what they did with STID, yeah it can be safely said these guys can’t write and shouldn’t have been given the green light to write the third installment of Star Trek…they will simply continue to under perform what is possible with their lack luster thinking.
We will be seeing Khan vs. the Klingons vs. the Federation or some half ass combination of that.
These guys are NOT SCI FI WRITERS!!!!!
Make no mistake.

And if you were any type of fan you should be able to acknowledge that with out over or under thinking what I just said.
So stop being a buttered corn dog already pretending every thing is just peachy keeny in the new time line Alpha Quadrant

Wake up.
Star Trek is broken and needs to be fixed.

196. Michael French - September 1, 2013

FYI – current poll from trekweb :-

Is INTO DARKNESS better than STAR TREK (2009)?
Yes! 51.27 % (1741 votes)
No! 31.39 % (1066 votes)
It’s a draw 17.34 % (589 votes)
3396 total votes

197. matt - September 1, 2013

sci fi is almost dead, replaced with action etc That’s the fact, sci fi is broken not star trek, star trek had to change genres to action.

198. Marvin the Martian - September 1, 2013

We need a prequel series that takes place between the Animated Series and the first movie.

There should be a season-long arc about the development of the holodeck, with each episode focusing on one part of the technology (pattern buffers, isolinear chips, etc.)

There needs to be lots of technobabble. The music shouldn’t be too intrusive, and stories featuring the second cousins of all the main characters would be ideal. (Except for Uhura… her second cousin is dead, so she’d appear as a ghost that haunts the food processors.)

Canon should be followed to the letter, because that’s how you fix Star Trek.

199. Nick - September 1, 2013

Great article and really thought provoking …

I wonder if Star Trek is appealing to the masses in today’s world?

If Star Trek’ story-telling is true to it’s blueprint will younger generations be interested?

What has been sacrificed so that Paramount achieves its ambition to compete with the likes of Iron Man and The Avengers in the billion dollar movie world?

Is the franchise really broken, or was Into Darkness just a faltering step that can be easily corrected next time?

Time will no doubt tell …

Is Star Trek really best suited to television in the modern world? Is the internet today’s TV and do we really mean Star Trek is better suited to ‘episodic’ story-telling than full features?

The only 2 things I can suggest is some originality & focus on the core blueprint which is pretty much endorsed by the majority here. The second quite naïve point would be to focus on quality and ‘less is more’, rather than shooting for a billion dollars.

Find the excitement of a great adventure …

200. VOODOO - September 1, 2013

Much of this article is incredibly naive.

First and foremost, Star Trek is a corporate entity designed to make as much money as possible. Dont fool yourself into thinking it is anything more than that. The author may not care for the type of action oriented stories of the current incarnation, but that is what the modern audience demands. If the studio were to produce a cheesy/snoozefest film like “Insurection” in 2013 it would crash and burn at the box office even worse than it did in the 90′s and put the franchise back on life support…Would it appeal to a select group of hard core Trekkies more than Abrams universe? Possibly, but it would kill the franchise in the eyes of the general population.

The fact of the matter is that ST was all, but dead and buried in 2008. When Abrams Star Trek debuted in 2009 it’s success was the sci-fi equivalent of Lazarus awaking from the dead. Star Trek was relevant again for the first time since the early 90′s. it’s very easy to forget that in 2013.

I agree that from a critical standpoint ST: Into Darkness left a lot to be desired. That cut and paste ending was just terrible. As was the shoehorning of Khan into a film where he did not need appear. Cumberbatch is a fine actor, but what we saw on screen was Khan in name only….I won’t go on and on with the same old criticisms of the film that most agree with, but I would sum it up by saying he script was lacking and unoriginal for my taste.

All that said the film doubled its international take and is in the top ten for 2013 in the United States. A new audience has already discovered Star Trek and the property is changing to meet the modern era. Old fashion ST simply did not work as a business. All one needs to domis look at the inflation adjusted box office returns of the last couple of TNG films as well as the horrendous ratings of the last few tv series. Your fathers version of Star Trek had become irrelevant.

My question to the author is what needs to be fixed from a commercial perspective? The new films are doing business in line or better than the TOS films which contrary to popular believe we’re quite big hits at the box office. Star Trek is never going to do Star Wars business, but neither are franchises like X-Men or 007 films domestically (with the recent exception of Skyfall) and that’s all right.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the film will make more $ worldwide than any ST film in history…I would argue the exact opposite point of the author when he says the series is broken and needs to be fixed…Quite frankly he is wrong. The series was broken and has found a new audience as well as excited its old fan base by going back in the past to its most iconic characters. You may not like the news films, but from a mainstream perspective the series has already been fixed by going from life support to the top ten at the box office in both 2009 + 20013…Does the author honestly believe than a mainstream audience is going to show up for a Star Trek film if it doesn’t have Kirk and Spock in it?

This may not be your fathers Star Trek, but in 2013 that version would not be viable. Star Trek is alive and well commercially (best shape since the early 90′s) and as ST fans we should be thankfull for what Abrams + Co. Have given us.

201. VOODOO - September 1, 2013

I really wish their was an edit biputton on this site. I cannot type on an IPad to save my life LOL!

202. Barney Fife - September 1, 2013

I don’t get it. Did people see the same film that I saw? I was really pleased with STID. It has the feel of a big league feature and it was like being on a 2 hour roller coaster ride. Awesome visual effects, music and story. It’s not a perfect film…Domestic marketing was terrible…Keeping Khan a secret in the marketing…I didn’t care for Spock yelling “KHAN” and I wished there was more character interaction. Kirk, Spock, McCoy need to be seen together more. They need to talk with each other to solve problems. It also is a good way to give the audience a breather between action scenes.
Call me a brown-noser if you want, but Bob Orci & Alex Kurtzman WILL deliver a great 50th Anniversary script to the next director.

203. dmduncan - September 1, 2013

I want to see Star Trek come back to TV with Bob and Alex in charge. Not JJ and damn sure not Damon Lindelof.

I would also like to see them hit up some established SF talent for scripts.

204. jas_montreal - September 1, 2013

Thanks for writing this… Its a step in the right direction when the press/media is starting to admit it…

thank you.

205. Fans are Broken... - September 1, 2013

The franchise isn’t broken…the fans are. A bunch of babies stuck in the early 90s when trek was at its peak. That timeline is dead…and gone…forever.

206. Barney Fife - September 1, 2013

@174 VOODOO: Word!

@177 dmduncan: I agree 100%. I’m hoping their current contract with CBS Television will give them an inside track to launch a Star Trek TV series.

207. matt - September 1, 2013

I don’t agree with the article

208. Chingatchkook - September 1, 2013

Good article and I agree on all points. One of the things that I found odd about STID was watching Spock’s “Khaaan” yell. The fellow in the seat ahead of me laughed at this, as did a couple of other people. But the feeling I got from the others around me was that they didn’t know how to react to this. Kirk had apparently just been killed, yet we didn’t know whether to laugh or what? In the original WOK when Spock died, I can remember feeling a lump in my throat. I got no such feeling this time however. The references were forced and gratuitous.
For #3, lets leave the revenge based plots behind, I agree on this. It is time to explore, and be curious about the universe again. Our universe is a big place, let’s check it out.

209. matt - September 1, 2013

what the writers should do with the next star trek movie is a time travel movie to put the time line back to where it was before the 2009 movie. then give it to a new team of writers and directors

210. Captain, USS Northstar - September 1, 2013

I don’t think Star Trek is broken…just a slight sprain perhaps.

I do agree that Star Trek should be on TV — and I think it should be done with this cast in this alternate universe. Then, we can get the original stories we need to fully embrace this new vision.

This new vision hasn’t been allowed to breathe, other than a few gasps of air in two movies. The comics help, but there are no other outlets — books, television, games — that really take advantage of this cast, this new Enterprise, this new timeline.

Give it breathing room!

When faced with a reboot, I was kind of worried at first with what would be presented. I was delighted to see characters I recognized and an Enterprise in a form that was comfortably familiar.

This duality of ownership between CBS and Paramount is a difficulty, however. We have a new vision for Star Trek that is kept in a box — we need to let it out, stretch its legs and see where it can take us.

Settle the contracts, open the door , and let it fly!

211. Hugh Hoyland - September 1, 2013

@177 dmduncan @179 Barney Fife

I third that motion. The untold 5 year mission that will happen between STID and its sequel would work fine for me.

212. RetroWarbird - September 1, 2013

Let AMC produce it, bingo bango.

213. David - September 1, 2013

I didn’t think Into Darkness was that bad, except that they made Cumberbatch Khan and he WASN’T Khan in anyway shape or form, but he was an engaging character well performed. I also liked the Fan twists (even if they were a little over the top. As far as being on TV, I think they need to have one last film that “fixes” the timeline so that the series truly is an origin story that it clearly wants to be. Then get us back to TV with some post DS9 Alpha quadrant exploration with a new ship, crew, or hey how about a colony?

214. Li'l Shat - September 1, 2013

JJ Abrams: Hey, I get to reboot Star Trek. Writers, what do we do?

Writers: Well first off, we need to ditch the constraints of canon. We can do that by setting this Star Trek in an entirely new timeline. We can even do radically unexpected things like, for example, blowing up the planet Vulcan.

JJ Abrams: Sounds cool guys, I trust you. Should we include any actors from the original series, like Shatner or Nimoy?

Writers: Let’s get Nimoy to reprise his role as Spock, but only to give his blessing to these new characters and to give them a proper sendoff.

JJ Abrams: Okay, thanks for the advice. Hey, that worked out great! We made ourselves an awesome movie. What’s next?

Writers: Well first off, we should heed Spock Prime’s advice and move ahead, full thrusters. We have a whole new universe to play in! Let’s do some original stuff like–

Damon Lindelof: Oh hello guys! I was just hired to write the next movie along with you.

Writers: Oh, um. Great. So what do you think of what we’ve done so far? We’ve ditched canon and said goodbye to the originals who played these iconic characters… we were thinking about doing something totally original, a new villain maybe or something else. What do you think?

Damon Lindelof: No, let’s just do Khan again. We can make him white, skinny and British. That’s original.

Writers: Erm–

Damon Lindelof: And we need Spock Prime again. We need more Spock Prime! Are you with me JJ, old pal? Are you with me??

JJ Abrams: Well, um… sorry, I was busy shaking my camera. What?

215. Captain, USS Northstar - September 1, 2013

@ 185 – Li’l Shat — ROFL!

216. dmduncan - September 1, 2013

I’d go for a pilot centering around the TOS crew that ends with the beginning of a five year mission.

Exactly where the series fits into canon will be kept a mystery. There’s an answer to that, but it won’t be revealed until much later on.

217. Ahmed - September 1, 2013

@185. Li’l Shat

LOL, I love it, that was hilarious!

218. Josh Morgan - September 1, 2013

Sorry, I disagree with this assessment of the new franchise. I grew up on TNG, wore a ST uniform for my 4th grade school pictures, and regularly use ST references and metaphors professionally, so I’m not a new or casual fan.

STID is my favorite of the ST films. I actually haven’t been that impressed with WOK, nor did I find the original Khan all that daunting. But it was a different time and place.

STID is the only ST film that I’ve had the urge to watch repeatedly. While people may have issues with casting, character development, or plot holes (and can anyone seriously tell me no episode/script doesn’t have any of that?), the basic part of ST that I love was there: moral and ethical dilemmas. ST 2009 didn’t have those. STID felt FAR more like real ST to me than the 2009 version.

I wonder how much this has to do with the series it’s about. I’ve never been a TOS fan, so I didn’t feel bonded to the way things were done in the past, so I feel much more comfortable with the JJ version. I love the allusions to past plots. I thought it worked very well, both as an homage and to a philosophical perspective of some things having to occur (a la the Doctor Who fixed points principle).

But we also have to remember that movies are simply different than TV. All the ST film plots were different and not terribly deep. They all were more action-oriented than the TV series. Ultimately, the part of this article with which I agree is that ST is best in TV (although that’s not really what the author seemed to argue). The exploration and moral/ethical dilemmas are best suited to the slower pace of TV.

Also, I don’t think the exploration element itself is the true mission of ST. That’s just the context. As many have analyzed over the years, sci-fi and ST in particular has provided a safe context to be able to explore challenging issues we face on a daily basis. The goal of exploration over warfare is related to that (and very explicitly referenced and supported in STID).

We have to remember that ultimately this is all about entertainment and tastes will differ. There is nothing inherently great or awful about anything Star Trek; it is in our experiences of it.

219. 17012 - September 1, 2013

I agree with the entire article that was posted. But I’m afraid it’s not simply a fact that Star Trek is broken. It’s a fact that Hollywood itself is broken. I suggest that we look at the quality of films that were released 30 years ago and compare it to the quality of films released in 2013. It has become profitable to dumb down the scripts and increase the action and sex. Once the public decides that the want good stories on the big screen then we will see more of that because it is profitable. Unfortunately Star Trek has fallen victim to what is profitable in Hollywood. But WE (the public) have to change that.

220. Jeff - September 1, 2013

I think one problem I have with the reboot is a sub conscious, back of the mind, feeling that this isn’t our future. It’s some “other” earth. A parallel version where the traffic lights could use red for go and green for stop (or whatever).

Other than that, I think TV is definitely the medium for character development and interesting original stories where “Earth’s imminent destruction” isn’t the central plot theme.

221. Jonboc - September 1, 2013

#184 “I didn’t think Into Darkness was that bad, except that they made Cumberbatch Khan and he WASN’T Khan in anyway shape or form…”

Oh but he was. In every way and just as much as Kirk with blue eyes, born on a starship, is the same Kirk with green eyes born in Iowa. Or the Pike that lives on with the Talosians, is the same Pike as the one who was killed in Trek Into Darkness. Or, just as Amanda, who died young during Vulcan’s distruction, is the same Amanda who lives to a ripe old age in Trek 4.

Why some fans are going through bottles of Pepto Bismal over Cumberbatch’s being Khan, is beyond me.

222. Merchant of Vulcan - September 1, 2013

As far as the mission statement of the original series is concerned most of these shows began with responding to a distress signal, seeking out the fate of a lost vessel or aiding a colony in distress. This was the platform for exploring stories that were exclusively action/adventure tales. Indeed many of the stories used elements of horror,,,just look at the use of light and shadow in just about every episode. Many were flat out eerie. It was that type of storytelling that lent a sense of deep space exploration to the viewer. Seldom was peaceful space exploration the goal. That was principally invoked in The Next Gen years. The main concern to a return to TV is a battering of heavy handed Social Studies tales.

223. Alt-Spock - September 1, 2013

What a novel idea in present-day Hollywood:

“I really think that what we should do from here, in my personal opinion, is strive to be original.”

My response is: No Sh… Duh!

224. I am to Smurfy - September 1, 2013

I don’t always agree with your articles Joesph, but you were spot on in this one, and I just want to thank you for writing it.

225. Scott Umsteadt - September 1, 2013

I’ve been rewatching Into Darkness on Vudu. It’s a good movie and it does capture the essence of the original series. the character due reflect the originals and each of the actor’s have performances have inflections of the previous actors. All of those saying it’s a bad movie are being stubborn and overly harsh.

But there is one thing that bothers me and has bothered me for a while. It’s not just this movie but it’s been in Trekdom for a few years now. That is, the whole “Genetically Engineered” Augment thing.

According to all of the dialogue in Space Seed, Kahn and his followers ARE NOT “genetically engineered”. They are a product of Eugenics, I.E., selective breeding. It’s the whole superman aryan thing that the nazi’s were expirimenting with in WW II.

I remember Phil Ferrand in his TOS Nitpickers guide made a nit about the age of Kahn in the 1990′s and how he had to have been born in the late 50′s and that DNA/genetic technology wasn’t that advanced or something like that. I shuddered at that.

I thought that any retelling or reuse of the Kahn character would make that clear, espcially since Orci and Kurtzman are fans and all. But once again, this film has Kahn stating that he has been “Genetically Altered” to be “better”. I know it’s a triffle, but it still bothers me.- :)

226. Thomas Vinelli - September 1, 2013

I agree 100% with Voodoo. Its about business ,nothing else. Were talking about cookie cutter Hollywood, thats all they know how to make anymore.
Its a money grab, a quick buck. To think your going to get the Old Star trek with great stories..forget it folks..not happening. Paramount wanted a new big and new Generation of Trek fans and they got it. Its been spelled out .Fanboys ..its over .The Star trek you knew is dead as in dead. You won’t see trek on TV anytime soon if ever and if you do it still won’t be the Trek you knew. Until the wind changes direction and story telling becomes the new rage, Star trek will never be that again. Like i said before with J.J ,Star trek is in name only, its really Starwars wrapped up with a bow.

227. Greg2600 - September 1, 2013

Trek needs to be back on TV, that’s its medium. Get new writers too.

228. petrichor - September 1, 2013

The so-called “normal” people I’ve talked to (i.e. non-Trekkies) who loved the ’09 movie, didn’t even know that there was a sequel coming out this year. My friend who I went to see the movie with for the 2nd time (1st for him) said it was “boring” and “didn’t make much sense” (he isn’t a Trekkie but has a familiarity with Trek).

229. Tom - September 1, 2013

None of these things can happen with JJ Abrams and his merry gang of hacks. The folks who brought us Transformers 1-3 are never – EVER – going to do justice to Star Trek.

230. Jason - September 1, 2013

Everyone seems to think its a great idea to time the next movie with the 50th anniversary, but I think even three years is too long. They need to followup with a sequel every two years like the TOS movies in the 80s.

231. Viking - September 1, 2013

I agree that Trek MUST get back to it’s small-screen roots. But what it’s mutated into is going to take a healthy suspension of CANON to get the ol’ iron horse back on the tracks. It’s like a tie-dyed t-shirt that’s been given one treatment too many. Time to bleach it out and start over, but allow oneself to follow the faint traces of color that came before and are subtly still there. The canvas and palette are well-acquainted with each other. This time, let them paint the landscape organically, with minimal interference from outside influences.

232. pock speared - September 1, 2013

Good god, what vapid whining ingrates. STID was in many ways the perfect Trek, and aimed very much at the complaints those here badgered Orci with for years.
Too fast a promotion? Addressed. Hated engineering? Fixed (you got a fikkin WARP CORE). More Bones? Done. Jeezus, the “fans” were whining that the deleted klingons weren’t “something” enough (they were in fact Roddenberry’s originals), so you got the klingorcs of the berman years.
Cumberbath was deeper, better and better written than Ricardo’s ham, and he grounded the film far better than Nero, which was the constant complaint.

Scenes to swoon by:
The first 8 minutes. Best alien make up in the history of sci-fi, and very new to the eye. AND the make up SERVED the STORY without lumpy foreheads.
Pike and Kirk in the office and bar. Excellent.
Spock and Kirk at Starfleet, for the first and only time, declaring their friendship in real terms.
Mind meld of a dying hero, first time, lovely.
Scotty advising “Jim” to not use the torpedoes, with true friendship.
Kirk deciding not to kill Khan before the crew.
The “metaphors” scene.
Sulu as captain.
Kirk leaving Spock in command before the space jump.
Spock using the torpedoes against Khan.
Spock using the “death” meld against Khan (brilliant – never been done)

Orci should avoid most of you. He listened and tried to answer criticism to met with some tea potty like outrage against him.

The only thing broken are the haters. Trek is alive and well.

233. Ryan Thomas Riddle - September 1, 2013

“Star Trek” is not broken. Lots of assumptions in this article that are, quite frankly, just that … assumptions.

234. Sprout9000 - September 1, 2013

One thing that jumps out at me as blatantly ludicrous in the article, among many disagreements I have with it, is this line:

“The issue many had with STID was that many of the characters were either not the characters we are used to seeing (from the original series).”

Pine, Quinto, Urban are so spot on at playing the characters of Kirk, Spock and Bones that it’s almost freaky. And the interplay between the characters is also spot on. One of the great scenes in Into Darkness is when Kirk and Spock are called to Pike’s office, and Kirk is so juiced about thinking they’re getting the 5-year mission that he’s dancing around Spock and punches him in the arm. Not to mention the scenes of them developing their friendship throughout the movie, especially Kirk’s death scene, where Spock truly learns the meaning of friendship. Kind of akin to after Search for Spock when reborn Spock starts remembering the friendship they had.

Is there enough of it? No, but this isn’t the day of Gene Rodenberry trying to get script pages out on time and filling a 50-minute episode with dialog to make up for the lack of funding/CGI to do the really cool mission stuff. I’ve been watching my TOS blu rays and realizing how mediocre/forgettable some of the episodes were and how much time was just filler – an Orion dancing for 5 minutes while everyone sits around tables watching? Seriously?

I’m so grateful that they guys have revived Star Trek from the depths with so many little fan-boy nods. I loved the shot of the Enterprise rising out of the water as the Nibiru looked on – just the scale of the ship as it rose above the cliff they stood on- and watching the Enterprise fly up to the volcano, then speed away. Those were shots you’d expect to see on TOS, as were the many camera angle nods to the past (camera looking down from Spock’s POV at Kirk sitting in his chair.

I can totally buy into ST09 and STID being the crew before we got to know them in TOS and can’t wait for the next movie.

235. sean - September 1, 2013

#194

The problem is with the original episode. You don’t get a superior human with 5x the strength by selective breeding. TWOK corrected this by making him a product of genetic engineering, which made far more sense.

236. Li'l Shat - September 1, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness is so awesome. There are so many awesome moments. Like the part where Kirk disables Khan’s attack ship by throwing a fire hose out the window at it, but Khan escapes by beaming–get this–all the way to the Klingon home world!

You haters just have to hate–by which I mean you disagree with me and criticize this lazily written, supremely stupid movie.

It was awesome! Really! I’m going to buy all the blu rays just to prove it!

My dog even liked it, and I don’t even have a dog.

237. Viking - September 1, 2013

@ #203: My dog peed on the DVD case and asked for ST:V.

He is a canine of good taste.

238. Li'l Shat - September 1, 2013

Although I agree with most of this article, one point with which I disagree is the idea that we need to break from the Enterprise and the original characters. I think the originals are just fine, and I truly love what these new, young talents have done with them.

What Star Trek needs now is for these characters to go off in a totally new direction and encounter things that are fresh. No Klingons, no Romulans, no Gorn or Andorians or Borg, etc. Space is vast beyond our comprehension, let’s explore some of what hasn’t been seen!

The first movie in 2009 gave a promising start–it was very new and fresh and its homages were limited and very controlled–but the sequel is clearly a cowardly retreat into canon. Let’s explore strange, new worlds!

239. Bucky - September 1, 2013

Trek is a TV show at heart. Movies are fun and all but when I hear Paramount is pushing for the 50th anniversary of Trek to have a movie, I think that’s backwards. The 50th anniversary of the Trek TV series needs to be brining Star Trek back to a TV series.

240. BatlethInTheGroin - September 1, 2013

#43 wrote: “The only people who seem to be upset with the movie are the same people who were upset about the last Trek movie:”

Wow. You’re completely out of touch, as that’s not true at all.

241. CaptainKirok - September 1, 2013

I think the next Star Trek TV series should be one of these two things, (although I can’t decide which):
1. Do a BSG-style reboot. Scrap all canon and feel free to redo all of it. Rewind to a point where they are actually exploring, and mapping new unknown worlds.
or…
2. Now that Captain Kirk is alive in this new timeline, and Kirk’s death at the hands or Soran is likely erased, fast forward 50 or so years and have William Shatner play old Kirk once again. He shouldn’t be running around fist-fighting anyone, though. He should act his age. He could be an admiral or something. He could even advise a young Picard. That, I think, would be cool to see.

242. Mitchell - September 1, 2013

DS9 and Voyager severely cracked Star Trek. Nemesis and Enterprise broke it.
The even bigger problem however is that now the more than just “broken” Star Trek is going forward in the hands of the people who finally shattered it.

243. Spock Jr. - September 2, 2013

We all complained that Kirk didn’t earn the chair in Star Trek 2009, so Into Darkness was a response to that, throwing an inexperienced Kirk up against his ultimate nemesis. It’s genius. Now if I could only contact Bob with my ideas for the next instalment…

244. Richard Brent - September 2, 2013

I gave JJ the benefit of the doubt in Star Trek 2009, given that despite the movie’s flaws (e.g., the horrifyingly brewery-like engine room and the terribly re-”engineered” design of the Enterprise that has it looking more like a toy than an actual ship!), yet it did somewhat of a good job recreating the foundations for a decent reboot.

And then came “Into Darkness”… which is exactly where the reboot went: right down the drain.

Instead of expanding on the depth of the characters, we end up with shallow, one-dimensional caricatures of who these people are (i.e., Kirk is all about conquering women, Spock is all about either stoic non-emotion or over-the-top PMS emotions, and McCoy is simply reduced to spouting comical one-liners) and with a story so convoluted the best they could do to resolve it was to steal from Star Trek II, even including some of the same identical lines!!!

This movie ruined the reboot for me in every way. This is what happens when you turn Star Trek over to a man who admits he doesn’t know Star Trek and wasn’t a fan of the series. He has no CLUE what the true magic is of such a deep and intellectually stimulating series… and cannot write a proper Star Trek story to save his life. The man is the Jerry Bruckheimer of this decade and can only provide movies with lots of neat explosions, special effects… and plots requiring only a sixth grade education, at best!

245. Colin - September 2, 2013

The latest film is the product of focus groups. Those groups wanted more action and less Trek. This is what we got. What did Paramount got? A beachhead in the international market.

246. ironhyde - September 2, 2013

Caritcatures? Yes. Why is Chekov even in these movies? The most they’ve done to develop him is make his V’s sound like W’s. It’s embarassing. He was the everyman in TOS, the guy that gets hurt, the young one that you relate to as a youngster watching and feel the agony and the sadness when he is struck. Now he’s just a sloppy-accented kid with absolutely nothing to offer. Who, frankly, feels like a robot. Carol Marcus was embarrassing :( Spock totally needs to get his beast mode in check. Kirk needs to shut his mouth and stop acting like a freaking kid. He is SO irritating, OMG ! And don’t get me started on the cardboard that was khan. Me calling myself Khan makes me just about as much of Khan as Cumberbatch was :P

Characters needed big-time.

247. dswynne - September 2, 2013

@154 (Ahmed): Good, then stop asking silly questions that you SHOULD already know the answer to. And if you don’t want to rewatch the film, Memory Alpha Wikia is a good source for info. I know that you don’t like STiD, but I expect better from you.

248. Phil Edgley - September 2, 2013

The main problem with Star Trek Into Darkness was that the story plot made it more a James Bond movie than a Star Trek movie. If john Harrison had been say a top Federation spy on a secret mission who needed fast transportation to a war-torn area of the galaxy thus needing the Enterprise to get him there might have made a more interesting film. But I still liked the movie because it wasn’t boring. Maybe because it was the loudest Star Trek movie ever made. And after 12 movies, five TV series, and over 700 episodes we don’t need more of the same plots and characters usually associated with science fiction. Truthfully I think the main reason fans don’t like the new movie is because it used Khan even after years of fans warning the producers not to do it. Obviously Abrams intends on reinterpreting several old Star Trek villains so Romulan Commander anyone?

249. USSEXETER - September 2, 2013

I think it’s safe to say that a lot of people liked the rebooted franchise of Battlestar Gallactica, & Star Trek should look to BSG as a model for rebooting the franchise. Even if they went the HBO route with just 12 episodes a season that would be really good.

I tend to agree with 232 “pock speared” that STID was a good movie and everything his post stated. It was an entertaining two hours and a lot of the criticism from ’09′s movie were addressed and fixed. I fail to see how a film that made a half a billion dollars is a failure.

250. C Zenko - September 2, 2013

Great article. In a business sense, ST ITD made money. Not as much as Paramount would have liked, but it made money. That is really the only thing the movie companies care about. It has to make crazy profits, or it’s not worth it. Our opinion only matters if paramount is going to make a lot of cash. My own opinion, I can still watch the old Star Trek from 1966. I can still watch the TNG series. Sure the special fx are pretty dated, but most of us watched because the characters were interesting. Just the fact that we are always talking about The Wrath of Khan, proves the movie has held up since 1982. How much money has that film made Paramount since 1982? Do you think ST ITD will last the same amount of time as TWOK? I can’t say. For me, when 2009 Trek came out, at first I liked it. The more I watched it, the less I liked it, I missed the characters I grew up with. It just seemed like it was all about the special fx (much like Star Wars Ep 1 – 3) instead of a story that made you think. Star Trek into darkness had some parts I really did like, but when it turned into The Wrath of Khan that really just seemed like the writer was telling us he watched The Wrath of Khan. For anyone who had not seen The Wrath of Khan, they likely enjoyed the movie. I don’t think Star Trek could be saved, and I don’t think it should be. I think it is time for something new. We can all hang onto the Star Trek that we love best, each of us enjoys it differently, and that is fine. New or old, I just want good writing that makes me think, and challenges us. Babylon 5, Stargate SG1, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, we all have different opinions on which ones we like, let us have something that will endure.

251. VulcanFilmCritic - September 2, 2013

Star Trek isn’t broken. It’s brain dead and in a coma!
Thanks for speaking the truth, Joseph.
Watching STID was simply painful. So painful could not even bring myself to review it. And I couldn’t figure out why until I saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W_8FXao3CQ

The attitude that these people have towards this property is just plain insulting. I guess it’s just a paycheck to them, nothing more.

But in science fiction even a warm corpse can be rejuvenated. Here’s what needs to be done:

1. Stop insulting the intelligence of the audience.

2. Put science fiction back into Star Trek.

3. Hire a director who will not shoot until he has a decent script. Hopefully one who can do the rewrite himself. (Paging Dr. Meyer! or someone like him.)

4. Hire writers who know how to write a good script. One that has not only premises for blowing-stuff-up-real-good, but a sense of wonder. That’s what the best science fiction is supposed to be about, right?

5. Keep the actors. They are fine and quite capable of sooooo much more. Maybe brainstorm with them about who their characters are and how they can develop. Let them stretch. No, make them stretch.

6. Get real and think things through. Don’t people in combat ever get bruises and lacerations. Don’t they ever sweat?Don’t they cry? What are the consequences of a real explosion in a closed space? Immediate silence and then painful ringing in the ears. Some film makers actually allow the audience to experience these things. In STID our heroes jump off cliffs, shoot through water, and experience terrible traumas, all without even a scratch. How dull! How cartoonish!

7. Less dependence on special effect. Special effects don’t tell stories. People do.

252. Phil123 - September 2, 2013

ID wasn’t necessarily the worst, but I agree with everything written here.

253. El Chup - September 2, 2013

Thank you soooooooooo much for this article. I have been saying this ever since 2009. Star Trek is about the human experience and the majesty of discovery, STiD was a lazy knockoff of previous lore and movies. It misses the whole point of what made the franchise stand out in the first place.

Bravo for this article. I am very pleased that you had the balls to post this.

254. Elias Javalis - September 2, 2013

I d rather not take sides, lets see how the “Star Trek” case will unfold.

255. tl - September 2, 2013

Great article. Thanks for writing it. I agree 100%. I would love that the current handlers are released, and your ideas implemented. I don’t have hope of that, however.

256. Merchant of Vulcan - September 2, 2013

@#232 pock speared

Well stated! And a sensational article on a 3 day weekend brings ‘em out!

257. rfk - September 2, 2013

Given the ratio of thoughtful responses vs. fanboy outrage, I’d say this piece hit the mark. Well done.

258. Spock's Bangs - September 2, 2013

It’s so hilarious that anyone can even say “Trek is broken” with a straight face! Trek Into Darkness, along with Trek ’09 is the best, truest Star Trek since Star Trek 6. Not to mention the most successful Trek ever. Snore Trek died on the vine years ago with Nemesis and Enterprise. It’s great to see real Star Trek back and taking no prisoners! The DVD sales next week are going to be through the roof! Sorry haters, the doomsday scenario you’re painting cant, and doesn’t, exist just because you want it to.

259. Exverlobter - September 2, 2013

Here is an interesting video that deals also about that issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71uyJIsAq1E

260. Trek Lady - September 2, 2013

Basically, it comes down to a matter of personal opinion and taste. Some people thought STID was the bees’ knees. Others thought it was the worst thing since STDs. I personally thought it was little more than an action-packed afternoon’s distraction that left more of a bitter taste than a sweet one. The cinematography and special effects were spectacular. The story had potential. But at best, I consider it a good Trek film, when it should have been (and easily could have been) great.

Still – a matter of opinion, I readily admit.

However, I do know this. I am *into* fandom. I live and breathe fandom and have for years. I was around when they sold some Trek zines in paper wrappers, so you would not see the racy artwork. The fans who write fanfic, create fanvids, dress up in costume, build models of the ships, attend Trek conventions, get married in Trek uniforms, THOSE are the fans who have kept this franchise alive. And THOSE are the fans who overall, do not seem overly inspired by STID. Following Trek 2009, the internet exploded with new, creative works by fans inspired by the new universe and crew. For months, there were fanvids, fan art, fanfic, discussions, party posts, and pictures of the actors popping up on fans sites everywhere. THAT is what a healthy fandom looks like. THAT is what keeps a fandom alive.

This time? For the most part, it has been crickets. There just is not the interest there was for Trek 2009. I would say the creative outpouring is about 10% what it was for the previous film, and that does not bode well for Trek. Like the canary in the coal mine, it is a sign that the diehard fans who lurk in the shadows and keep the fires burning and just not really *into* STID.

Yes, it will make a great action film for some to buy and watch for the pure adrenaline rush, but from what I have seen, it does not inspire the passion that keeps Trek alive behind the scenes. Yes, the film made a lot of money, mostly in the overseas market, where action and simplistic characterization thrive because they translate well to other languages and cultures – where the big, loud, bombastic action flick is king. But is that what we really want from Star Trek? Maybe that is where we are headed, but while the films may make a lot of money upon release, I think the powers that be may be surprised that overall, they are losing the interest of the most loyal fans that keep a fandom alive. I feel they are taking Trek’s popularity for granted. They pulled in a whole new generation of fans with Trek 2009, but they lost a lot of those fans when STID did not deliver what they were looking for. Those fans are into The Avengers, and Doctor Who, and Japanese anime, and Sherlock Holmes, and Game of Thrones. The competition for fan interest is fiercer these days. There are many more distractions and fandoms out there that did not exist in the past. Paramount needs to wake up and realize that the popularity of Trek has never *just* been about the shows and the films, but about the fan communities themselves. If they lose that, they lose a lot of what has helped Trek endure for over 50 years.

261. Trekbilly - September 2, 2013

No matter what fans say about Into Darkness, it will never ever ever ever ever ever ever be as awful as Star Trek V, Insurrection, or Nemesis.

No way, no how.

Those are the yardsticks by which I measure bad Trek.

Klingon zits, anyone? Kirk fighting with a pussy? “What does God need with a starship?” Row row row your boat?

Nuff said?

262. Capt. Crash - September 2, 2013

I have to agree with the article here…. break out of the mold of rehashing old material…ST09 worked to re-established Trek, it bridged old, new, time-travel, and created an alternate time line…GREAT!

ST13, had a great premise and reused the ultimate villain as a central plot…problem with ST13, was the fact that Kirk was stripped so quickly of his command and gained it back within 10-15 of the film…hell, the writers could have just reprimanded him and gave his next mission a crap one monitoring a star cluster or something boring as hell, or had Pike come aboard and monitor operations on Kirk’s crew and command.

Going forward for ST15…the wrtiers and director need to be very careful on what story they are going to craft here. I am sure that using the Kligons and developing that ultimate tension can be a nice subplot…especially in developing a true story of how the Klingons truly cannot stand Kirk and the Enterprise…but we don’t need a 2-hour war to encompass the entire story.

We don’t need the Romulans back for ST15…its been done for ST09. However, we could have a tie-in crisis with new Vulcan, energy or surplus of sometype of resource that has been discovered that interests the Klingons, Andorians, etc. No time-travel either….and really we don’t need to have Prime Spock appear either…or any of the original Prime Cast/Crew.

It is time for this crew of this time-line to establish themselves and let them carry the torch solo.
The Enterprise and the crew need to be out in space exploring the systems, encounter a mystery, a puzzle or clue that create a sense of danger…and solving it is not an easy task…then throw in some road blocks that threaten the “trek”, like the Klingons, the Andorians or villan that was never explored in the OS.

AND…don’t bring in the Borg for god sake, as much as I think the Borg are an interesting threat in the ST universe…the Borg is STNG – leave it be! Don’t even consider coming across the origins of an initial Borg race story line…just leave alone.

FINALLY……what I would like to see, is more Federation starships, interactions within the story line…cameos of different crews of other Federation starships…rather than a quick glimsp of different ships in the lower left and right of the screen (i.e. ST09). We saw this nicey in the OS Movies, like the USS Excelsior, USS Reliant, USS Grissom, etc.

263. PSB2009 - September 2, 2013

In my opinion, the best Star Trek involved very personal takes on the characters or a morality play on the human condition. The five year mission and alien encounters were thin veils for these closer-to-home explorations. STID isn’t perfect, but it also was a very personal story of friendship, and a very telling story of a government that has lost it’s way, something very similar that started in the US with a certain 2000 election. The end of the movie pointed towards hope- hope that very different personalities can find a common ground and even become close friends, and hope that we can stretch beyond our own limitations and once again reach for the stars. I think STID will stand as one of the better treks.

264. Nony - September 2, 2013

Okay, I’m going to look at the reaction to STID from a particular point of fannish view, so bear with me.

Star Trek as a money-making mechanism is clearly not broken (it succeeded well enough as a summer blockbuster with all the standard blockbuster elements, though that success was not necessarily tied to the Star Trek name, especially overseas). Star Trek as a film entity which can garner positive reviews for how good it looks, how good the acting is, and how fast-paced it is, is not broken either (even if the reviews which look good when aggregated as a score are often decidedly mixed or have one or two large reservations when you read them), and the studios must be happy about that.

I’m not sure, however, that one can look at the ticket sales and Rotten Tomatoes and say, based on that, that a Star Trek movie is a success on every level and haters are just bitter and should go back to their basements with their VHS tapes and J.J. Abrams dartboards. Trek goes deeper than that. It got three seasons and sequels because of fans making noise, it stayed alive for decades because of fans loving and creating, and fan reaction is a crucial and legitimate barometer by which a Trek production needs to be judged. And it’s clear from many personal reactions we’ve been seeing — not just of original ’60s purists, but of reboot fans and TOS fans and all fans alike, and even of people who saw the ’09 movie and remember liking it and didn’t like this one as much; I’ve seen that opinion quite frequently as well — that *something*, something even the ’09 movie had, which is maybe the same something TOS had, is missing from STID. There are always people who are happy, and people who are unhappy. The ’09 film was controversial, as new things always are, yet fans were a lot happier with it in general than they are with STID. The question is why. Though I am part of that unhappy group, I will not attempt to answer that.

Now, not as a mainstream viewer or even as a mainstream Trekkie (if there is such a thing), but as an active participant in the creative sectors of fandom (fanfiction, fanart, meta, roleplaying, and so on), I would say I’m definitely feeling the reverberations of a certain something broken, as Joseph would say. I see people, for whom Trek serves as a creative and emotional outlet in their lives, who eagerly counted down the minutes until the new movie and who are now feeling let down and disappointed for many reasons. The state of Trek may not be as dire as this editorial suggests — or they may; I don’t know — but what I’m seeing is among the (largely female and often fairly youngish, if it makes any difference) population of the areas of fandom I frequent, something about STID is not satisfying, and is in some cases even angering, a lot of people. The levels of enthusiasm and productivity and influx of new fans into Trekkie-dom brought about by the ’09 film just don’t seem to be there. Four years ago it was one of the most vibrant and productive fandoms I’ve ever been a part of, yet more canon has not really led to more love.

This isn’t a problem yet, as there are enough people still to fill in the popularity gaps and throw money for the sake of their favourite actors, but as we’ve seen happen before, it could grow and become a problem in the future. Discontented fans are nothing new, but if there is a noticeable lessening of faith, respect, and enthusiasm in the core loyal fandom with regards to a new product, that would seem to signal a problem with the product, or at the very least, its marketing.

265. Nony - September 2, 2013

@259 Exactly, Trek Lady. That’s just what I’m feeling.

266. Mad Mann - September 2, 2013

Yes, Star Trek needs to be on TV.

I think we should just take the pain that is JJ Trek for another sequel in 2016. “No pain, no gain!”

Afterward, I strongly believe the Powers That Be will allow another Trek show to be on TV, run by non-Bad Robot or non-KO Paper Products entity. So, if we can hold out another 4 years or so, and deal with the crud of another JJ Trek, we will finally have Star Trek on the small screen again.

I just hope it’s of the TNG/DS9 caliber of story telling….

267. pock speared - September 2, 2013

@251
“6. Get real and think things through. Don’t people in combat ever get bruises and lacerations. Don’t they ever sweat?Don’t they cry? What are the consequences of a real explosion in a closed space? Immediate silence and then painful ringing in the ears. Some film makers actually allow the audience to experience these things. In STID our heroes jump off cliffs, shoot through water, and experience terrible traumas, all without even a scratch. How dull! How cartoonish!”

I was going to link the dozens of shots of Kirk and Pock and the many, many cuts bruises and lacerations, the sweating and the breathlessness that they suffered in STID here, but why bother. Maybe you should see the film instead.

268. pock speared - September 2, 2013

@251
oh, and Kirk openly sobs during Pikes death, and Spock cries openly during Kirks’s death. Are you sure you weren’t watching G.I. Joe?

269. pock speared - September 2, 2013

@260
boom, yer right.
lest we forget Generations, where the part of William T. Shatner is played by some woodchucking horse fanatic we never met before, and we save a entire planet of people we don’t even see.

oh, how the true fans miss those halcyon days Insurrection and Nemesis, when Ernest Hemmingway was writing the scripts and Stanley Kubrick was directing “real sci-fi”.

270. Planet Pandro - September 2, 2013

I’ll admit I haven’t read every single comment so if I repeat someone else’s ideas I apologize.
As long as the next movie fulfills the promise of the last 2 minutes of “into darkness” I think we could consider it an overall story arc. The first act got the gang together, the 2nd act pitted them against a great adversary and the crew learned from the experience and “grew up”, act 3 should show them matured and “boldly going where no man/one has gone before”
Kirk made that speech at the end of “into darkness” and I really think to put these other two ‘Bad Robot’ Trek movies into perspective they really need to cash in on that speech, on those ideals. If they do that, I think it would present the previous two movies in a context we’re just not seeing now.
And I enjoyed both films but I also admit not being as…excited as I was in ’09. I must have seen ST 5 times in the theater, but with ST:ID we went twice and I didn’t feel a real pull to go back. High hopes for the next one.

And agreed that TV is “where it’s at” in terms of writing and provocative, thoughtful storytelling. Very much hoping for Trek’s eventual return to its true home.

271. Trekbilly - September 2, 2013

#267 — AMEN!! Thanks for that very worthwhile addendum! LOL!

The horse fanatic comment made me laugh! LOL!!

272. Bill Lutz - September 2, 2013

Star Trek isn’t broken
It’s just mismanaged by Hollywood and idiot business men who see ut as nothing more than a Star Wars wannabe and its fans who are both the best and the worst of things for Star Trek. Star Trek needs better creative control and focus in on the stories of humanity. This whole bam wow zowie generation could satnd to learn something about themselves as well as the conglomerate morons at Paramount who have singlehandedly mismanaged Trek since its inception.
What is really broken is Paramount and the fans.

273. Trek Tech - September 2, 2013

For those of you claiming its ‘the fans fault’ and its only a ‘vocal MINORITY’ Id say its you who are at fault and you who are the minority. Neither of these films were good Trek. Whats broken is is those ‘fans’ with low standards who promote this sort of Michael Bay form before substance, shaky cam lens flare poorly written drivel. If the writing on these movies meets your expectations then you are merely part of the easily hypnotized masses that ooh and ahh over pretty effects. The author nailed this on the head. This si the ONLY board Ive been on where in ‘fans’ thought these movies were good Trek and the claim that the polls were ‘lead’ is ludicrous. At best these movies are entertaining ‘fluff;, cotton candy that looks good but when you bite it theres no substance. JJ is welcome to Star Wars, I think thats more of his forte. Trek belongs on TV.

274. VOODOO - September 2, 2013

I simply cannot believe the negativity here.

Star Trek is alive and well in the eyes of the mainstream audience (Abrams has delivered two top ten box office hits) for the first time since the Shatner/Nimoy films and the height of TNG, yet the hardcore dorks on this site are longing for the days of ST being irrelevant with films like “Inserection” and less than mediocre programs like “Voyager” and “Enterprise” that nobody outside of people who live in their parents basement cared about….The bitching never ends…I just don’t get it.

Fact of the matter is ST had become an irrelevant dinosaur that only a small (Enterprise struggled to get a million people to watch for free on tv) group of hardcore fans cared about…The days of the ST telling small stories to a select audience who would love to see films about Quark and Nelix (characters the movie going public has no idea wo they are) are over and never coming back and ST is much better off it.

Star Trek fans should be doing hosannas to Abrams and Co. For making this once dead dinosaur relevant again.

BOTTOM LINE IS THAT STAR TREK WAS BROKEN AND IS NOW FIXED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES….We should all be giving Abrams, Orci and the rest our gratitude rather than attempting to fix something that is no longer broken. #ungreatful nerds.

See post #200 for my full thoughts.

275. VAD_BAXTER - September 2, 2013

If anyone (including the author of this article) here thinks Star Trek is broken then they are a fool.

I am EXTREMELY happy to have missed this years Vega con. I do know for a FACT the poll was purposely aimed at the fans 30+ of age.

Paramount has always expected TREK movies to make at least double what most realized possible. That’s why they wanted to give JJ anything he asked for.

CBS wants what their narrow minded vision has to offer which is 90% and the rest all other TREK. You can tell by how much merchandise they offer.

It’s not STID & JJ broke Star Trek.

It was CBS. Remember they were the ones that FORCED Berman to produce Enterprise when every member of Berman’s staff said it’s not a good idea to keep pushing shows out back to back to back to back.

And lastly as far as how good a movie is well box office tells all like it or not when everything else has been proved good or bad.

We probably won’t get a TV show until after 2020 knowing CBS.

276. BatlethInTheGroin - September 2, 2013

“Pine, Quinto, Urban are so spot on at playing the characters of Kirk, Spock and Bones that it’s almost freaky.”

Pine was great, yes–but he played Kirk VERY differently than Shatner did. To say he was so spot-on that it was freaky is absurd.

277. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 2, 2013

156. James

James this site, the one You post on, has a link at the top of this page Fan Reviews of STiD.

I counted them up and the reviews were about 45% postive and 55%negative.

I gave a pass to the reviews that said it was OK, or it had some problems as a good review, too. Go ahead and count them up.

I agree, an actual Poll at the top of this article would be perfect.

278. Robert - September 2, 2013

And they still get it wrong.

STID is about where Kirk now having to earn his command when he got it in the last movie.

Probably the best Star Treks actually looked into the past such as Wrath of Khan and First Contact.

They did do something different where the main villain not only did not die, but was as much of the victim to that of another villain.

Last time Kirk’s punishment, being demoted to captain, was also a reward, giving him command of a starship. This time he was demoted because he broke the Prime Directive and got his command back for the purpose of being the fall guy to start a war. The pawn Khan spoke of.

The reason why this is rated the worst even though rated second highest at almost every movie site, this movie requires more 3D thinking than what most other Star Treks have. It’s far from Christopher Nolan levels, but it’s infinitely further than Michael Bay. Like 1 step from Nolan, 1000 steps from Bay.

It’s an intricate plot that requires following the movie without clogging your brain with the tired formula that has been used over and over again.

279. Scott - September 2, 2013

What on earth is wrong with people? A film makes 200mil+ and you call it a disappointment. Good lord. Hollywood is simply filled with greedy animals who can never be satisfied with enough money. In that sense, no, Star Trek is not broken.

Now, if you’re talking about something lacking in the focus on what made Star Trek into Star Trek, focus on the human condition while exploring strange new worlds, then yes perhaps there needs to be some refocusing, but no it has not been a total abysmal failure.

280. Curious Cadet - September 2, 2013

@102. Ahmed
“@ 84. Flake – September 1, 2013
“Blu-Ray and DVD is the top seller and will sell many millions”
Not going to happen with the way they are handling the Blu ray now”

Sorry to disagree, but I think you couldn’t be more wrong about this.

The only people who care about the extras are the fans. The vast majority of the people who will buy the BluRay could give a rat’s-behind about extras. They are buying it because they liked the movie, and more specifically want an amazing showcase movie for their home theater system, which STID delivers in spades.

Abrams knows this. So he’s going to milk a little more out of the home video purchases from those who are really interested in those extras. It’s another middle-finger to the hypocritical fans, who will predictably complain about it, mount their soapbox and pathetically attempt to incite a boycott, but most of who at the end of the day will break-down and buy it too — just like all those fans who said they would never see STID, but you know they did.

This movie will do as well as, if not better than ST09.

281. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

#271. “For those of you claiming its ‘the fans fault’ and its only a ‘vocal MINORITY’ Id say its you who are at fault and you who are the minority.”

And you would be wrong.

282. Tony Siniscalco - September 2, 2013

$457 Billion dollars does not make it a good Star Trek Movie. – It make it a good action movie. – There was more Star Wars and Less Star Trek in the JJ Abramverse movies. – Does that make them bad sci-fi action movies – No. – Does it make them great Star Trek Movies – No.

Star Trek needs to be on TV. – It does not need a reboot – it needs to move forward.

283. The Keeper - September 2, 2013

@ 278. Curious Cadet -

LOL
Thats so true! I may not have enjoyed STID as much as the 2009 film, but yeah I will naturally purchase it for my collection.

And at the end of the day with all our whining bitching and complaining, the final nubers in sales is what speaks loudest to the studio…just as it has done with all incarnations of Star Trek over the years.

284. Optimistic Doodle - September 2, 2013

Cumberbatch Cast In Star Wars Episode VII

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/09/02/rumour-benedict-cumberbatch-cast-in-star-wars-episode-vii-official-announcement-imminent/

285. Mick - September 2, 2013

I agree will all of it.

I will say this. I think it’s interesting (with revisiting it on the new Blu-rays) how well Enterprise holds up. Especially compared to the new films.

Star Trek needs to be well done with top talent, but back on TV.

286. Mick - September 2, 2013

Although that Enterprise Theme was unforgivable. lol

287. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

@ 281. Optimistic Doodle – September 2, 2013

“Cumberbatch Cast In Star Wars Episode VII”

Best comment that I read about this rumor so far on Collider:

Obi Wan KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANobi.

288. Elias Javalis - September 2, 2013

@281

A reason more to remind people NOT to compare Wars to Trek.! Its Hollywood, its business, the one Studio helps the other..!

Fighting over this, its just…Futile. He!

I wish best to Mr Cumberbatch, After all his Star Trek Role is on Ice – Literally!!

289. captain_neill - September 2, 2013

The writers have wrote themselves into a wall, Now there is technically no reason to have starships or fear dying. The Trans warp beaming makes travel in ships unnecessary and if you die, just get some of the Khan’s superblood to cure you.

Into Darkness is a decent summer blockbuster movie but it is not the Star Trek I grew up loving, some nice nods to that Star Trek but I agree Trek needs to get back to exploring and telling unique stories.

There is a rich universe to draw from, take inspiration from Trek’s best and write something great. We do need to get away from The Wrath of Khan well. You can’t top it so don’t try any more.

290. captain_neill - September 2, 2013

Hollywood is a business, films are assembled rather than being art now. Its a shame but in my eyes a good script and summer blockbuster don’t mix. Story is lost in spectacle.

291. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 2, 2013

Look. Ditch the movies. They all pretty much suck.

It’s time for the Enterprise to go back to TV to start its 5 year mission.

I certainly will not bee seeing another Bad Robot malfunction on the silver screen.

292. lecolonel - September 2, 2013

In defense of STID and the use of Khan, to expect the producers to reboot the series and not have them encounter its most famous, and dangerous single villain, would be like rebooting Batman and saying that you’re not going to have him face the Joker at some point. Like Spock Prime, we know just how dangerous and relentless Khan can be, while Kirk & crew are left to find this out for themselves as the story develops. This was part of the fun for me.

At the beginning of the article, ST: The Wrath of Khan was chosen by the panel as the best Star Trek film. I believe this is the general feeling of most Trek fans; but I wonder how we all felt back in 1982, when it was announced that the new Trek film would be using one of the villains from an episode of the series. We all probably started with these same set of complaints – why not do something new? – why dredge up something from the TV series? Yet, it went on to be the best Trek film to date. So, who am I to criticize the producers for their choices. In their shoes, I might have done the same thing myself.

293. Weerd1 - September 2, 2013

Wow. It’s 1979 all over again. There’s no way this Trek thing can last.

294. rfk - September 2, 2013

Best comment that I read on this site, ever:

“Best comment that I read about this rumor so far on Collider:

Obi Wan KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANobi.”

Plenty of substance in the Star Wars franchise for JJ to rip off. (Funny, we’ve not heard much from Disney lately…)

295. ME!! - September 2, 2013

Amazingly spot-on. I agree 100% with all points. Trek needs to be on TV and sci-fi writers NEED to be brought it. Return the franchise to its roots rather than having the same two or three writers attempting to tackle a different story each time.

A new ship? I’m all for it so long as the concept remains the same, the formula that WORKED is there (and I’m not referring to the “Berman Effect” of later series’) and that there are CHARACTERS, not caricatures. Trek needs bold, adventurous writing instead of the villain of the week & the safe (i.e. lazy) writing of Voyager & Enterprise.

296. Weerd1 - September 2, 2013

@278 Robert- Huzzah! This is also the first time we ACTUALLY SEE Kirk have to deal with the no-win scenario. He doesn’t deal with it in TWoK, Spock does; Kirk sits on the bridge in TWoK waiting for a miracle while Spock takes action and actually saves the damn day. Here, finally, we see Kirk step up, take responsibility, and die to save his ship and crew.

Then, they turn around and save him. Anyone think this is how THIS Kirk knows that when he dies he will die alone? So long as he is around these people they would storm the gates of Heaven or Hell to save him; and he’d do the same for them.

Glancing over the comments, I see another trend, but maybe I am mistaking. Are people mad that JJ lied about the villain being Khan? Really? You’re mad that a director hoped to maintain a little ambiguity spoiler-wise before audiences saw his film? Jesus, Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett went so far as to create and film the Kobayashi Maru sequence in TWoK to cover up the leak that Spock was going to die. JJ doesn’t owe you anything other than an entertaining film, and if you lok at STID objectively you will see you got exactly that.

297. Jai - September 2, 2013

So much angst over STID and Khan. But…there’s a secret STID deleted scene. In fact it’s so secret, even Bob Orci doesn’t know about it. And he wrote the damn movie. Yes, that’s how secret it is. And it explains everything. (Somebody may not be entirely telling the truth here. Maybe me).

Enterprise brig:

Kirk: Who are you?!
Harrison: My name…IS KHAN…
McCoy: Oh my God.
Harrison: …Noonien
Scotty: May our children forgive us.
Harrison: …Smith.
Kirk: KHAAAA–what?
Harrison: Khan Noonien Smith. From England. Pleased to meet you.
Kirk: Not the legendary ruler of a quarter of the Earth?
Harrison: No, I’m a tax accountant.
Kirk: Not the historical genetically-engineered tyrant?
Harrison: Nope.
Kirk: Not even a little bit?
Harrison: No.
Kirk: Are you sure?
Harrison: Quite sure.
Kirk: Hmm. Well, you can appreciate why there’d be some confusion.
Harrison: We don’t all look alike, you know.
Kirk: Sikhs?
Harrison: Accountants.
Kirk: No shit, Sherlock.

298. ted antonopoulos - September 2, 2013

the article is right on. having already seen Enterprise, one wonders why the bad robot guys thought that making another prequel would work. Actually, I am shocked at the lack of courage shown by these guys. Rather than making up a whole new crew, with a new story, set in the further future (say 100 years from TNG), they opted to re-tell the origins and other original stories.

This is an utterly ridiculous approach that comes from two thirds of the bad robot team that has admitted to not being start trek fans. And don’t ask me to explain their complete love in for Spock, and hate for Kirk. There is no reason to include Spock prime in both movies and not Kirk prime in either. With an alternate universe to play with, and the magic of writing at their disposal, their excuse of Kirk being dead was equally absurd. It was as if the BD guys had a hate on for Shatner, and not just the character. Curious to say the least.

the truth is that both movies look great. They include the best special effects and imagery of any ST film. To this extent, they have made ST modern and wonderful to look at. but is that enough? No way. Trek has such a rich mythology and history of the future, that one would think a professional script writer would be salivating at the opportunity to write some original adventures based in this universe. but not these guys. These guys wanted to re-write that rich history, because they thought they could do it better. Bulls***.

Now, the actors do a valiant job at nailing the original characters. But even with a new story based on these alternate egos, how can one avoid the sarcastic laughter from audiences when Bones once again will inevitably say, “I’m a doctor, not a …..”. JJ and the boys need to recognize that their little experiment, while at first, kind of cute and cuddly, has now gone too far in trying to satisfy the arrogance of the writers, that is, that they can tell the original stories better. How absurd. This has turned into a massive failure that has been panned and ridiculed by most ST fans and critics. In the movie theatre where I say STID, the audience actually broke out in laughter when Cumberbatch introduced himself as “Khan”.

Get back to the basics boys, and use your million dollar imaginations to give us the next captain, the next star ship, and the next villain.

Or better yet, give up the reins altogether. I’m sure there are a host of young writers and directors that would love to write some original trek based on the richness of this methodology

ted
toronto

299. Anthony Lewis - September 2, 2013

Oh please! Bring on the rehash argument! Nothing makes a Star Trek fan sound more hypocritical than that.

There might be two movies out of the entire franchise that aren’t obviously direct rehashes of other plots and themes. But even then you a stretching. And the majority of the most popular films are rehashed stories.

They took the Khan character and told a story with him that hadn’t been told before. They aped a few lines of dialog from WOK and a scene because the writers like the idea of some things always are meant to happen no matter what you do.

If that was the extent of the rehashing in this movie than it has done far less than other previously lauded Trek films.

300. James - September 2, 2013

277 TrekMadeMeWonder.

Interesting.

Check out the polls on TrekWeb and the one here on TrekMovie and you find that the majority liked it (I think TrekMovies poll was around 70%.The “silent majority” of Star Trek fans — a huge 68% — think this is either a great Trek movie or the best Trek movie. – the first poster on the thread writes)

Here are some more polls:
http://screencrush.com/star-trek-2-poll-reactions/

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/notyetamovie/polls/?poll=5768&view=results

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=8541037

301. Bill Peters - September 2, 2013

I love how people say it underpermomed yet it is the highest grossing Star Trek Flim ever for Parmount and it grossed more in non-Traditional Trek Markets, I wish fans could live with IDIC with the JJ Verse and undestand that New trek isn’t bad Trek.

302. Buzz Cagney - September 2, 2013

People, it did under perform. Clearly more was expected both financially and critically. No, it wasn’t a failure but neither did it do what we all hoped and expected that it would do.
And quoting IDIC is just lame. IDIC doesn’t mean you must put up with something that has been served up to entertain you and fails to do just that.
IDIC is not a get-out clause for weak movie making.

303. VulcanFilmCritic - September 2, 2013

@267,268. Do you really think that after jumping off a cliff and zipping through the water at high speed, you’d be right as rain?
Just take a look at what Diana Nyad looks like after swimming from Havana to Key West. The point is believability. A little burnt cork, some red corn syrup and a spritz of water isn’t going to do it for me. We need a poignant script and great acting.
In TOS and the movies, Shatner, for all his faults, was great at looking beat up, defeated, humiliated, shocked, grieved, and (more importantly) making you feel for him. And ironically, Spock, the character who was not supposed to feel any emotions, had some of the most moving scenes in the entire franchise. (Without CGI, just a guy on a sound stage, crying to himself.)
My point is drama. There is none here. These characters emote but they don’t feel. The situations are just plain hackneyed. They are cribbed from other movies. Not real life, or even an imagined real life. Doesn’t give an actor anything to sink his teeth into, doe it?
Even the famous death scene was crap. Been there, done that. People die and they are magically revived by well, magic. Where’s the science? Where’s the risk?Where’s the drama?

304. Keachick - September 2, 2013

#183 – Well, at least, what I wrote is a little more original than most of what has been written here.

Ahmed – your comment re the Lord sending Abrams as his messenger to save us all was rude, sarcastic hyperbole aimed at the poster Scott McC and towards JJ Abrams. I took an instant dislike at what I read and wrote so. I know *people in general write and say this kind of stuff all the time, so it’s not a particularly original comment. I guess, once I had read this kind of bs yet again, I made my comment. Sorry…

Sometimes I find that reading/watching some of the things that people say and do quite depressing and unhelpful that cleaning out a small animal’s cage (always necessary but not really fun – a bit like cleaning a toilet) is actually more edifying and less depressing.

*anyone, everywhere – not just some people who post here.

305. David A. - September 2, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness the worst Star Trek movie ever?! You can call into question the quality of this movie certainly, but Star Trek V the Final Frontier is the worst Star Trek movie of all time. In fact, if some group (like a bunch of movie critics) came up with a list of the 100 worst movies ever released by a major movie studio, Star Trek V would be among them. Star Trek ID would not be.

306. Riker001 - September 2, 2013

There are a few things I somewhat agree on but for the most part disagree with most of it. I agree STID seemed a bit more about blockbuster action sequences than story telling or character development…but I am hoping they tone that down in the next movie.

But at the end of the day…it was a good, solid movie…with good acting all the way around…

Some other thoughts:

“The issue many had with STID was that several of the characters were either not the characters we are used to seeing (from the original series) or thin caricatures (Carol Marcus).”

- I totally agree with Carol Marcus…unless they were simply introducing the character for something bigger down the road…but I doubt it. I believe the cast for this new ST is fantastic…the problem is there was not much character development between them in this movie…although I think they all did a great job and brought some good depth to their characters with what little time they had on the screen to do so. But the essence of their characters are indeed what we have seen from the original…especially Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

“Star Trek needs to once again break from the past and stop being about the Enterprise and crew…We need to look at a new ship, a new crew, and explore new ground. Have a link to the past (maybe a crew member or two), but Star Trek needs to move forward. And that means saying goodbye to what came before, in a clean break.”

- ST 2009 was a reboot of the series. Didn’t we already go through TNG, DS9 & VOY for that “clean break”? Yes…we did…the problem was ST as a whole was getting very stale…the purpose was to bring it back (again…reboot) to life for the fans…old and new.

I don’t believe everyone should panic and say Star Trek is “broken” because it made a little under $500 million and not over a billion (REALLY???) or because the story was a bit convoluted, too much action, whatever…it’s one movie out of maybe 3-4 more to come…we all hailed ST 2009 as one of the best and I think it’s wrong for people to say Trek isn’t what it use to be because of one movie.

Oh…one more thing…Star Trek ISN’T what it used to be…it’s evolving…we can only hope the writers learn from the feedback here and fix the elements that were not in place in this last movie…which was a pretty darn good movie…not the best…but certainly not the worst.

Live Long and Prosper..! \\_//,

307. Keachick - September 2, 2013

#302 – Honestly – DUH!

308. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

Keachick,

“your comment re the Lord sending Abrams as his messenger to save us all was rude, sarcastic hyperbole aimed at the poster Scott McC and towards JJ Abrams. I took an instant dislike at what I read and wrote so”

No problem at all, you can dislike my comment as much as you want, it is a free country :)

I’m “usually” civil in my comments, but sometime I just can’t stand what some of the people write here, so I unleash my dark side on them :)

“#183 – Well, at least, what I wrote is a little more original than most of what has been written here.”

lol, I agree with Red Dead Ryan that your comment was one of those comments that we can only reply with WTF !!

309. Trekkie19 - September 2, 2013

http://www.cinemanow.com/title/555743

Enjoy!

310. boborci - September 2, 2013

I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.

Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of “broken.” And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. Sorry, Joseph. As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.

Respect all opinions, always, nonetheless.

311. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

@307. boborci

“And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. ”

If you are the real Bob, I say this, you guys didn’t listen to the fans before & will always do what the studio want; which is a movie that has more action & less thinking.

So, the tone & attitude of the article doesn’t mater one bit.

Four years was wasted, I just hope you are not going to waste more time before we see the 50th anniversary movie.

312. boborci - September 2, 2013

308.

Ahmed, I wish you knew what you were talking about. I listened more than any other person behind the Trek franchise has EVER listened. And guess what? Glad I did becuase it lead to 2 biggest Trek’s ever.

You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive. Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?

313. MikeB - September 2, 2013

So Bob, what is the time frame like now for the next script? Will you guys start it really soon? Will you bring another writer in to fill Damon’s seat? Will you write this film as a kind of end to this trilogy?
My wishlist:
– Original story beginning the 5 Year Mission.
– More McCoy with a personal element for him.
– A more mature Kirk. He can be a ladies man and all that, but it’s time for him to act more like a Captain who deserves his crews respect.
– If the Klingon’s have to be in it, then please use them in a secondary role.
Again, I loved STID with only a couple of reservations, so I say “Keep up the good work.”

314. pock speared - September 2, 2013

@302
what I think is that they would be wet and short of breath, which they were.

315. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

@ 309. boborci – September 2, 2013

“You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive.”

No, we can have a movie with both action & brain, case in point Inception & Indiana Jones movies. What I’m saying that STID was a movie that has lot more action & explosions than a coherent story or character developments.

“Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?”

I’m sorry but what plot ? Khan was found & used by Section 31 & then he put his own people in the torpedo to save them or whatever & the rest of the movie follow in the same illogical way.

No disrespect to you guys, STID made tons of money but it was worse than ST09 in many aspects.

316. pock speared - September 2, 2013

@307 orci
I agree. There is also the child who gets exactly what he asked for on christmas, can’t sort out how to play with it, or angry it doesn’t live up to his magical aspirations, then throws a hissy fit.

I so enjoyed the film, btw. Watched again at home with the luxury of really noticing the nuances and the cleverness. thanks, b’orci.

317. Phil - September 2, 2013

@307. I’d expect you to read them as a professional. Yes, both Treks did great box office, but you can’t get away with averaging out critical reception – STID had mixed reviews, and the criticisms were fairly consistent. I’m assuming you read the same business pages I do, so there isn’t any point in rehashing them for your entertainments: on the re-read, the content of the commentary does not justify your response which is rather patronizing considering the author gives BR plenty of credit for revitalizing the franchise.

I don’t think anyone is expecting you to have a “If I knew then what I know now” moment here – however, I suspect that if you had a letter or article from a named Paramount executive indicating all aspects of STID met or exceeded their expectation you would be waving it around in triumph. Conversely, if the best answer you can give to legitimate criticisms is ‘I’m the screenwriter, that’s why’, I’m not sure the fan base is all that interested in being patronized at the moment, particularly in light of the blowback from the exclusive content fallout from the DVD/Blue-Ray release.

You guys have an unenviable task, and I do give you guys credit for taking it on, and thank you for bringing us two enjoyable movies. Just learn from the issues, and don’t brush them off, please.

318. boborci - September 2, 2013

312 Shitty Dodge. STID has infinetly more social commentary than Raiders in every Universe, and I say that with Harrison Ford being a friend. You lose credibility big time when you don’t honestly engage with the FUCKING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!

319. Keachick - September 2, 2013

If this movie has less thinking and requires less thinking on the part of movie goers, then how come there are those movie goers who do think about and even seem to understand many aspects of the movie that so many other people simply appear not to be able to grasp?

Then we have people making claims that this Khan’s blood can magically bring back anyone from the dead and then go on to say how stupid and unscientific that part of the story is. Except that, as far as I can recall (last saw the film at end of May), there is no mention of this blood being a magic cure-all, resurrect all dead, made anywhere in the film.

Therefore, even in this particular instance, people are injecting their own strange interpretations about something that has not been stated in the film itself and are going apeshit at the writers for writing something that they never wrote in the first place.

The (major) brainfarting never ceases… I guess my comments re attending to my three guinea pigs’ basic needs could qualify as wee brainfart, I suppose, perhaps…:)

320. boborci - September 2, 2013

314.

Have no idea what you just said.

321. crazydaystrom - September 2, 2013

@292. lecolonel -
“but I wonder how we all felt back in 1982, when it was announced that the new Trek film would be using one of the villains from an episode of the series. We all probably started with these same set of complaints – why not do something new?”

No lecolonel, not at all. The announcement of the title ‘The Wrath of Khan’ was EXTREMELY intriguing to fans. After the ‘dryness’ of TMP the idea of returning to something directly connected to the series was exciting. We rewatched our tapes of Space Seed and saw that the return of Khan was full of the possibilities that were hinted at at the end of the ep. The only concerns I ever heard back then was fear that Fantasy Island’s Mr. Rourk couldn’t ‘be Khan’ again. But the ‘fact of Khan’ was not a problem, for the overwhelming majority of fans.

I think it would’ve been similar if STID’s antagonist had been Gary Mitchell or the Talosians or Charlie X had been used. Fans love that. And I think it’s obvious that Khan would have been accepted by many more folks if he had been presented as a Sikh. Sure there would’ve been bitching, because that’s what’s done these all-informed-by-the-interwebs-days but all in all I think the use of Khan would have been more palatable and less controversial if it was so apparently contemptuous of canon. IMO

322. Blue Thunder - September 2, 2013

As a friend of mine recently stated Star Trek is not broken, it has unfortuantely been transformed into fast food, quick satisfaction junk. It is the franchise that isThe Star Trek franchise has literally become the McDonald’s of Sci Fi! The new films must hit big, make their money and disappear, like all the other Summer fare. Such is the nature of Hollywood now. As a result Star Trek now belongs to the playstation generation.

All flash and bang with very little story.

Another sad part is that everyone is blaming the wrong people for what “some” (small minority) consider to be a bad film that continues to get shit like what is posted here due to a Vegas con movie poll aimed at fans over the age of 30. Supposedly one deliberately set up that way.

The problem with STAR TREK on the whole is this: CBS wants to run it into the ground with useless spinoffs such as TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT.
And by getting every last penny they can wring out of it. Fans blame JJ & Co, because they are blind to the bigger picture.

That bigger picture being that CBS Paramount doesn’t care. Their former administration did the same thing once, by mishandling the Star Trek property. Something for which led which led to a period of franchise fatigue ams breathed new life into the series.. Luckily, Abrams and the Bad Robot production company helped breath new life into it with its successful

The best way to fix Star Trek is to do the following:

1. Place the blame where the blame really lies. That being on the following. CBS Paramount’s current staff. A staff for which, like farragut Films and its staff, not giving a damn. about Star Trek and its future.

2. Replace said staff with a group of people who really care about Star Trek and its immediate future.

3. Have the new CBS Paramount staff trim off the ‘extra fat’ of Star Trek. That being, having CBS Paramount put the clamps down on and shut down Farragut Films and put an end to Starship Farragut and their French farce bastardization and rip-off of both TOS, TAS, and ST-NV/P2. That unentertaining rip-off being Star Trek Continues.

If fans think that J.J. Abrams is misguiding the franchise, they are placing the blame on the wrong person. They should place the blame on the current CBS Paramount staff, as well as the real damage that is being done by Vic Mignogna, Michele Specht, John Broughton, Michael Bednar, Dennis Bailey, and the rest of the Farragut Films staff. Especially when the latter resorted to lying and stealing from other Star Trek productions, just to fulfill their own petty, selfish, vindictive, and spiteful goals.

323. crazydaystrom - September 2, 2013

Make that -”…if it were not so apparently contemptuous of apparent canon.”

BTW Do I think I could’ve written a better screenplay? I bet a hundred dollars I could NOT. But is that the point when expressing displeasure or disappointment with someone’s work. I don’t think it should be.

324. Valar1 - September 2, 2013

Just my thoughts- I liked STID, but just didn’t think it was original or compelling. I saw it once, and felt nonplussed. OTOH I saw ST09 3 times, loved every moment of it, and feel compelled to watch it over and over when I have a lull in my plans.. I don’t know why it feels that way, but there is something to the argument that STID went wrong somewhere.

325. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

Keachick, sadly, but there will always be fans that will NEVER understand something they don’t want to like. Bob (hi Bob) knows this. Bob can’t write a story that these bitter fans will ever like because they simply don’t want to like it. They have a mad-on for Bad Robot, for whatever reason…JJ going to Star Wars, they didn’t like Alias, Khan was used, it was TOS in tone rather than BermanTrek…etc….and they will never like anything Bad Robot does with Trek. The fact that the movies HAVE done so well, with this silly axe to grind, infuriates them even more and the squeaky wheels just get louder. I’m sure Bob knows how to ignore them just like everyone else does.

And Bob, just my 2 cents on the possible involvement of the Klingons…wasn’t real interested in seeing them in the next movie…but if you have a great, scene-stealing, back-stabbing rotten egg like Kor involved…and toss in the powerful weird coolness of the Organians…you would have my attention! But seriously… after the last two movies, this old school TOS die-hard trusts you guys 100%. You have nothing to prove to me. I’m soooo glad you guys are running things and not the fans! lol

326. Keachick - September 2, 2013

I agree that there was not as much of Dr Bones McCoy as I would have liked to have seen, but I do like what I did see of him. What scenes that there were of him helped to define who he was as a person in terms of his own beliefs etc, especially when it came to him doing his best to uphold his Hippocratic Oath, which is clearly more important to him than his Starfleet membership or any Prime Directive.

“Spock! We are trying to save your life!” That’s Dr McCoy and as far as he was concerned, prime directive or any other directive, be damned. I have little doubt that Bones did influence Kirk in his decision to attempt to save Spock, even it did mean violating the prime directive.

On the shuttlecraft heading towards the Enterprise, where they picked up Carol Wallace, Bones was trying to give Kirk his medical checkup, while sitting in the seat behind. No way could Dr McCoy do what he did to Kirk, to a subordinate, let alone a senior officer. Kirk told him to get that thing off his face, but that’s all he did. Clearly Dr McCoy was not just Kirk’s medical physician, he was a friend, albeit an annoying one at times. Good quality scene.

Another scene that comes to mind is where Dr McCoy is helping Carol Marcus open the torpedo. Clearly Bones is as capable of noticing an attractive woman as is his friend, Jim Kirk, and is also given to practising some light flirtatious banter on occasion.

The scene where Kirk walks into the medbay and appears to visibly relax upon seeing his friend, Bones and then asks in a very informal way – “What are doing with that tribble?” is a favourite of mine. It is not the question about the tribble – in fact, I had forgotten about the question. It was the sense of wonderful camaraderie that I could see and feel that was being shared between these two people. I could almost hear Kirk say – “Mate, what I wouldn’t do for a cold one right now” and Bones pointing to a cabinet where he stashed his Saurian brandy and one or two Budweisers and then saying, “Me too”.

327. Bill Peters - September 2, 2013

Boborci and other writers have to Balance what a Fan base wants and what a General Audience wants and will pay money for, I KNOW that BobOrci and the other writers will give us a great 50th for Star Trek.

328. THX-1138 - September 2, 2013

#316

Seemed to be clear to me.

I said all along (way back in the days of the rumors right after Trek ’09) that a revisiting of the Khan storyline would be a mistake. I have always felt that it would be the wrong move because unless you made the Citizen Kane of Trek movies (which you didn’t) the only logical outcome would be an unfavorable comparison to arguably the most loved of the Trek movies. Every explanation for why Khan was not the Khan we were familiar with (for lack of a better of a better term- a swarthy man of Indian appearance who may or may not be Sikh) seemed rather weak.

The old Trek fans, who have been derided for apparently liking the way Star Trek was before it was rebooted, did not want “fan service”. We all could live with changes; we knew it would be inevitable. But we would have liked to see more adventure in space, which isn’t necessarily the same thing as action. And canon is not a four letter word.

But really, all of that isn’t the issue. This team certainly wasn’t the first to tell Trek stories and it definitely won’t be the last. Star Trek as it exists on the big screen is really nothing more than an entertaining diversion from where it really thrives: TV. The discipline of telling compelling hour-long stories weak after week is where the greatness is born. The constraints of time and budget force the storytellers to get to the meat of their ideas, thusly making them more accessible to the viewers. The writing becomes less bloated and smug and more lean and forward moving. What it may lack in consistency it makes up for in wild imagination, topical and relevant issues, and the building of worlds. It also allows the viewer to become familiar with the crew and for the actors to build rapport with each other resulting in a believable group of people who are tasked with exploring the galaxy and solving problems together as a team.

I respect Bob Orci for making himself available and accessible to the fans. Obviously that can be a risky proposition to one’s ego. But you shouldn’t expect your work to be embraced by everybody that occupies the most intelligent fanbase in entertainment. We are going to tear your work apart to see what makes it tick; what makes it work (or doesn’t). Don’t think you are the exclusive recipients of this reaction. TOS got torn to shreds for cheesy sets and some horrible episodes. TNG get’s torn apart here continuously, as well as Voyager and Enterprise. DS9 seems to fare better
but it has it’s detractors as well. Just a guess but when somewhere in the neighborhood of $400-$500 million dollars get’s spent the stakes are higher. The fans expect a lot. Some of us “reviled” old fans” want to see more exploration of strange new worlds and seeking out of new life-forms. I’ve heard that nobody wants to see that on the big screen because it wouldn’t translate into big box office. So be it. I say once again:

Star Trek belongs on TV.

329. Keachick - September 2, 2013

#318 boborci – What is going on here and who is Shitty Dodge?

What is more surprising is that the site’s filters did not automatically delete your post for use of the “F” word. I can live with the non-deletion.

I can also understand the venting of your frustration, although I am still a little surprised, if indeed, you are the real Bob Orci posting and not just some imposter.

Moderator – Matt Wright – Is this the STID writer Roberto Orci’s post at #318 or just some imposter? Please – no imposters!

330. pock speared - September 2, 2013

@318 lol! well said!

331. MikeM - September 2, 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/benedict-cumberbatch-star-wars_n_3845096.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

Benedict Cumberbatch Rumored For ‘Star Wars’

Yes! Maybe he’ll get to play Lando Calrissian

332. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

#318 boborci

Well, if you are the REAL Bob, then you do have a problem taking criticism.

But I do think this is just another imposter. And since AP is not around & Matt didn’t deny or confirm if that is the real Bob or not yet, there is no way to know for sure.

333. crazydaystrom - September 2, 2013

@325. Jonboc
There are those us like Valar1 and myself who loved ST09 and truly wanted (and in my case expected) to love STID. How I feel about that film is not a result of not understanding it; believe me it’s not that pat and simple. That would be as simplistic as someone claiming that anyone who loved STID did so ONLY because they wanted to, whether they understood it or not.

I WANT to love and be impressed with the next Trek film. And I want it on the 50th. And I want it to be as successful as Skyfall, at least! And I want a great new Star Trek television series. Is that asking too much?

334. Matt Wright - September 2, 2013

Near as I can tell it’s really Bob Orci, and yes his post did indeed get trapped by the filter, I approved it, so there it is for all to see.

Also since there were so many comments to this article and many needed approval I’m afraid things have gotten a bit wonky with the comments. I believe Bob was responding to what is now #315.

335. Hugh Hoyland - September 2, 2013

Not to speak for Bob but I think he ment “Shitty Dodge” as in dodging a question asked in a lousy way.

The rest is pretty easy to get lol.

336. Keachick - September 2, 2013

Bob Orci does not have a problem taking criticism or suggestion, especially when it is of the constructive kind. However, most of the criticism I see being leveled against him on this site is neither constructive nor polite.

As I wrote before, I like to think that Simon Pegg with his “Fuck Off” was speaking on behalf of a great many people, including me and maybe even Roberto Orci. I still don’t know who Shitty Dodge is because that is the post whoever this Bob Orci was giving the finger to. I suspect it was a well deserved finger.

337. Spock's Bangs - September 2, 2013

#318….I do love me some Bob Orci!!
One reason he didn’t engage you Bob is because no one likes to be shown how wrong they are! Like so many haters, they can’t back up their bluster, because its just that. Tiresome blathering and bluster. Well said Mr. Orci!

338. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

Thanks Matt for clearing that up.

@ 318. boborci – September 2, 2013
“as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!”

Very classy response to which I will only say: GO F**K YOURSELF A**HOLE

Now, that is out of the way, why you don’t go back writing a decent script for a change.

339. Spock's Bangs - September 2, 2013

338, Dude you were given the exact amount of respect that you deserved!

340. Scott McC - September 2, 2013

@ 200 and 274 VOODOO

Your analysis as to why Star Trek is more popular now than it has ever been (thanks to ST09 and STID) is absolutely correct in my opinion and your post encapsulates the reasons as to why in my view, the premise that “Star Trek is broken” is fundamentally flawed and just plain wrong.

@ 232 pock speared

I too loved the film and looking at your listing of high points would have added Kirk making the climb to the warp core and the final plunge of the Enterprise into the cloud layer. Both of which were accompanied by Michael Giacchino’s superb score.

@ 317 Phil

With reference to your “STID had mixed reviews” comment, surely 211 Fresh out of 243 Counted (as collated on Rotten Tomatoes) for STID can hardly be considered “mixed” reviews. On the contrary, I’d say that 211 positive and 32 negative was a landslide victory in terms of STID’s critical approval.

341. Keachick - September 2, 2013

“312 Shitty Dodge…”

On my screen, post #312 is a post by boborci. This is why I am confused. Has a post been deleted – the one to which Bob Orci is referring, perhaps one mentioning Raiders and Harrison Ford?

Gotta go – things to do, places to be…

342. Keachick - September 2, 2013

So it appears that Bob Orci was responding to a post by Ahmed. What a surprise – not!

Thanks for the clarification, re my post at #340.

343. crazydaystrom - September 2, 2013

Ooooookaaaay. So much for civility.

344. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

@ 339. Spock’s Bangs – September 2, 2013

“338, Dude you were given the exact amount of respect that you deserved!”

Hey moron, stop kissing other people’s asses & go read my original post #315 to which Bob replied with his F**K OFF.

In my post, I didn’t call him names or anything, just saying what I thought about his dumb movie.

345. Trekkie19 - September 2, 2013

Nothing better than arguing with someone that is 100% correct. Can we at least agree there is some validity to both points of view? Guess what I learned today is that fans are right and the writers are morons. No, wait, I learned that writers are the only qualified people to question the story/plot, and fans are to say “thank you, good sir”. Can’t possibly be something in the middle.

346. pock speared - September 2, 2013

reposting from my earlier:

STID was aimed very much at the complaints those here badgered Orci with for years.
Too fast a promotion? Addressed. Hated engineering? Fixed (you got a fikkin WARP CORE). More Bones? Done. Jeezus, the “fans” were whining that the deleted klingons weren’t “something” enough (they were in fact Roddenberry’s originals), so you got the klingorcs of the berman years.
Cumberbath was deeper, better and better written than Ricardo’s ham, and he grounded the film far better than Nero, which was the constant complaint.

Orci spent more time addressing fan concerns than any writer in history.
Frankly I think he’s being fair. I would drone their asses.

347. Cumberbatch was a better Khan. - September 2, 2013

After reading the bile here posted by “fans”, you have to wonder whether the fans who hide behind their keyboards, really want to see ANY new Star Trek done by ANYONE because no matter who does it, there will always be that same minority of “fans” who have and will always moan and get nasty about things.

Could Into Darkness have been better? Yes. Was it terrible? Absolutely not, it was thoroughly enjoyable. Will the third movie be better? I hope so but if it’s as good with a little more focus on exploration of strange new worlds including new aliens with this crew standing on their own without the help of Spock Prime then great.

You fans are a dime a dozen, if you’re not moaning about Star Trek, you’re moaning about Ben Affleck playing Batman and before then you were moaning about Enterprise, before that Berman and Braga, before that Voyager and Deep Space Nine, Nemesis, Insurrection, First Contact etc… and before the internet you were sitting alone building up this unnecessary bile and hate towards anyone with their own interpretation of a dead mans vision who would have probably approved of Abrams taking the reigns.

To all of you who have nothing but mindless fan-boy criticisms, you are not fans, you are pathetic life-less idiots with nothing else to do and far too much time on your hands. Get a life and just go outside and enjoy your lives, my god, and stop wasting your time posting on sites like this one because you don’t speak for the majority, you never have and you most certainly never will so get your heads out of the clouds, be realistic in your expectations and don’t label the rest of us actual fans and Trekkies who can tell the difference between real life and Star Trek with the same ridiculous brush you’ve painted yourself with.

You want to know what’s broken, its the fan base. Those vocal few have ruined it for the rest of us, forums popping up all over the place with tiny minded people spouting nothing but ririculous notions of what they know Roddenberry would have wanted to see… How on Earth do you know what Roddenberry would have done today? You should be so ashamed at your behaviour, you have tarnished us as a group and made us all out to look like mindless idiots who will never be satisfied.

The fools who believe they know what Gene Roddenberry would have done need to shut up and move on… You know nothing.

348. JP Saylor - September 2, 2013

Wow. There seems to be a nap shortage on the inter webs.

I agree with this article. (Always have) These new Trek movies are great movies, great action blockbusters. But they aren’t good Trek movies. The first one was original, I’ll give them that. But when I found out that Khan was in this one, I was just put down. After I saw it, I felt like going home and watching the real Star Trek II.

And this article also touches on something I have been saying since 2009. Star Trek needs to be on TV. People said when TNG came out that nothing could replace the original crew, which was true. But they could make something NEW. Not to replace, but add to it. That’s one reason why I just think these new movies are a middle finger to the stuff that came before. You know? Don’t re-hash characters that have already been made! Make new ones, it’s not hard. Just watch other shows on TV now. It doesn’t seem that theres a shortage of new stories or characters there…

349. THX-1138 - September 2, 2013

#345

Klingorcs. Funny.

Klingons with ridges first appeared in TMP (Roddenberry, yo). I didn’t see any more Bones in this movie than the first one. And the Warp Core wasn’t the problem with engineering. It was the Budweiser plant.

But it’s this statement that invalidates all of your points:

Cumberbath was deeper, better and better written than Ricardo’s ham, and he grounded the film far better than Nero, which was the constant complaint.

I’m not disagreeing that Cumberbatch is a decent actor. But better than Ricardo’s ham? You, sir, have been drinking the Kool Aid. When BC’s career begins to approach the accolades and achievements of Ricardo Montalban you can see if that statement fits. As it is now it resides in the realm of the ridiculous. I’d wager that BC would find it embarrassing.

350. Dave in RI - September 2, 2013

I haven’t read too many of the comments before jumping in now. People question how can some think this movie be considered a failure, yet gross $490M something dollars? Impossible.
I can answer that.
For me, it failed as a good Star Trek movie. If it were any other action / sci-fi franchise I’d say it was fine, but I hold Star Trek to a higher quality because it’s special. Any other movie franchise can be lackluster and I wouldn’t care all that much–but not Star Trek.
I suppose for Joe Public, he feels the same about Star Trek as I do for the other movie franchises out there that mindless shoot-’em-ups is good enough.

351. Tbuydos - September 2, 2013

I truly enjoyed both of the new ST movies. I love the TOS characters am glad to have them back. Star Trek just isn’t the same for me without the TOS crew, but I agree that TV is a great place for Star Trek. Never cared for TNG or any of the other related shows. I never felt the that the characters on TNG engaged with one another like the TOS crew. I know a lot of people loved them, but some of us are true TOS fans and always will be.

352. Valar1 - September 2, 2013

#348 I agree with what you’re saying, I liken it to what happened with the Bourne movies. The first was original and felt like a breath of fresh air, but the last one with Jeremy Renner- good actor, good action, good premise, great action movie overall but it felt like nothing original or fresh and if I had missed it I wouldn’t feel like I was missing anything.

353. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

#348. “For me, it failed as a good Star Trek movie.”

Thank you! For YOU, if failed as a good Star Trek movie. Conversely, for me and many of my Trek friends, it was a GREAT Star Trek movie bringing BACK what we had longed for since the credits rolled on Trek 6. At least you recognize that what qualifies as Trek is completely subjective and your answer will vary, depending on whether or not you ask TOS fan. A TNG fan. A DS9 fan etc. And then, to get even more subjective…a Spock fan will see it differently than a Kirk fan or a Scotty fan. Or a fan who prefers “bottle” episodes won’t enjoy the episodes that go planetside. A purist who only accepts events as played out in TOS will grit his teeth when Khan appears or Vulcan is destroyed while fans that readily accept and embrace the alternate universe love the new twists. A fan who counts how many rivets are in the Enterprise will be more harsh on the new E than a casual fan who has seen every episode but has never owned a set of blueprints. The wide, sweeping generalizations about how “bad” the most successful Trek movie is, and how everybody hates it, are patently absurd.

This movie lived up to it’s source material. What it did with Khan was totally acceptable given the alternate universe and the action/humor/drama lived up to the best of what was presented in TOS. And as a TOS based film, that is all it needs to do. Not every individual has to like that, but stop already with the doomsday, Trek-is-broken nonsense.

354. Jack - September 2, 2013

Personally, i don’t mind any of the Abramsverse cosmetic changes, they’re just that — cosmetic. if you think the brewery’s Star Trek’s biggest problem, well, you’re missing the point of Star Trek.

STID isn’t a terrible movie and it isn’t a terrible Star Trek movie — and it certainly didn’t break Star Trek. If anything, it stuck way too closely to what’s come before. I think that’s what’s most disappointing about it. The last oine set the bar pretty high, and I think a lot of us thought its problems were due to the writer’s strike and the need to squeeze in an origin story. And then we get a Trek II mash-up. I really do get what the writers were trying to do (It takes death and a no-win scenario to make Kirk learn what it really means to risk his crew/and to make Spock learn the value of friendship), but it doesn’t work off the page. It’s not really earned in the script, despite all the talk. It’s still Star Trek — but the superblood, the Bond Villain admiral, the over-complicated plans which don’t really make a heck of a lot of sense, all make it pretty tough to take seriously. You can have a science fiction movie with all sorts of genre trappings but in which teh stakes still matter. Elysium just barely does this, mainly through Damon’s performance (the script gives us no reason to give a damn about him, except because he’s dying).

I still don’t see us having another quality Star Trek series in my lifetime. I hope I’m wrong. I think we could still have some pretty spectacular movies ahead.

All I ask for is a decent story, characters who stay in character and a bit of internal logic. And Khan for the sake of Khan wasn’t it.

355. J - September 2, 2013

“(you got a fikkin WARP CORE)”

Done wrong and apparently required for thrusters and impulse engines to work. BS.

That article is 100% right. Trek needs to get back to TV.

356. Jack - September 2, 2013

I’m not thrilled by these Dickerson op-eds. It’s just one random fan’s opinion — and he tends to make these pronouncements. They usually end up with a call to get Trek back on TV. Where’s the source for the claim that Paramount expected STID to be a billion-dollar hit? Who says Trek isn’t attracting geeks like it used to?

357. Screenplayhouse - September 2, 2013

I agree with everything in this article. I’d only add that TREK should not be another franchise working on behalf of the military industrial cineplex.

http://screenplayhouse.weebly.com/2/post/2013/08/the-military-industrial-cineplex.html

358. section9 - September 2, 2013

STID could have been so much better, but it wasn’t. There were plot holes a mile wide. Cumberbatch was cast as Khan just to do Fanservice. He wasn’t believable as Khan, a role that is owned, to this day, by Montalban. There was no explanation for how a Brit got to be Khan.

It was a mess. Crashing the Vengeance into San Francisco just made it look like a big disaster film and put it over the top. It’s as if they were reaching at the end. It reminded me too much of what happened with Prometheus.

359. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 2, 2013

Even Ricardo Montalbon in the main role could not have saved STiD from the writing.

352. J

Right on. Exactly what was wrong with this Trek. If you get the science wrong, you WILL lose your core audience – Intelligent people. This was a writer’s error and should have nipped in the bud early on. In fact I could name several other main scenes that were just dumb to watch when it came to it to the science. Like; thruster boots after diving off a cliff, Scotty gaining access to Sec 31′s secret hanger, Kirk using a fire hose when a phaser-rifle would not work, Warp beaming from a shuttle, the magic blood. Need more?

360. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

#354 “There were plot holes a mile wide…”

Umm…Just like ALL the Trek movies?? I mean, really? Plot holes in Trek movies….do you really want to go there? lol

361. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

#359. “Need more?”

Yep, you keep swinging the hammer but you haven’t hit a nail yet!

362. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 2, 2013

361. Jonboc

Kirk using a fire hose when a phaser-rifle would not work.

Guess that does not do it for you, huh?

Amazing.

363. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

#362… Yep, you gotta do better than that…loved it…especially when it pulled half the wall out and nearly took off Kirk’s head. Thought it was going to take my head off as well, in 3D. Good stuff!

364. Wes - September 2, 2013

I really don’t think Star Trek is broken. Keep in mind, this was only one convention’s opinion on it; the Seattle convention held just one weekend later said Into Darkness wasn’t the worst Star Trek film. I understand that the franchise has gotten a major reinvigoration with both of these films, but come on…. This guy is thinking the entire fanbase is turning away from Star Trek. Wrong! I saw Into Darkness three times over the opening weekend and week after, and while every fan is whining and complaining (seems to be the general consensus) that Into Darkness is basically a retelling of TWOK, it didn’t deter me from going. I enjoyed the film immensely… It told a story that we as human beings can go to extremes in order to do harm… Watch the ending of the film again and I got that message plain and simple. Let us face it… Every Star Trek movie since TWOK has tried to be like TWOK but will never be because every film is unique and Into Darkness is no exception. They did take a huge risk by trying to copy word for word TWOK’s death scene… And I liked the reversal. So thinking Star Trek is broken is stupid. Let’s face it, every fan who has gotten into Star Trek since 2009 has tried to discover what went before… CBS wouldn’t have done the remastering of TNG (more than likely DS9 will happen too) had fans not gotten into it in the first place. I loved Into Darkness… And I can’t wait to see what the writers and new director come up with… Hopefully by 2016.

I welcome criticism/comments on it.

365. Li'l Shat - September 2, 2013

Some people are just easily distracted by loud, shiny things. These writers know that better than anyone and boy do they use it to their advantage.

The fire hose does it for me, as does the “cold fusion” device. Also the galaxy-spanning beaming, and the magic blood that resurrects both human beings and, apparently, dead tribbles. Khan being magically transformed into a skinny pale Brit with a fetish for squeezing heads like melons. VERY long distance communicator calls. And yes, magically flying into a secret hangar–no questions asked! “Hey, what’s that shuttle doing hanging above the hangar and why is it maneuvering to join us and enter the hangar as if it’s one of us? Oh well no matter, I’m sure it’s okay.”

I know that every Trek movie and many television episodes play a bit fast and loose with the science and logic at times, but what bothers me about the way it’s done in this movie is that it is so pervasive and blatant. It feels cynical and insulting to me. It’s as if the writers think that their audience is so dumb, they can just write up any old thing and it will work. And apparently, it does for a lot of folks. I’m just not one of ‘em.

Another thing that really annoys me is when I see someone claiming that Kirk’s rapid rise to the captain’s chair in the first movie–from cadet to captain!–was “addressed” in STID by taking the chair away from Kirk only to give it right back to him ten minutes later!

366. Vultan - September 2, 2013

I’m not sure that’s the real Bob Orci up-thread. Seems rather nasty and childish to drop the F bomb on people. And if it’s really him—wow—chill out, man, you’re sounding like a disgruntled Trekkie. ;-)

367. JakartaTrek - September 2, 2013

“Yeah. Damnit you, Berman and Braga. Because you both made Star Trek franchise ‘broken’.”

How’s about that?

I don’t know about you all, but I don’t agree with the statement above.

Star Trek franchise is broken, because people change…

So adjust ourselves to these changes… or we all are broken…

[I don’t say JJ saved the franchise. I just say: JJ had done things that must be done for the franchise—a franchise that nearly extinct many years ago...]

368. Vultan - September 2, 2013

By the way, Mr. Orci, you’re only seeing partial opinions on this board. You can download the rest of them as an exclusive download on iTunes!

;-D

369. Mad Mann - September 2, 2013

It is the real boborci. He’s on a rampage through Twitter as well, dropping all kinds if f-bombs there as well. He is very unprofessional. Embarrassingly so. Why can’t we have writers with class? Even Brannon Brage had more

370. Li'l Shat - September 2, 2013

LOL@368 Vultan

Seriously, that one gave me quite a smile.

371. Captain, USS Northstar - September 2, 2013

@234, 236, 238:

Right on! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

372. Phil - September 2, 2013

@368. Okay, that was funny….

More on BC being cast as Princess Leia later. He really was THAT damn good….

373. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

@ 368. Vultan – September 2, 2013

“By the way, Mr. Orci, you’re only seeing partial opinions on this board. You can download the rest of them as an exclusive download on iTunes!”

LOL, nice one

For some reason, Bob was acting like a jerk today. I even thought it was an imposter, until Matt Wright said it was the real Bob !!!

Well, I guess if you are a scriptwriter in Hollywood & your crappy action movies bring in lot of money, you will start thinking that you are entitled to act like a jerk from time to time !!

374. Vultan - September 2, 2013

Thanks, guys. I’m here all geek.

:-D

375. Vultan - September 2, 2013

#369

We’re a long way from the Rod Serling days unfortunately. Oh, I’m sure he could swear with the best of ‘em (he was a combat veteran after all). Can’t imagine him going on such a tirade though—apart from the network suits, of course. They had it coming.

376. Li'l Shat - September 2, 2013

@372. Phil

“More on BC being cast as Princess Leia later.”

Stop it! I’m getting strangely aroused.

377. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

#373. “For some reason, Bob was acting like a jerk today”

Oh please, you know exactly why….

BOB “Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?”

AHMED “I’m sorry but what plot ? Khan was found & used by Section 31 & then he put his own people in the torpedo to save them or whatever & the rest of the movie follow in the same illogical way.”

He tried to engage you in discussion, it was your 1-in-a-million opportunity to prove your position, point by point…debating with the writer himself…and all you could muster was a smart-ass response. You only received what you had coming.

378. I am To Smurfy - September 2, 2013

Bob Orci all I am going to say is this, Transformers 2 made over 400 million dollars, but guess what that doesn’t mean its a good film.

Joesph wrote a pretty good article with valid points, he even went so far as to say he wasn’t going to join in the chorus of complaints about you and the other writers, cause he has no idea the pressure you must be under to deliver a script.

But your response to me comes across as someone who takes another person’s opinon personally even though you say you don’t.

If you really listened to fans, we would not have gotten a rehash of Khan as the villian, because it was obvious that fans didnt want Khan or a rehash of TWOK, which we got both.

Think what you want, but the fact that more than half of all the movies you write are stinkers in term of story says it all.

Transformers Revenge of the Fallen
The Legend of Zorro
The Island
Cowboys and Aliens
People Like Us
Star Trek into Darkness

Now having said that I loved
Star Trek,
Mission:Impossible III
Transformers
And I enjoy Your take on Hawaii 5-0

Now if you really listened to fans you would have given us a totally original story for Into Darkness. Hopefully that is what you will do for Star Trek XIII

379. I am To Smurfy - September 2, 2013

Bob since those of us who find fault in the movie, clearly don’t know what it was about according to you.
Perhaps you can enlighten us

380. Vultan - September 2, 2013

Yeah, probably best Twitter didn’t exist back in the old days. Imagine future generations breaking open the dusty ole family laptop. So, kids, what did grandpa write on Labor Day, 2013?

“F*** OFF!!!”

Uh-huh. Quite a legacy we’re leaving….

381. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

# 378. “If you really listened to fans, we would not have gotten a rehash of Khan as the villian, because it was obvious that fans didnt want Khan or a rehash of TWOK, which we got both.”

Wow…that statement is so absurd, it’s comical. Yes, the great legions of WOK fans warned the studio…it was so obvious as they marched upon the gates of Paramount…I remember the headlines…” NO KHAN OR ELSE” WARNS WORLDWIDE FANBASE!!

Where do you guys get this stuff??

382. I am To Smurfy - September 2, 2013

322 you lost me when your post resorted to bashing you fan film competition.

Why don’t you mention that your friend who said that Star Trek isn’t broken was James CAwley on hs facebook page.

this article had nothing to do with either of your guy’s fan films so why bring up and bash STC.

383. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 2, 2013

Pitch me the plot. OK I did that years ago, Bob. And you said yourself it was a good read. Do I have to do it again?

BTW, if anyone wants to compare my novice depiction of ST09, that was written in only a few hours and month’s before ST09′s premiere, then click here to go to the Mego Museum where a copy is still archived…

http://megomuseum.com/community/showthread.php?15013-Is-this-the-Trek-movie-plot-POTENTIAL-SPOILER-ALERT!!!

That was a fun and hasty writeup back in the day, so ignore the typos. I could do another for ST13, if anyone cares to see it. Especially you, Bob!
I would love to help out in any way possible.

384. I am To Smurfy - September 2, 2013

381)
Nice try dude.
You know full well Orci frequents ALL of the Trek sites and movie sites and a vast majority of the people posting didnt want to see a rehash of Khan or TWOK.
but twist my comment around to meet your needs dude.

Orci said he listened to what fans wanted more than any other person involved with TREK ever and I don’t agree with that and said as much.

Ok Jonboc you can go back to brown nosing now.

385. dswynne - September 2, 2013

@349 (THX-1138) & @355(J):

The Engineering Section in TOS changed in TMP, so why get bent out of shape over the use of a Budweiser plant? We all know that the plant was originally used to save money for ST09, so why not cut Bad Robert some slack? At least they addressed this by have a WARP CORE REACTOR as the center piece of the Engineering Section (besides having a WARP CORE). Also, we’ve never seen the actual “guts” of the Enterprise (in any show or movie) before, which I doubt would be pristine anyway. I think you two are more concerned with the aesthetics of a set design than you need to be. Personally, I don’t mind the industrial look of the Engineering Section since the Enterprise of this era isn’t like the TNG ships. But, that’s just IMO.

386. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

Thanks, but your comments don’t need my help in getting twisted, you’re doing a fine job of that yourself! lol

387. The Keeper - September 2, 2013

@384

Yeah, I’ll never understand that remark by Orci.
He claims to have frequents ALL of the Trek sites and movie sites and has listened to what fans wanted more than any other person involved with TREK ever …and yet with all that, we get a retelling of Khan.

Oddly I visit many of the sites also, I may not comment on them all but I am pretty sure a vast majority of the fans expressed not wanting a rehash, re-introducing of Khan in any way shape or form.

Clearly from what I read has been an asking, a begging to do something toatlly new and bold, something thought provoking now that this new time line has freed it’s self of decades of history…and yet, across the gulf of space…we get Khan.
We get down right lies from cast and crew.
It just doesn’t make sense.

But hell, what do I know…the film turned a profit, and every one was paid.

388. philip - September 2, 2013

Saw Into Darkness again today, and I grow to love the film more and more with each viewing. The characters were pitch perfect, and it captured the essence of the original series to no end.

Don’t listen to the haters Bob Orci… I’ll be writing an article very soon on the 5 reasons why STID is a GREAT Star Trek film…

Nuff said.

389. Capes - September 2, 2013

A simple problem for me is that “if” this is about being character driven in it’s new incarnation then there is a flaw in it’s present state: Kirk is/was/should be….the core of the big three and the cast as a “whole”.

This ‘new” Kirk is….well, he is weaker than he should be to carry this journey. Granted that 1) New timeline 2) Different background than the original….but he is weaker nonetheless.

This troubles me because 1) Yes I do love all things ‘Shat” but 2) There ultimately MUST be a strong characterization of Kirk if Kirk is to stay central to the core. (Doesn’t have to be Shat)

So far two movies in….Kirk is interesting but I’d almost rather have had Pike in the center chair with Kirk as his Number 1. Kirk’s “bravado” has been replaced with “libido”. It just isn’t enough.

So…..the next movie should flash forward a few years. It is time for “new” Kirk to be more seasoned. Yes we know he can “look before he leaps” just as he is right now but he needs to “Command” the situations more….change the rules more….less getting his ass kicked to show what a “tough guy” he is. (Old Kirk actually made a “dent” in Khan when facing off with him…..I grant you it was a visible stunt double, but still….)

Seasoned “Old” Kirk didn’t have his emotions on his sleeve in the same way….it was a channeled anger at the inequities of a situation and a grim determination to make things better……THAT is at least in part what made Kirk…..Kirk.

Chris Pine is fine casting although I wish he’d either wear contacts or explain how he had his eye color genetically redefined to piss off his step-dad for some reason. (Mind you….he trashed his ‘vette….so it makes sense.) But it is now time to man up….grow up….and if he is chasing his own personal manifest destiny….it is time to “take it”.

My two cents….feel free to ignore it…..

390. dmduncan - September 2, 2013

I’m on Bob’s side here. If by “broken” you want Star Trek to go back to the days when you were all happy having Voyager and Enterprise—screw that crap. And honestly, I too would find it hard to listen when fans rate STID the worst Star Trek movie ever made. It argues very strongly that fans should not ever be listened to. If you ‘d rather have another Nemesis instead of STID, then put your own money down on it and go make it yourselves, because nobody on Earth is interested in it but you.

And criticism of what you didn’t like in or about STID doesn’t have to be rude or otherwise insulting. It’s not accurate to say STID was “dumb,” for instance. Don’t let your emotions get the best of you and cause you to lose objectivity.

Also, comparing STIDs American BO performance to one’s higher expectations makes it seem like the movie was a failure. I’d rather just thank Bob for keeping Star Trek alive for yet another sequel, instead of tanking it like the franchise’s last cinematic stewards did.

Thank you Bob, Alex, JJ, and yeah, even Damon for keeping the Enterprise in orbit, and I have my fingers crossed that K/OPP can get Star Trek back on TV too.

And why do people get shocked when Bob bites back? Who else interacts with fans to such a degree? If you haven’t been told to go screw yourselves more often by writers or producers, it’s because they don’t interact with you long enough to let you piss them off.

You shouldn’t be surprised that what you say CAN do that either, and that’s why you ought to be mindful of how you say things.

391. I am To Smurfy - September 2, 2013

First time I watched into darkness, my mind flashed back to the Island and the controversy around it

http://variety.com/2005/biz/news/was-the-island-cloned-2-1117927239/

http://variety.com/2006/biz/news/studios-face-island-trial-1117952416

392. dmduncan - September 2, 2013

Seriously, a lot of you have some bad mojo surrounding you. You shouldn’t enjoy insulting people at all, and certainly not someone who’s had the admirable success Bob has. When you put your negative emotions out there you affect and INfect other people with them.

393. Capes - September 2, 2013

On a related note can we all agree to stop trying to piss off Bob Orci please? I happen to enjoy his comments and we are lucky to have him here as a regular.

In other words….can we at least take a moment to talk about about MY needs? :-)

Thanks

394. Jonboc - September 2, 2013

#390– dmduncan–a logical, well measured post of reason. Refreshing!

395. VulcanFilmCritic - September 2, 2013

@369MadMan “It is the real boborci. He’s on a rampage through Twitter as well, dropping all kinds of f-bombs there as well.”

@373Ahmed “For some reason, Bob was acting like a jerk today. I even thought it was an imposter, until Matt Wright said it was the real Bob !!!”

The explanation is simple: he’s exhibiting all the classic signs of Pon Farr.

396. Vultan - September 2, 2013

#390

“If by “broken” you want Star Trek to go back to the days when you were all happy having Voyager and Enterprise—screw that crap.”

Uh, who suggested that…? No thanks. Would be nice for them to finally break away from the TWOK fixation though. I think that’s the main nitpick a lot of fans have with STID. They probably thought they were being clever and ironic, but it came across as kind of lazy and uninspired to me.

397. Vultan - September 2, 2013

I’m referring to the reactor scene by the way.

398. boborci - September 2, 2013

don’ take me too seriously. if you’ve been on this board for the lar 5 years (as I have beeb) you know that twice a year I explode at the morons. today, there seemed to be a congregation, so it seemed like a good time.

you are the most listened to fans ever. That doesn’t mean you will get is to do what you want. just means what I said: I listened. Then we decided, having heard as many opinions as possible. To paraphrase of one of my great and beloved heroes, George W. Bush, “we’re the deciders….

399. Mr Mike - September 2, 2013

In the first movie, the invasion by Nero into the past was chilling. Having him tell a young Kirk that James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life was one o the most effective parts of the movie because as a long-time Trek fan, immersed in the Trek universe, we had this villain ready to destroy all of it. That’s why the movie worked so well on multiple levels. Because it hit home so hard. That’s why it was emotional. I think Into Darkness carried this forward– Starfleet being impacted still by Nero’s altering of events. Starfleet worrying more about defense and offense than exploration. Starfleet worrying more about power and who will be bigger in the face of threats. The distortion of Starfleet and the Star Trek we love, but with the characters we know fighting against it!

I had no problem with Into Darkness. I loved it. It kept that feeling of setting right what went wrong that the first movie had. Seeing Spock Prime again was great and seeing how things so deeply built into these characters caused them to react like they did in the prime universe in a different but almost mystically similar situation.

I loved both movies, though I agree that I enjoy a slightly slower pace, hope (with Karl Urban) that the next movie is more about exploration, and also hope to see Trek back on TV. Isn’t Bob Orci’s favorite series Next Gen? It’s not as if he doesn’t know and love the small screen, slower Star Trek. He just knows what has to be done for the big screen and they’ve done it in a big way that doesn’t sacrifice Star Trek’s soul at all. If anything it is amplified. Looking forward to what’s to come.

400. dmduncan - September 2, 2013

398. boborci – September 2, 2013

Hey man, you don’t need to explain it.

And those explosions will stop happening once you complete the Kohlinahr, anyway. ;-)

401. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 2, 2013

And mad because he realizes there is no Vulcan where he can stick it.

As a lifer-Trekkie, trust me. Any Vulcan, Spock for instance, would easily transwarp himself right across the galaxy to a Romulus, hideout and work as a miner, I got that right, right? Yeah. Hideout as a miner for a few months until he finds the right child named Nero looking to work in the mine, kill him, thus re-establishing the natural Star Trek timeline loop-glitch, before he ever misses out on getting his Vulcan groove on.

Or, did I again miss the point of the time-line incursion? Even I can’t figure it out anymore as boborci challenges. And I get the feeling that if Nero and ST09 never happened, that bad robot and company would still not have Kirk and company truly back together as they should be.

402. Shatterhand - September 2, 2013

Oh, for frak’s sake. Gods save us from the purists who just can’t bear to let the past be the past. STID wasn’t perfect, but it was far from a flop, so let’s get a frakking grip.

The only thing I agree with about that ridiculous mound of keyboarded drivel is that Star Trek should return to TV. It should have a place on the small screen again, but it should be taken completely out of the hands of Berman/Braga and their ilk. They had their time, and it’s over. Any new series should be set in the Abrams-verse. Take that version of Trek and correct whatever the purists are bellyaching about. Bring back the elements of exploration, diplomacy, and timely themes; build on what Trek has always stood for. And yes, it CAN be done within the confines of the Abrams-verse with the right group of sharp writers and a good cast.

These bloody purists have to decide either to climb aboard or get eaten by sharks. Their ideal vision of Star Trek is not going to be what Star Trek will become. No one among the fandom is going to be completely satisfied, no matter what is done next. It’s time to stop operating under the belief that every fan has to be satisfied. Either get on board or get gone. Enough is bloody enough.

403. Charla - September 2, 2013

Love that we have Star Trek again, thanks to Bob for listening to us both good and bad, and that we have had 2 (also very good) additional films that we have enjoyed. (Most of the fans) It is nice to see you Bob and hear your opinions.

I know not everyone agrees with each other 100% all the time and respect differing viewpoints. I hope that others will be respectful of you and the others on this board as well. Thank you for your dedication to all things Trek and your continued interactions with us here at TrekMovie.

I do wish you the best and look forward to another Trek movie in a few years. For now I imagine a well deserved rest is in order! :)

404. Capes - September 2, 2013

Thanks again Bob Orci. You are appreciated.

405. Phil - September 2, 2013

I don’t like the phrase ‘broken’, because it misrepresents. Is a tune up in order, yeah. Trek does need to be on TV. Trek does need to build on and engage a wide fan base (yeah, worldwide). In regards to the movies, just where is the franchise headed? How many more movies are need for young Kirk to figure out what it takes to be captain?

Okay, at the risk of being snarky, if everything is hunky-dory in Trekland, where’s the sequel announcement? Paramounts other shiny new tentpole, WWZ, got one pretty quick. There is an uneasy feeling that despite putting out two of the best performing Trek movies ever, that the franchise is still drifting a bit. We are hearing one thing from Bob, but the silence from Paramount speaks volumes.

406. Vultan - September 2, 2013

#398

Just curious, who were you guys exploding at in the script for Trek ’09? Quite a few F bombs in the descriptive parts. Sorry, but I’ve never seen that in a script before. Writers tend to save that stuff for the dialogue (when they’re allowed).

407. Red Dead Ryan - September 2, 2013

For all you whiners/bitchers/losters out there:

Bob and co. have taken a moribund franchise out from its coma and re-energized it with TWO exhilerating and exciting movies that also managed to draw in the mainstream audiences. NONE of the previous ten movies managed to do that, at least not to the scale of “Star Trek” and “Star Trek Into Darkness”. Not even the “Holy Grail” of Trek films, “The Wrath Of Khan” speaks to today’s casual audiences the way that the new movies do.

There seems to be a massive sense of entitlement from a small, but angry (vindictive?) group of Talifans who clearly would like to go back to the days of “The Final Frontier” and “Nemesis”.

Now, I happen to like most of the old Treks (some more than others of course), but I know those days aren’t coming back, so I’ve embraced the new movies, as well as where the franchise could go in the right hands.

And oh yeah, there’s been “bad science” and “plot holes” in EVERY incarnation of Trek, from TOS to the new movies. All I hear is how “magic blood” happens to be lazy writing, but somehow the Genesis device is still considered brilliant and gets a free pass from fans here just because Nick Meyer came up with it instead of Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

Some people need to make sure the white substance they are putting into their coffee isn’t crack. Because they are acting like hyped up caffeinated crack addicts in need of being institutionized.

408. Red Dead Ryan - September 2, 2013

“losters” = losers.

409. Mad Mann - September 2, 2013

Fair enough, Orci. Ive vented before online. I just to know who the fan was that requested a line-for-line homage/rip-off of the death scene from WOK. That fan should get smacked.

410. Phil - September 2, 2013

Here, maybe this will put things in perspective….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k6Lb3kFwJRQ#t=12

411. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

@407. Red Dead Ryan

“Some people need to make sure the white substance they are putting into their coffee isn’t crack. Because they are acting like hyped up caffeinated crack addicts in need of being institutionized.”

I’m guessing you are talking from a personal experience!

Keep up the good fight against the “whiners/bitchers/losters out there” while you are at it!

412. Mad Mann - September 2, 2013

Btw, Orci, what’s the news about the Star Trek theme park attraction?

413. Red Dead Ryan - September 2, 2013

A lot of fans here seem to prefer living in the past which is ironic since Star Trek is about embracing the future.

Because ever since J.J Abrams has jumped ship as director (and even before that) all I see are fans suggesting that any of Leonard Nimoy, Jonathan Frakes or Nick Meyer come back as director. Never mind that NONE of them have directed anything substantial in YEARS, nor have they proven themselves as being able to direct a big blockbuster movie.

414. Red Dead Ryan - September 2, 2013

411. Ahmed – September 2, 2013

“Keep up the good fight against the “whiners/bitchers/losters out there” while you are at it!”

Thanks! I and a few others here have taken to the task of standing up to Trek-jihadists like yourself.

415. Vultan - September 2, 2013

#413

Ironic in more ways than one. If it’s about embracing the future… uh, as Mr. Dickerson said in the article, shouldn’t we move beyond Kirk and crew?

I’d welcome that.

416. Phil - September 2, 2013

@412. Looks like they are pushing dirt in Jordan. Also looks like a playground for the rich and famous, but that’s a different story.

http://1701news.com/node/280/jordan-breaks-ground-trek-featured-theme-park.html

417. new trek fan - September 2, 2013

I’ would like everybody here to give an honest opinion about ST into darkness, if it were the first Khan movie after Space Seed and TWOK never existed.

418. Ahmed - September 2, 2013

@ 413. Red Dead Ryan – September 2, 2013

“A lot of fans here seem to prefer living in the past which is ironic since Star Trek is about embracing the future.”

Not all of us want that. I personally want them to move forward, stop rehashing old stories & come up with something fresh & new. I want a mix of good sci-fi story with some action but not relentless action scenes.

@414. Red Dead Ryan – September 2, 2013

“Thanks! I and a few others here have taken to the task of standing up to Trek-jihadists like yourself.”

Trek-jihadists sound like something you would hear on Fox News, are you by any chance a Republican ? :)

419. El Chup - September 2, 2013

Just reading some of the comments above from boborci, and the question I have to ask is who does he think he is? Describing people who dislike his effort morons? Justifying the work as the best Star Trek ever? Anyone would think Star Trek was his idea in the first place.

STID didn’t make a ton of money because it was the best Trek ever, It made a ton of money because it was tailored to the action to order generation. Much like superhero films of the modern era and other sci-fi actioners it gave the regular cinema-goers their two hours of excitement and thrills. Well that’s great for them, but that doesn’t mean all Star Trek fans have to agree as some of us have different reasons why we like the franchise.

I was disgusted to read comments above like “there’s a reason I write movies and you don’t”. How insufferably arrogant. Personally, I’ve spent 15 years practicing human rights law, which I consider to be more noble than writing movies for cash. But I guess I am vastly inferior since my profession is not one that’s in the public eye, eh?

I’ve been a Star Trek fan arguably as log as Mr. Orci has as we are roughly the same age. I’ve been watching since I was about 2 years old. He does not have the monopoly on what makes the best Star Trek, despite the pompous attitude he displays above. To be so dismissive as to think there is nothing wrong with the product just because it made a ton of money is to be extremely short sighted. I fully understand the idea of appealing to a broader audience beyond fandom, but I dare say that some of the individuals associated with the franchise at the moment forget that there is a reason that Star Trek is still here today. It’s us, the long term fans who kept it going all those years and afforded the chance to revisit and reboot the product. It would’ve died decades ago had it not been for us and Mr. Orci would not be looking at a pleasing bank balance. The movies carry the name Star Trek. Therefore, despite what is claimed, it is designed to appeal not just to the wider audience, but also to us as well. If not they should remove the Star Trek name from it. I therefore do not think it is unreasonable for long term fans of the franchise to offer their feelings on what they want to see without derision.

I have no problem with Mr. Orci defending his work. But I expect him, at the very least, to be respectful of the long term fans who do not agree with his take on Trek. That does not extend to being abusive, arrogant and calling people morons. We are entitled to our opinion just as much as he is, and just because we don’t write movies for a living it does not mean that every single one of us is some sort of drooling inferior incapable of reaching his lofty heights. I do not have to be honoured, and consequently obsequious, simply because he chooses to post on a Star Trek message board. That is not an excuse for being so condescending and rude to people.

420. Jack - September 2, 2013

While Into Darkness WAS a good movie. What they needed to do was make it more of it’s own with HINTS, and some homage to TWOK. Not OUTRIGHT clones of lines, and scenes with a “twist” on it, such as Spock yelling “KHAAAANNNN” There have been other Star Trek movies that have really dropped the ball at things, here is an example of something that could have been HUGE, Heartbreaking, and one of the BEST easter eggs in ST history. The writers of ST Generations really showed they should NOT have been writing for Cpt. Kirk. Instead of “Antonia” as the woman Kirk wanted to marry, they should have gotten Joan Collins to reprise her role as Edith Keeler, as a lot of fans say SHE WAS THE LOVE OF KIRK’S LIFE. Think about that one, the heartwrenching scene of Kirk having to leave his chance with her AGAIN, and walking away to save the Enterprise again. There would have been drama, emotion, and a proper homage to Kirk, and his history. But the writers DROPPED the ball big time

421. El Chup - September 2, 2013

@ Red Dead Ryan

I have no doubt that the Abrams movies have helped to give a boost to the franchise. But simply because it made a ton of money does not mean that fandom must be an echo chamber where everything is accepted based on financial return.

I think the problem I have with this argument is that I don’t accept the notion that the rehashing of elements from the past, like Khan and TWOK, is the only way of keeping the franchise healthy. Having action movie that will appeal to the wider audience, but keeping the core themes of what makes Trek, well, Trek, is not a mutually exclusive concept. I think that is what is recognised by the article above.

The biggest problem I see from a fan perspective with STID is that it felt a bit lazy and misjudged the fans by assuming that they wanted to see Khan, tribbles, a rehashed death scene and so on. That these were the elements that would placate them and make them squeal in their seats because they were familiar. As nice as it is to have nods to the past, I don’t think “fanwanks” are what a lot of Trek fans came to the franchise for. Some want to see that commentary on the human condition and the spirit of exploration. The original Star Trek, for me, touched upon the inspiration of the moon landings. It mad you feel that humanity would get it right and that we were going in the right direction. That idea of a better future to look forward to and drive us on to discover new things in the universe, and in doing so, new things about ourselves. I just didn’t feel that at all with STID. It was the same dark, depressing post 9/11 theme that so many films have these days. It just didn’t inspire.

I just don’t get why people think you can’t have an inspirational story, but still have all the action and thrill elements there for the wider audience.

422. Red Dead Ryan - September 2, 2013

415. Vultan – September 2, 2013

“#413

Ironic in more ways than one. If it’s about embracing the future… uh, as Mr. Dickerson said in the article, shouldn’t we move beyond Kirk and crew?

I’d welcome that.”

How about no more Batman or Spider-Man movies, then? Would you like no more James Bond movies, either? Those icons are flagship characters for studios, just like Kirk and Spock are for CBS/Paramount.

It’s all about marketing. You go with your best-known assets. It’s why we won’t be seeing a $200 million Aquaman movie, or any Felix Leiter movies for that matter.

416. Phil – September 2, 2013

“@412. Looks like they are pushing dirt in Jordan. Also looks like a playground for the rich and famous, but that’s a different story.”

Well, considering what’s going on in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, I can think of more important things to do with that money and land. I can’t see tourists flocking to that neck of the woods right now….

417. Ahmed – September 2, 2013

“@ 413. Red Dead Ryan – September 2, 2013

“A lot of fans here seem to prefer living in the past which is ironic since Star Trek is about embracing the future.”

Not all of us want that. I personally want them to move forward, stop rehashing old stories & come up with something fresh & new. I want a mix of good sci-fi story with some action but not relentless action scenes.

@414. Red Dead Ryan – September 2, 2013

“Thanks! I and a few others here have taken to the task of standing up to Trek-jihadists like yourself.”

Trek-jihadists sound like something you would hear on Fox News, are you by any chance a Republican ? :)”

Nope. Just a good ole’ Canadian boy telling it like it is! :-)

423. OhPlease - September 2, 2013

Star Trek is dead and needs to be reinvented… By going back to TV where it started and picking up an off-the-enterprise format that the franchise did to death throughout the 90s and early 2000s??? What????

The Star Trek fans on this site just have incredibly bad ideas. I never want to see trek go the way of the awful acting and lame stories of the various web series you guys all love. I never want to see trek return to the incredibly cheesy, dated, unfunny humor of the movies (IV, V, VI, and Insurrection). And most of all I never want to see it return to basic cable with mediocre acting and tiny budgets.

ST2009 was an incredible movie, something like 95% of all people who saw it liked it. It’s one of my all time favorites now. Okay so there were a few minor things to pick at like being able to see Vulcan from Vega like that, but who cares it was a great story with fantastic acting. And it made a ton of money and got a ton of people interested in trek.

STID was a great summer popcorn flick. There was a ton I loved about it. There were some things I didn’t like and I feel like every one of them was put in to satiate hard core fans… Basically any time something incredibly cheesy is going on you know it’s to try and make the old guard happy. Drag Nimoy out one more time? Sure. Ridiculous caricature of Bones? Okay. Throw in a Khan scream for good measure? Check. All for the same annoying fans who are hating on the movie. My advise for ST3? Ignore all the crap said here on this site and just make a good movie. And please for the love of God no Shatner. That would be nothing but total fan boy cheese.

424. Vultan - September 2, 2013

#420

Ah, well, sorry, I was talking more about Trek on television and not so much the movies. Quite a few successful seasons without Kirk on TV… and a few that weren’t. Anyway, Trek is not a superhero series or a super spy series. If anything (still talking about TV here), it’s like the Law & Order franchise. Different series, different characters operating within a focused outline… or mission statement.

Bring it back to TV.

425. GarySeven - September 2, 2013

While there’s no way for me to tell if the above Orci posts are really from Bob Orci, I would be really surprised if they were (and also distressed). Mr. Orci is typically gracious, mature, and not incendiary. But another clue to me, that it may not be the real Bob Orci are all the typos and misspellings. That’s not typical of his posts either. After all, he’s a WRITER.
I say this as someone who does not like what he and JJ have done with the franchise. But he always seemed like a good guy, based on his posts.

426. El Chup - September 2, 2013

@GarySeven

I sincerely hope you are right.

427. ilker - September 2, 2013

This post is finally a relief, to admit that it is broken is a good starting point. Maybe it’s that way since DS9, and First Contact.

But surely the way to fix it was not to discard decades of ST folklore and create an alternate timeline to be more “free as writers”?!?! In a sic-fi franchise like Star Trek. Even the migrating birds in the air laughed at that.

We now know how good Trek can look with the proper budgets, and that people are actually thirsty to see movies like that, look at the box office of the 2 abrams films, with thin or no real story at all. This gives me hope.

Imagine what a proper re-boot could do; with homage paid to Trek’s roots, and modern effects, and a good budget. We’ll get there my fellow Trekkers. Nobody will remember the abrams films in 10 year’s time.

Hugz to you all my bros and sisters…

428. Hat Rick - September 2, 2013

I haven’t read much of Mr. Orci’s comments in this thread, but if he disparaged certain fans who disagreed with him on the merits of his movie, then I’m not going to see that as particularly helpful in any respect. And I say that as a fan of his Trek movies.

I do think that there is an overwrought quality to the negativity against STID — a negativity that I find odd and undeserved. A movie is a movie is a movie, goes the saying. STID is a commercial product and like most, you can take it or leave it. It’s not highly regulated; it’s an expression of free speech and, far beyond that, of the quest for money. Hollywood doesn’t run on or even make movies, let alone talent or stories. It runs on and makes money, first and foremost.

So you have people in Hollywood making the movies with the bottom line in mind.

Hollywood people by and large have a completely different mindset from the “true fans.” It’s a rare occasion when a true fan can make a million dollar movie; it’s even rarer when such a movie makes real money.

So I’ve given up thinking that Hollywood can make the Star Trek movie of my dreams; I think that time and again, it’s proven that it can’t. Money is the reason for Trek, and by the same token, it’s also the reason that Trek movies are what they are — commercial vehicles for the making of more money.

So there we have it.

I think we’re asking for the impossible here, or at least, asking for lightning to strike exactly when we want it. We want an art-house film with a tentpole budget that appeals to the masses of cinema-goers worldwide. How likely does that sound?

No matter what we say here it never seems to matter at all. The movies keep on being made the way they are. It’s almost a formula.

It’s one thing to swim against the tide. It’s quite another to attempt to swim up Niagara Falls.

Maybe we should devote our efforts to something even remotely possible.

429. ilker - September 2, 2013

wow, if that’s the real bob orci with all the bitchin’ comments-replies and bush being his hero, maybe we’ve all been so much lucky in getting what we got. The Trek could have gone really worse than it has.

I do hope he’s not the best of the abrrams team. incredibly lame. a spoiled kid in an adult body. what did your parents do to you bob? we just did not like your work, and the box office (still arguable) will not make the fans shut up. You will be after whoever pays you next. We will be here.

I wonder if paramount ever sees these posts.

430. Keachick - September 2, 2013

Bob Orci –

STID’s plot, as I understand it -

The Head of Starfleet, Admiral Marcus, wanted to be prepared against all opposition. The weapon that imploded Vulcan was so new, unexpected and so utterly terrifyingly destructive that the idea that another one of those weapons just might be out there somewhere lead him (and others) to work on developing far more powerful weaponry and ship(s). He did not know what the Klingons or Romulans knew or had at their disposal and he allowed his own warmongering and fears to get the better of him. The Marcus mindset is that the best defence is offence, which is why he wants war with the Klingons when Starfleet is at its strongest in order to break down any and all Klingon defensive/offensive capabilities.

I am quite sure that the name Section 31 came up but nobody knew much about it or where its location was, if indeed it only had one location.
The fact is that most research, especially into new weapons technology, is done in secret. We have organizations today – NSA, CIA, and various other no name government and civilian enterprises in which a lot of stuff goes on that most of us have little or no idea about. Even among many in government etc, access to information is done on a strictly “need to know” basis.

Marcus meets a man known as John Harrison who has a ship and crew. He uses the lives of the rest of his crew as leverage to get this Harrison, who is clearly of much superior intellect and strength, to work on developing a new, more deadly torpedo with a greater range than ever before. Harrison has his own ideas and plans though…John Harrison says he is Khan, either because that is his real name and/or because he sees himself as a great warrior prince and ruler of men…

John Harrison comes to believe that Marcus has killed the rest of his crew and so he retaliates by using a worker with access to Section 31 in London to bomb the facility and then he fires on the Conference Room in Starfleet Headquarters, San Francisco. He does not kill Marcus but he does kill Pike.

This is where Marcus sees his opportunity to stop this Khan, someone who he can no longer control and clearly knows is a violent criminal from 300 years ago. He uses a young recently demoted captain, James Kirk, whose mentor has just died before his tearful eyes. This young man, James Kirk, is filled with grief and anger and wants to avenge his mentor, Pike’s, death. Kirk also wants to prove that he can be a capable captain who can take orders. Kirk is desperate to redeem himself after violating the prime directive and lying about it, which is why he was demoted. Marcus gives him back his captaincy and the Enterprise and orders Kirk to find and kill this John Harrison.

Carol Wallace-Marcus is a weapons expert who manages to forge some Starfleet papers thereby giving her access to the Enterprise and to the new torpedoes that Marcus has ordered Kirk to take on board the Enterprise before he departs in search of Harrison. Engineer Scott is not granted vital information as to what these weapons contain and whether they may interfere with vital ship’s systems, warp core etc. Scotty argues with his captain, Kirk, and quits as Chief Engineer. It turns out that Carol Marcus is just as suspicious about the nature of these torpedoes as Scotty is. Kirk also argues with Spock over the intention to carry out Marcus’s illegal orders – ie killing Harrison and not capturing Harrison and giving him a proper trial. That day was not a good day.

Kirk does find John Harrison, but he does not kill him. He captures him and plans to bring him back to stand trial as per Starfleet regulations. Harrison reveals to Kirk that his name is really Khan, not that this means anything to Kirk.

However, while the Enterprise is in the Neutral Zone near Klingon space, the warp core goes off line due to sabotage. It is a sitting duck. They manage to restore some power and manage to crawl back into Federation space. Kirk sends a message to Starfleet explaining their problem and the fact that they have captured the criminal, John Harrison, who is now residing in the brig. During this time, Carol Marcus and Dr McCoy discover what is so *different* about these torpedoes…

Admiral Marcus receives the message and realises his plan has failed. As the story progresses, it becomes clear that Marcus used Kirk and the Enterprise as bait. He knew that where John Harrison went was a Klingon stronghold, however he had Kirk believe that this part of Kronos was not populated and had little or no military presence or security. Marcus had hoped that a fire fight would break out between the Enterprise and the Klingons with the Enterprise and Harrison/Khan’s torpedoes being destroyed. Then Marcus could take the high ground and give good reason to Starfleet and the Federation that they declare war on the Klingon Empire.

Marcus knew that by allowing Harrison/Khan to help develop the various weapons technologies, he was in “league with the devil”. However, like most people of his kind, he believed he could control such a person and even betray him without consequence. Not so – the Harrison/Khans cannot be controlled and certainly not toyed with. Marcus found this out by seeing Khan stand on and break his daughter’s leg and then have his own skull crushed with Khan’s own bare hands.

Harrison/Khan’s actions caused Kirk to die of radiation poisoning as a result of Kirk not taking the time to use proper precautions against the radiation (I guess he felt there was no time for that) in order to kick start the warp core, which gave power back to the Enterprise etc etc…Paradoxically, it was the same Harrison/Khan’s blood with its unusual properties which brought about Kirk’s resurrection.

There has always been terrorism, except that such acts went by different names like sabotage.
War is the most far reaching and most lethal form of terrorism.

Harrison/Khan committed two terrorist acts – once on Section 31 in London and once on the Conference Room of SF Headquarters. However, Admiral Marcus was keen to commit the most heinous of all terrorist acts – to start an all out war…

431. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 2, 2013

Point #1- Bob Orci acting like a d**khead to Star Trek fans is probably the least intelligent thing I have seen him do here. I don’t think his writing is all that great and I have no problem pointing out what I find flawed about his story. Either he can take criticism or he can’t. He has shown his mettle here and today it was lacking.

Point #2- Red Dead Ryan, saying that all of us whiny Trek fans live in the past is a hoot when you take into consideration that the last two movies are set in the TOS era. Oh the irony.

Point #3- By and large the most vocal defenders of STID are a real bunch of hypocrites. Anyone who voices a criticism is immediately given some label and told off in some fashion. What a bunch of immature jerks you all are. If this is what the “New Breed” of Trek fan is then count me and my money out. I won’t be going to the theater to see the next movie (and taking my family) and I definitely won’t be buying this obvious money grab of a bluray release.

For the most part I have let the Abrams loyalist jerks clap-trap to roll off of my back. Now I’m starting to get more and more pissed off at their attempts to shout down anyone with a view that doesn’t match their own. And you spout off some nonsense about IDIC. That’s rich. Try practicing it yourselves. Maybe I should get motivated enough to get the ball rolling with other like-minded people and shout YOU all down. If Karl Urban weren’t getting his bread buttered by Paramount and Bad Robot he would be one of us.

Or maybe I should just sit back and watch this all play out. Abrams and his band have had their 3 movie run at Star Trek hubris and are about to do the same thing to Star Wars. I will always have my 6 series of real Star Trek and you can have your 3 movies of pretend Trek. Suck on that.

432. MJ (The Original). - September 2, 2013

Dumbest Editorial in the history of Trekmovie.com.

One movie that misfires a bit hardly points to a broken franchise.

Shame on you, Joseph Dickerson, for you unnecessary incendiary post.

Two bad movies in a row with a bad series to boot (i.e. Insurrection, Nemesis and Enterprise) — that would be like a “TREND,” dude.

You are just feeding the trolls here. Again, SHAME ON YOU !!!!!

433. Boborci - September 2, 2013

427. Not bad!

434. I am to Smurfy - September 2, 2013

427)
And here comes Keachick once again with her Know it all attitude.

We don’t need a long @ss diatribe by you, about why you know the plot blah blah blah, a dingo ate my baby blah blah blah

435. I am to Smurfy - September 2, 2013

MJ not to start anything because I like that we actually agreeded on the Bluray thread for the past few days.
But Season 3 and 4 of Enterprise were pretty darn good.
Nemesis I will give you but last 2 seasons of Enterprise were well done.

436. MJ (The Original). - September 2, 2013

Well said, Bob Orci — I agree with you completely on this point. But, all things being equal, some of us also would like you to tell JJ to “FUCK-OFF” on Bad Robot’s cash grab with the Blu-Ray special features.
_______

318. boborci – September 2, 2013
312 Shitty Dodge. STID has infinitely more social commentary than Raiders in every Universe, and I say that with Harrison Ford being a friend. You lose credibility big time when you don’t honestly engage with the FUCKING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!

437. I am to Smurfy - September 2, 2013

Bob-
I am going to apologize for my earlier post(s) to you, I think it was more out of anger over how the special features are being handled and the lack of a shifting aspect ratio for the Bluray release.

Was it right to do that no, and it just made me look even more foolish than my name suggests.

For the record I really do like Hawaii 5-0 though and can not wait for season to begin.

438. MJ (The Original). - September 2, 2013

@ 427 “Hugz to you all my bros and sisters…”

Huh???

Don’t bend over for that bar of soap, dude.

439. MJ (The Original). - September 2, 2013

@437. I am with you. Obviously, a call like that was JJ’s. Hence I would hope that Bob would relay the fan anger that we have to JJ. It’s likely that Bob had absolutely no input on this Blu-Ray special features fiasco.

440. ilker - September 2, 2013

@437 MJ man, what’s wrong with that :) I feel like I’m amongst my fellow football club fans out here. nice feeling. I meant no harm :)

441. MJ (The Original). - September 2, 2013

You trash everything about the movie, then ask us for a group hug.

No thanks.

442. Colin - September 3, 2013

War is the most far reaching and most lethal form of terrorism

Keachick,

WTF!!!

443. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

MJ, I give you credit. At least you are consistent. Insultive and boorish but consistent.

444. Keachick - September 3, 2013

Perhaps who have come here “late in the game” should go back and look at why Bob Orci reacted as he did.

#312 boborci – “Ahmed, I wish you knew what you were talking about. I listened more than any other person behind the Trek franchise has EVER listened. And guess what? Glad I did becuase it lead to 2 biggest Trek’s ever.
You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive. Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?”

This was the response – #315 Ahmed

“I’m sorry but what plot ? Khan was found & used by Section 31 & then he put his own people in the torpedo to save them or whatever & the rest of the movie follow in the same illogical way.”

Bob Orci replied at #318 with this – “Shitty Dodge. STID has infinetly more social commentary than Raiders in every Universe, and I say that with Harrison Ford being a friend. You lose credibility big time when you don’t honestly engage with the FUCKING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!”

Some other poster made some silly comment about her own pitches of a story she made here some time ago, but that was not what Bob Orci was asking of Ahmed or any other poster coming here.

At post #427, I posted my own pitch of the STID plot based on my memory of a movie I saw more than three months ago and I was able to say a lot more than Ahmed’s lazy, pathetic pitch at #315.

Ahmed had been rude towards a poster Scott McC with his sarcastic comment he made which included Abrams and then proceeded to be rude towards Bob Orci. I guess, like me and so many, he just got tired of being patient with ignorant, bad tempered people.

445. Keachick - September 3, 2013

#434 -What? Bob Orci asked a poster to pitch what he thought the plot of STID was. He did not do so.

I decided that I would give it a go. “Know it all attitude” – No, I just wrote what I remember.

446. Aurore - September 3, 2013

“…..People LOVE Star Trek, and it holds a special place in people’s hearts. And as long as it provokes such a passionate reaction, Star Trek will never die…..”*

Joseph Dickerson

So true.

No matter what happens next, for me, Star Trek, what I loved and still love about it, will never die.

Ultimately that’s what really matters…to me.

:)

*
http://trekmovie.com/2013/07/11/star-trek-after-darkness-what-is-next-for-the-franchise/

447. Bob Tompkins - September 3, 2013

…a long winded version of what I have stated since 2009….

448. Red Dead Ryan - September 3, 2013

Yeah, I agree with MJ that this article written by Joe Dickerson is an absolute disgrace. All it has proven to have done is divide the fans into two camps: the pro-new Trek, and the anti-new Trek.

Plus he is just plain wrong about STID. STID is a success, maybe not quite the smash hit we were hoping, but it was among the better of the summer blockbusters this year, and is highly rated on both Rotten Tomatoes and IMBD.

Next time, I suggest that Mr. Dickerson do his homework and fact-checking before he puts his crap up on this site.

449. Aurore - September 3, 2013

“….All it has proven to have done is divide the fans into two camps: the pro-new Trek, and the anti-new Trek….”
_______

Speaking for myself, I am very much…. “pro-new Trek “.

I do, however, have a problem with the whitewashing of Khan Noonien Singh.

That won’t change.

‘Still looking forward to the future, though.
As far as I know, the franchise is not dead…

450. Lostrod - September 3, 2013

BTW – the Enterprise crew has reacted to the recent Mylie Cyrus “performance” …

http://youtu.be/k6Lb3kFwJRQ

Regards.

451. Aurore - September 3, 2013

(@ 447 Addendum)

….To be “Pro-new Trek”, as I understand it, is to be in favour of the new possibilities offered by the new timeline.

I am all for that ; new possibilities.

Of course, that does not mean that I must like every decision taken by the powers that be. For instance, if I don’t like a decision, I’ll speak my mind. If my post makes it to the thread, people are free to read it… or ignore it, naturally. It is as simple as that.

They are the… “deciders”. They can read and/or ignore!

The author of the article voiced his opinions. Except when posts “disappear” for good…Don’t we all , here?

:)

452. Bill Peters - September 3, 2013

ilker – September 2, 2013

Boborci was being Factious in those Bush Comments, also he doesn’t like people attacking work that he has made and that has become the Highest Grossing Star Trek Film Ever, He has to do what the Studio wants but comes here and also listens to us and adds parts to the movie as he can that we will like and he is the first Writer, Producer to interact with us here.

Boborci will give us a good 50th and he has to balance the needs of the General Aducances Studios want to pull in with the wants of the fans, Trek has to make money for more Trek to be made.

Fans need to stop attackin Bob and JJ and understand they have more people then just the fans to keep happy.

453. Bill Peters - September 3, 2013

I have to agree with you Red Dead Ryan and MJ we need fans not to be Divided into camps ect, This is what Trek is for now, it may get back to TV Eventually, but I don’t think it is anywhere near broke, I just think some fans want trek to be one thing and the Sudio wants trek to be more then one thing and JJ and Orci have to walk that Balance, the Blu-ray, DVD Decision about extras were not made by those two name above, it is as it always is made by Marketing at Paramount Pictures.

IF you think you can Picg a Great Trek Movie as a Fan, go to Paramount and get them to back it, but don’t attack BobOrci or JJ or Bad Robot for Producing Trek that Paramount likes.

454. Bill Peters - September 3, 2013

@Aurore – Boborci and the other Producers have said that once the Decision was made about Khan they didn’t want to play into the the Stereotype in the USA and parts of Europe about Terrorist being Middle Eastern or Indian, so they decided that Khan had to be something else not play into that Stereotype, it is a Decision I think Gene Roddenberry would have approved of.

455. Jim Nightshade - September 3, 2013

I personally feel bob o. has every right to answer unreasoning criticisms against him n his writing in whatever method he wants to…Bob is right-and has every right to be proud…we all know nothing is ever perfect…stid is no worse n actually a lot better than many Trek movies….there is epic action,humor,the characters we love, all displaying much heroism and hubris in a new universe they never made…i echo the thanks for reviving my favorite franchise and making it live again…more glorious n epic than ever…i too would love to see trek back on tv in capable hands…stid could have been marketed better but the writing/plot did have more depth n meaning and scope and was mostly great…i also feel fans are wrong bout the khan tributes…they were used to illustrate how some of the original timeline bleeds thru so some same things have to happen fatewise but not in the same ways coming out of the alternate reality blender so to speak…also loved how kirk was trying to explain friendship n loyalty n sacrifice to a clueless at first spock…his emotions still wounded from losing his people are still hurting which makes his understanding of kirks friendship n sacrifice too late, easily justified his vengeful response…how any trek fans can trivialize n simplify a complexly written character arc like that which is a tribute to trek n the characters not lazy scriptwriting at all…further kirk always played fast n loose with prime directives when he felt the need to help a people or planet and yes he again helped save earth n brought justice we hope to his mentors asassin…thanks to bob n bad robot…this fan understands as do many others…if it aint broke dont fiux it…nuff said…whoever the hell is nuff anyway?

456. Jim Nightshade - September 3, 2013

geez dont fix it…great to typo the word fix haha…u guys knew what i meant haha

457. Daniel - September 3, 2013

Having had the chance to see the movie on DVD a few times now, it’s clear to me that I missed a lot of dialogue when I saw it in the cinema. The first hour is nearly flawless storytelling, and the entire movie is beautifully shot. I can’t diss the writers since they need to produce a high octane scipt for the modern audience. I’m very much looking forward to the third film from these writers and hoping they take us truly where no man has gone before.

Getting Trek back on TV is very key to “fixing” Trek for me, but I’m approaching 50 and movies aren’t made for my demographic. Trek works so well in the 45 minute format, in ways that the movies never completely worked for me, even as a teenager.

For the record, I consider Trek ’09 to be one of the better Trek films ever made, and while STID falls into the bottom half, it is no where near the bottom.

458. commander K - September 3, 2013

I’m a huge star trek fan and also work in entertainment,. I will tell you one thing..that article is utter dross and your article is PLAIN EMBARASSING. You couldn’t write a good storyline if you tried, and with that you couldn’t make a CENT out of it. You are just a stupid keyboard hack sitting in his bedroom thinking he knows about the movie making industry and Star Trek as a whole. If you don’t like it don’t watch it..SIMPLE!

459. PaulB - September 3, 2013

Whenever boborci talks about writing, I can’t help but think that he’s channeling the Hollywood exec from SG-1′s 200th episode. One quote from that SG-1 character:
“Look, you guys may all know how things really work out there in the galaxy, but I know the film business. Explosions make great trailers. Simple fact. More explosions, better trailer. Better trailer, more viewers.”

Sad but true.

That exec was trying to sell the SG-1 team on a Hollywood version of their own story that was Star Trek instead of SG–in other words, he loved the SG team SO MUCH he wanted to remake them into a different franchise altogether.

Sounds familiar…

460. Aurore - September 3, 2013

“@Aurore – Boborci and the other Producers have said that once the Decision was made about Khan they didn’t want to play into the the Stereotype in the USA and parts of Europe about Terrorist being Middle Eastern or Indian, so they decided that Khan had to be something else not play into that Stereotype, it is a Decision I think Gene Roddenberry would have approved of.”
________

You think Gene Roddenberry would have approved.

As far as I am concerned, on these boards, just like you, I always speak for myself . Never for other people. Thus, I will say that I think I do not know if he would have approved of the whitewashing of the character.

I, personally, don’t approve of it.

As for the decision, and how it was made, I can assure you that I know about the…explanations… that were given. Once, Mr. Orci even told me that he stood by his opinion on the question. I believed him :

( Post 1942 )

http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/28/into-darkness-second-week-polls/#comments

461. Bernd Schneider - September 3, 2013

A great essay. I am glad that someone managed to bring forward the issue in such a polished fashion.

I would like to add that one principal problem with Trek in the movies (not only since ST09 and STID) is that it is always about a fight against a genocidal villain on his monstrous ship. The producers (not only of Trek movies) should finally get over the supervillain syndrome and tell genuine sc-fi stories again. Or they should allow Star Trek to return to the small screen where it is obviously better possible to tell good stories.

Unfortunately the fans contribute their share to the franchise’s fixation on supervillains, such as with the frequent “Guess the next movie villain” games. I’m sorry to say that, but fans posting at Trekmovie.com are complicit in the idea to bring back Khan, which failed in ST09.

462. TMStar - September 3, 2013

@Boborci

I thought Into Darkness was a good movie. Watched it twice, and will buy the Blu-Ray when they break down (which they will with a special edition of some sort) and include all of the material in one spot. I look forward to the next one. My only problem was two things. Spock yelling Khan, which wasn’t your fault Zachary Quinto just seemed silly doing it. And the McGuffin of Kirk being saved with Khans blood. Otherwise, it was a tight action packed movie.

I don’t know if this was thought about at all, but did you guys consider destroying the Enterprise so that you could move into the 1701-A?

463. TMStar - September 3, 2013

@459

Star Trek does work best on the small screen, without a doubt. But if you bring it to the Silver Screen, you absolutely have to have a compelling villain. Khan worked, he had motivations and Benedict Cumberbatch had the chops to make it work. On TV it would felt out of place, something so incredibly epic shoe horned into a 45 minute episode. The movies are made to shine and be glitzy.

That being said, I would sell my left testicle for Trek to be back on TV as a supplement to the movies.

464. Mel - September 3, 2013

@ 430. Keachick

“Kirk does find John Harrison, but he does not kill him. He captures him and plans to bring him back to stand trial as per Starfleet regulations. Harrison reveals to Kirk that his name is really Khan, not that this means anything to Kirk.”

That was one of the weak points of this whole Khan introduction. When he announced that he was Khan in the cell, I was wondering why Kirk didn’t say “You have another name? Should it mean anything to me?” or something like this. No where in the movie did they show, why him announcing that he is Khan makes a difference to him simply continuing being known has John Harrison.

“Space Seed” and Star Trek 2 didn’t happen in this new universe. Kirk had absolutely no personal history with him. So what was really needed in the movie was an explanation for why the name Khan is significant. Why John Harrison said it in the cell, like it should mean something to Kirk. Like in Space Seed there should have been an explanation about Khan’s past, about what he did before he was frozen up for a few hundred years. They should have shown somehow, that he did something so memorable in the past, that he is still famous or infamous a few hundred years later, so that Kirk would recognize the name. But they did nothing like that. They simply let John Harrison, a white European looking guy, announce, that his real name is Khan, a name which is more common among Indians.

I am wondering, what people who have only seen Star Trek 2009 and no other Trek before thought at that Khan reveal scene. They must have been as confused as Kirk should have been, because Khan announced his name like it should mean something. Maybe they thought he was an admirer of Genghis Khan?

465. Steve T. in NY - September 3, 2013

While I do understand the premise of this essay, I do not agree with it entirely. This Star Trek movie was HANDS DOWN better than ST09. The characters were more formed.. although I felt McCoy wasn’t used properly, and the idea of Khan worked in many ways. Why did he look different? Sound Different? Because Section 31 found him and obviously changed his appearance and voice as Khan was a KNOWN historical figure. He was then used as an operative by Section 31 to do their dirty work (wet work as its called today) so he essentially became a covert operative. As to the merit of using dialog from previous films.. well I don’t like it.. but its not like there has been no precedent in the Star Trek Universe Quarks “this far no further ” line in DS9 is the one that immediately springs to mind but there are many others.
All in all it was a good film in my opinion, it was interesting, funny, had a message that was prescient to today’s times.. and it sets the stage for more interesting storytelling. Not having the Enterprise save Earth ONE MORE TIME.. would be a great departure.. and if they are going “out there” then we hope to see a story set in an unknown area of space.. hopefully an original one which will give our characters a real opportunity to grow and develop further and the audience will get a chance to love them even more.. and invite a whole new generation to enjoy this little gem of a show called Star Trek!

466. StelArian - September 3, 2013

STID was a very problematic Star Trek movie, but definitely not a bad one. It has huge advantages and huge disadvantages. So what?

I’m 41 years old. My two boys are 11 and 14. Before 2009, was impossible for me to make Star Trek attractive for them. Both liked Trek’09 and loved STID.

Who gives a damn if old fans didn’t like STID? Those guys are fighting to bring new blood on board. They try yo make new fans. They try to keep Star Trek alive!

I don’t know what you say… from where I stand… they did excellent work.

467. Mel - September 3, 2013

@ 452. Bill Peters

Personally as someone from Europe, I don’t have the impression that Indians are stereotyped as terrorists, especially non Muslim Indians. That is a treatment Middle Eastern Muslims get.

But even if that was the fear, why the hell make him Khan at all? Why couldn’t he have simply stayed John Harrison? Why use the character at all, if the only way to use him was to whitewash him?

Whitewashing always get bad reactions, because there are just far more big roles in big Hollywood blockbuster movies for white actors than other actors.

And of course Khan wasn’t a villain with only bad characteristics. Often non white villains in movies and series are stupid goons with no brains. Villains, who you can in some way admire, are most of the time white.

That is why a lot of non white people wouldn’t have minded it at all, if Khan would have been played by one of them.

This article from American Sikhs, who were by the way all for an Indian playing Khan, is one example for this:

http://www.sikhnet.com/news/star-trek-whiteness-op-ed

“But all of that will be marred by having my own skin edited out, rendered worthless and silent and invisible when a South Asian man is portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch up on that screen. In the original Trek, Khan, with his brown skin, was an Übermensch, intellectually and physically perfect, possessed of such charisma and drive that despite his efforts to gain control of the Enterprise, Captain Kirk (and many of the other officers) felt admiration for him.

And that’s why the role has been taken away from actors of colour and given to a white man. Racebending.com has always pointed out that villains are generally played by people with darker skin, and that’s true … unless the villain is one with intelligence, depth, complexity. One who garners sympathy from the audience, or if not sympathy, then — as from Kirk — grudging admiration. What this new Trek movie tells us, what JJ Abrams is telling us, is that no brown-skinned man can accomplish all that. That only by having Khan played by a white actor can the audience engage with and feel for him, believe that he’s smart and capable and a match for our Enterprise crew.

What an enormous and horribly ironic step backwards. For Star Trek, for media representation, and for the vision of a future where we have transcended systemic, racist erasure.”

468. govna - September 3, 2013

The premise of this article is broken.

469. Captain John C Baron - September 3, 2013

While Into Darkness wasn’t the best Trek movie, it certainly wasn’t any where near the worst IMO. Yes, they should have gone a different direction and perhaps been more original, but I really enjoyed it.

And it’s certainly no financial flop, either – it’s the highest grossing Trek movie worldwide EVER, outperforming Trek 09. Where it underperformed (slightly) in terms of box office was the US, but even there it’s still the second most successful Trek movie ever by some considerable margin. It didn’t flop financially.

As a fan from the 70s I’m not sure that Trek needs radically ‘fixing’ in film (Trek never really went ‘where no-one has gone before’ on the big screen, it needs to have a wider and more universal appeal while keeping the fans happy – no mean feat).

Where I agree with this article (and some of the comments) is that Trek belongs on TV, where it’s got time to do charcater, exploiration etc much better than a two-hour studio tentpole movie. I’d support any moves to get it back on the small screen completely. But I suspect costs and studio politics may make that difficult.

470. Captain John C Baron - September 3, 2013

Paramount wanted it to be a ‘billion dollar blockbuster’ – Sorry, that’s misleading and inaccurate.I’d ask for the author to back that up with facts or evidence.

Sure, Par wanted it to be as successful as possible (and heck, a billion would be nice), but neither Par (to my knowledge) and certainly no box office analysts I read ever predicted such high numbers

471. ajdczar - September 3, 2013

AMEN

472. ajdczar - September 3, 2013

Star Trek is broken because it has become Star Wars…action at the expense of a cerebral plot.

I loved Wrath of Kahn, but it wasn’t the best of Trek…just the best Trek movie.

TREK IS BEST WHEN IT IS ON TV – A MORALITY PLAY WHERE THERE IS TIME TO GROW WITH THE CHARACTERS. BRING TREK BACK TO TV AND YES, HIRE SOME GOOD SCIENCE FICTION WRITERS WITH NEW IDEAS.

TREK IS BROKEN. I AM SAD

473. EDS - September 3, 2013

#24 Anthony Lewis

Amen. Well said. One can always find something WRONG with nearly EVERY script. Personally I loved both movies and thought they did an awesome job. I love movies where I can sit down with my popcord and drink, and just “get away from everything” for a couple of hours. These people who have written these exhausing opinions really NEED TO GET A LIFE.

474. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@450. Bill Peters,
“Trek has to make money for more Trek to be made.”

Then you better not boycott the BluRay release, and happily fork over your money for a substandard product, because if you don’t … there might not be any more Trek made.

475. Horatio - September 3, 2013

Trek is broken?

Bullshit.

It was broken in 2002 when more people went to see J-Lo in Maid in Manhattan than Star Trek Nemesis.

It was almost broken beyond repair with the mismanaged Enterprise series.

Trek 09 and STID brought Trek back from the nearly dead and made it relevant again. The films are exactly what they are designed to be: big summer tent pole pop corn SF action films. And they succeed.

The Trek most of you whiners are pining for won’t be available again until it makes the leap back to television – and even then many of you all will most likely be bitching about that.

God I wish I were back in the 70′s again when fandom hadn’t devolved into such nitpickery.

476. Louise - September 3, 2013

Yeah seriously I am kinda a new fan who started with Star Trek 2009 but i definitely prefer the original series than STiD. Like where’s the plot in Into Darkness? Although i have to admit that having a Vulcan beating the baddie up is literally super cool but then shouldn’t this movie be called Star Trek the Wrath of Spock lol. One thing I’m really annoyed with Into Darkness is that it doesn’t state clearly why Khan is “bad”. I mean sure he killed a lot of people, but like he said, that’s to save his own crew. There’s only like, one line, from Spock, that suggests what Khan might have done genocide or massacre in the past. But seriously one line? Most of my friends didn’t notice that line. I didn’t notice it either until the second time I’ve watch it.
Surely having a handsome and smart ass baddie is great. But Khan is not as appealing as the new Moriarty or Loki. The audience don’t really KNOW his story. Space Seed told the Khan story clear and clean in 40 minutes, why can’t a two-hour-long movie do a little bit better.

477. martin - September 3, 2013

I probably would be harsher on the premise of this article if I hadn’t just watched Into Darkness a couple times this weekend after getting it as an immediate digital release while waiting for the BluRay from BestBuy.

But here are some points I would make:
1) No trek film is going to make a billion dollars. I would say this film did stunningly well… It was at some point after the first of the year, that Paramount upped the first weekend from $80m expected to over $100m. That’s insane.
2) You can go hire the sci-fi writers, but you aren’t going to improve on that number. You will make a better movie, you will not make a bigger blockbuster.
3) You won’t make as much money on TV as popping out one of these every three years or so. Paramount will clear half a billion after all the sales are done on Into Darkness. Did they make half a billion on Deep Space Nine, with 7 years and a constant effort during that time?

That’s not to say that I disagree that it should be on TV. I am currently in season 5 of a rewatch of Deep Space Nine. I happened to also watch a couple BSG episodes this weekend. The deeper story is so much more satisfying. If Paramount could settle on a reasonable expectation of profit, cut the SFX down (not the quality, but the quantity) – and put the Enterprise back on TV. Thing is, I think more than ever, you want to do Kirk, Spock, McCoy – but I don’t know how you get the audience to adjust from Pine, Quinto, Urban. You might have to give it years after the 3rd movie. As for who does it, I would rather see some sort of collaboration of ISB, RDM, and the Bad Robot folks. JJA has done deep storytelling with Lost and his other shows, so it isn’t that they can’t – it is just that they are doing big-movie blockbusters.

Lastly, I have no issue with the way they did Carol Marcus. Where was the deep backstory for the Bibi Besch Marcus? She and Kirk had a kid, she is a scientist. She was in one movie for only a few minutes total. Nothing wrong with what they did here – she was more hero here than she was in Trek 2.

478. Doug Haffner - September 3, 2013

I keep thinking back to how many awful episodes there were of the original series and a few of the middle films. We don’t have very solid footing to stand on when complaining about this new version AT ALL.

Whew…sometimes the board becomes a “deconstructing Orci” session. It’s always been an easy formula for me. Some form of Star Trek is better than no Star Trek. I’m a human being…so of course I have my own “don’t put any pickles on that” opinions about it. I don’t care for the redesign of the phasers and fall into the ‘less is more’ camp on lens flares….but I certainly don’t think it’s a situation where you throw out the amazing and really worthwhile work that’s been done because I don’t like chrome.

We all want what we want, but we want it our way. That’s ok. Pick up a pen…or ipad or whatever you want to use. Make it your own way.

The only thing more daring that deciding to take on Star Trek would be taking on Star Wars…the rabid Star Wars fans make rabid Star Trek fans look like luke warm Battle Beyond the Stars fans. I might enjoy the fireworks. Can anybody point me to the board where one or more of the writers is soliciting opinions on the new Star Wars? I doubt it. Thanks for taking any interest at all in my anti-pickle stance, Bob.

479. T'Cal - September 3, 2013

1. TWOK
2. FC
3. TVH
4. STID
5. TUC
6. ST09
7. INS
8. NEM
9. TSFS
10. TMP
11. GEN
12. TFF

480. Mel - September 3, 2013

@ 465. Captain John C Baron

Everything else than an increase in comparison to Star Trek 2009 would have been REALLY unexpected. It also needed an increase, because the budget was higher. STID profited from many things in comparison to ST09. Higher cinema ticket prizes mainly because of 3D, inflation and simply from Star Trek being known now in countries it wasn’t really before. In the last four years ST09 probably was aired nearly everywhere in the world on TV.

Anything else than an increase in comparison to ST09 probably would have been called a huge disappointment. With an increase of about 80 million, it did what it had to do, but not much more. It definitely was a financial success. But it wasn’t this super duper mega monster success, some people call it.

ST09 is on the 13th place in the 2009 worldwide gross list of movies:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2009&p=.htm

STID is currently on place 9 in the 2013 list:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2013&p=.htm

I think there is a high probability, that at last Thor, The Hunger Games and The Hobbit will surpass STID and maybe 1-2 others. So overall STID will end up around place 13 like ST09. So in relation to other movies, which came out in the same years, I think both Star Trek movies are financial similar successful.

481. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@461. Steve T. in NY,
“Section 31 found him and obviously changed his appearance and voice as Khan was a KNOWN historical figure.”

Oh obviously. He was soooooo well known that they didn’t just need to change his identity, they needed to change his race and nationality as well, because if any North Indian Sikh turned up in England, the first thing anybody would think is he must be that 300 year old ‘superman’ Khan Noonien Singh. And how did that voice thing work? Some kind of embedded electronic British accent enhancer? Madonna could sure use one of those … Or did they just put him in a course of Speaking with a British Accent for Actors 101 and Khan happily complied because he likes a challenge?

This is the equivalent of finding Hitler frozen in space and changing his appearance to be that of a Swahili speaking African so nobody would recognize him.

482. BatlethInTheGroin - September 3, 2013

#221: That is entirely false reasoning. Kirk being born in a different place, or Amanda and Pike dying, due to a timeline being changed at the time of Kirk’s death are NOT the same as Khan changing color and ethnicity 300 years before the timeline diverged–not in the slightest.

483. harley3k - September 3, 2013

WTF? Trekmovie.com is broken.

I would quote Simon Pegg’s comments to haters right now, but it would be censored.

484. Robman007 - September 3, 2013

469. Horatio – September 3, 2013

Totally agree.

STID was not the best of the film series, by far, but the way the fan base is acting is downright embarassing. So, they have issues with casting an english actor (who did an amazing job with what little they gave him) instead of a Spanish/Mexican actor to play an Indian character. Hmmm…

They complain about the level of action and violence…well, I have a feeling that Treks 2 and 3 would be very unpopular today. They killed folks left and right and destroyed the Enterprise. Hell, Gene Roddenberry ACTUALLY said he did not care for the films and fought against portions of them…a far cry from the fan base who claim to LOVE those films yet also claim Gene would have hated the new films. Logical, I guess….

No, what is really broken is having a franchise owned and split between two different companies, CBS/Paramount.

CBS does not give a crap about the future of the franchise and is only interested in what came before. Despite the epic win of the remastered Trek and TNG, they have done NOTHING with the franchise and will do NOTHING with the franchise. Infact, they are responsible for killing this new franchise into actually building it’s own path and cannon. Good job.

Paramount is clueless as well. Could have made much more money but let Bad Robot and the writing team get distracted with dozens of other projects and gave them 4 years to do something that SHOULD have been released 2 years later to captalize on the success of the 1st film. Then they drop the ball on the marketing of this new film…

No, Trek is not broken. The fans are whiney crybabies…..Trek was broken during the years of Nemesis and Enterprise.

485. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@460 Mel,
“They must have been as confused as Kirk should have been, because Khan announced his name like it should mean something.”

Clearly you missed the memo from Orci and Kurtzman:

“If the story is functioning on its own terms, then if you have no understanding or knowledge of Khan, he will be a bad guy with his own weight, agenda, and sensibility that’ll work. If you loved The Wrath of Khan, like we did, then you’ll immediately bring association to it.”

Obviously you aren’t bright enough to ‘get it’. The writers had a foolproof formula. The audience and Kirk were equally impressed with Harrison’s “weight, agenda and sensibility”, so that the name “Khan” meant something without having a specific meaning. Got it?

486. Christopher H. Holte - September 3, 2013

If they weren’t dominated by bean counters and folks who seem to be too drug or ego addled to come up with good writing, good plots, good casting, or good character development — maybe they’d do better. Recycling old garbage is the work of lazy overpaid people, and while sex and violence “sell” short term, sustainable storie lines require more than that.

487. Star Trek: Voyeur - September 3, 2013

Yep, JJ broke ST with 2009 and STID. Bad, bad Robot. Shame on you.

Before that, many think Rick Berman broke all the ST series by running those into a rut.

Some say Gene himself broke ST with his second generation, that it was too egalitarian, too perfect, no crew conflict, a veritable Love Boat in space.

Heck, even the third season of TOS was broken, the network gave up support and the great Bird in the Sky flew the coup for other series.

And the networks broke the original concept because it was too cerebral, forcing Gene into pedestrian writing.

Which leaves us with only one original ST product: The Cage.
Oh, and it does not have Kirk, Bones, nor the Spock version we know today.

At least I though it was original, until I first saw Forbidden Planet back in the 80′s. Then I realized GR had merely taken it’s format and serialized it.
If you have not seen FP, then you must.

So nothing is ruined here. ST is merely transforming, evolving, just as Gene expected. It’s the entire body of work that makes ST special, not just a series or a single movie.

488. Robman007 - September 3, 2013

@478…

To be totally fair….even Shatner Kirk had no CLUE who Khan was until they did a search of the history banks. The only individual who knew exactly who Khan was was Mcgivers. Kirk deduced that he was a product of the Eugenics Wars….I wouldn’t expect this Kirk to know right off the bat who Khan was as well.

I didn’t mind Khan being used…he was had a different “entry point” story then he did in the prime universe and his fate was far different. Could make for a good follow-up story in a different format (comic, game, novel..future TNG reboot follow-up, etc)…I just thought that they could have just kept it as John Harrison, a product of Admiral Marcus attempting to re-create Khan and his men as a weapon against the Klingons.

489. jas_montreal - September 3, 2013

@ 310. boborci

Art is not a democracy. You should not even listen to fans lol. That is at least what Nicholas Meyer once said… Anyways… Just stop reading fan sites and start doing what you truly want to do and tell an original story.

I miss the old days where there were no trailers or writers communicating on the internet. We were just fully surprised in the cinema. Just stick with what you know and do it and get the next Star Trek more quicker than 4 years :)

490. Robman007 - September 3, 2013

475. BatlethInTheGroin – September 3, 2013

What about Sulu being played by a Korean? Bother you much? Or are you bothered by the fact that Khan was never really played by a guy from India?

491. Robman007 - September 3, 2013

@boborci

Amen. Much needed. Now you are probably realizing why the previous producers and writers did their own thing without fan feedback. Trek fans complain too much and only like something far after it is done and over with…example, they LOVE DS9 right now, but HATED it when it aired. Even pulled the tried and true “Gene would not approve” hate card.

In regardes to the author of this article and “Trek needs to break away from the past”…..no, Star Trek is “These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise”….THAT is Star Trek. NOT Voyager, and, as much as I love DS9, NOT DS9…..

No, what these films needed was a clean slate, kind of like J. Michael Straczynski wanted to do. A clean reboot. Then, a genetic superman who was made after a british scientist in the 21st century yet escaped and was raised as Khan Noonien Singh would be ok….and Beta IV could have been a society manipulated by Section 31 instead of a pre-existing condition from at least 6,000 years past…

BobOrci..if you read this..I’ll say it again….Go “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” style plot with the next film. Replace the holy grail with a Preserver artifact (an original series idea not fully realized except by William Shatner in his novel series..a must read, fyi), replace Nazi’s with Klingons and have a good space battle in which Kirk uses his renowned tactical ability and you’ll be set….avoid any situations like the Enterprise underwater, and don’t use real science to explain science fiction. The fans obviously will hate you and and your film for it. Just make up mumbo jumbo and claim it’s real.

You will always have haters. It comes with Star Trek. You’ll always have illogical haters who hate everything until it becomes the distant past. Star Wars fans had a logical reason to hate what George did to the franchise. Trek fans will hate until they get the product that they quit watching.

492. Phil - September 3, 2013

Okay, here’s the challenge for exploring strange new worlds…space lawyers!

Kirk: Who. Are. You?
Khan: I…….am……..Khan (hisssss)
Kirk: Thanks. You have the right to remain silent. Should you choose to surrender that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one one will be appointed for you. Do you need a lawyer?
Khan: Why, yes. Marcus didn’t pay me much, and deducted the cost of holding my fellow Eugenics hostage.
Kirk: No problem. Kirk to bridge, contact legal.
Uhura: Aye, captain.
Legal: Captain, we are sending down the ships lawyer, he’ll be there in a minute.
Kirk: Acknowledged, Kirk out.
(door hisses open)
H.F. Mudd: Harcourt Fenton Mudd, Esquire, at your service. I’d like to conference with the accused. Captain, if you are not filing charges in 48 hours, I do expect my client to be released.
Kirk: But…but….
HFM: Has bail been set?
Kirk: He’s Khan, for Christ sake!!
HFM: What transpired 300 years ago is of no issue to me, the statute of limitations has long expired.
Kirk: (chough)…what the hell??
HFM: Khan, you say? I’ll move he be released on his own recognizance. After all, he’s not a flight risk…so to speak.
Kirk: But you can’t…..
HFM: But I can, Kirk. I can…and there’s nothing you can do to stop me (buhahahahahahaaaa)

ST 13: The Wrath of Khan’s Attorney

I can smell the Oscar now…..

493. Phil - September 3, 2013

Oh, here’s the link. Gotta keep lil blogger happy.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasas-plan-lasso-asteroid-really-legal-104529191.html

494. Devlin - September 3, 2013

@ 398. boborci
“To paraphrase of one of my great and beloved heroes, George W. Bush, “I’m the decider and I decide what’s best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain”.

Germany’s top blogger Fefe responded to this statement at the time with:
“The niveau of a sandbox brawl.”

495. Robman0007 - September 3, 2013

74. cugel the clever

Great post…you just helped point out a very valid point…

…..Trek films are NOT Trek TV. Different beast…and STID followed a very time honored tradition by NOT exploring and by recycling old plots from it’s TV show counterparts…..

I have a feeling STID would have worked MUCH, MUCH better had Bad Robot been able to do the multiple media evolution of the Alternate Reality.

496. Jack - September 3, 2013

423. “The Star Trek fans on this site just have incredibly bad ideas.

Agreed. But hardcore fanboys tend to lose their perspectives. Right, Bob? ;).

You know, that reactor room scene would have worked a lot better without the “Khan!!!!” scream. Even just with editing it out. Spock’s stunned reaction would have given his following actions a bit more impact…

497. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@452. Bill Peters,
“they decided that Khan had to be something else not play into that Stereotype, it is a Decision I think Gene Roddenberry would have approved of.”

That’s like casting Othello as a white man for fear the character will play into the racial stereotype of the angry black man.

As for Roddenberry, for a man who produced a TOS episode about how ridiculous stereotyping people by race was, I doubt he would be so cowardly. But he was a famous revisionist, so who knows what he would think.

If this is how Orci truly felt, he should have fought against making the character Khan, not insist they change Khan’s ethnicity.

498. ilker - September 3, 2013

they now say that abrams has recruited cumberbatch into the s.wars cast, how about that?

499. RaveOnEd - September 3, 2013

I kind of glossed over when I read that a “poll” rated STID as the worst of the Trek movies.

Did this “poll” exclude TMP, TFF, GEN, INS and NEM?

What’s broken about Star Trek is that the past attempts before the last couple movies wanted to make a continuous line from what came before, excluding and alienating anyone who wanted to check Star Trek out for the first time, then realizing that they don’t know what’s going on and stopped watching it.

Saying that a dead franchise being brought back to life in a big fashion and actually making money is broken, then I hate to see what you think is something that’s working beautifully well.

Although it would be cool to see Trek back on TV in some way, I’m thinking there is still some anxiety to do that after flooding the airwaves with series after series after series, mostly with inaccessible and mediocre episodes.

500. Mel - September 3, 2013

@ 478. Curious Cadet

Not sure if you are sarcastic or not. But I still think no matter what Orci and Kurtzman may have said, that it didn’t make sense for Khan to announce his real name towards Kirk in that cell, if that real name doesn’t make at all a difference to how Kirk views him. So he used a fake name, so what? That is what practically everyone on the internet does, too.

I think the point is, that if his real name would have been John Harrison, not much would have been different in the movie. And what would have been different, would have been an improvement:

- There wouldn’t have been this strange “I am Khan” announcement in the cell from a white guy, who really doesn’t look like an Indian Sikh at all.
- The forced Old Spock appearance probably wouldn’t have been included and New Spock and the crew would have had to come up with a solution without any help. That would have made them look smarter and more competent.
- And this absolutely extremely idiotic caricature “Khaaaaaan” scream from Spock wouldn’t have been in the movie. It looked like it belongs in a bad spoof movie.

501. Optimistic Doodle - September 3, 2013

What better way to celebrate a 50th anniversary of a franchise that begun on television than to continue the journey? I mean: the ’50th’ anniversary !!!!!!!

:-)

502. Optimistic Doodle - September 3, 2013

(to continue the journey ON TELEVISION, that is)

503. Robman007 - September 3, 2013

489. RaveOnEd – September 3, 2013

You didn’t miss much with that poll. It was done by the same militant fans who even drive normal Trek fans crazy and help make us all a mockery.

It’s only broken in the minds of Trek fans who want Trek to once again be the show that they stopped watching…you know, the one with the inaccessable and mediocre episodes.

504. Rhett Coates - September 3, 2013

I would LOVE to see the current “new” cast do a TV series based on the JJ Abrams alternate universe, which might give writers the TIME to do the characters justice and also offer that VISION of GR’s original dream: “…to seek out new life and civilizations…”

On that topic, just how many of the JJ Abrams film version CAST would be willing to do a TV series based on Gene Roddenberry’s original premise – a television SCHEDULE for their lives, and no a TV budget and that pay-scale?

I’m certain many of them WOULD; it’s not easy being an actor who wonders where his or her next paycheck/job will be coming from. A television series offers more “security” than a single motion picture job, and sometimes the pay scale (they have to live, don’t they?) is at least somewhat comparable to a single motion picture’s pay — even with residuals negotiated into their contracts from a movie version of, say, a franchise like Star Trek….

Remember, in all practicality, it’s not just about us fans: the actors and studio crews and staff have to pay their bills just like the rest of us.

505. James - September 3, 2013

I hope that Bob Orci doesn’t have his impression of Trek fans derived solely based on the comments here on Trek Movie.

Bob – we aren’t all crazies! Come to a Trek Convention here in England one day and you will be greeted with respect and thanks. Sure, not everyone will love the new movies, but hey – you cant please everyone.

I recently went to the Destination Star Trek London convention and heard from Ron Moore first hand how hard some of the criticism can be for the writers to take. He said that he now avoids the forums, I think that’s sad because it’s clear to me that someone is listening to the fans.

We were rewarded with a tale that was about something, and was not just a dumb action movie. We even had our concerns about the engineering set addressed.

Keep yer Chin up son, many people out there think that you’ve done a damn fine job.

506. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@475. BatlethInTheGroin,
“Kirk being born in a different place, or Amanda and Pike dying, due to a timeline being changed at the time of Kirk’s death are NOT the same as Khan changing color and ethnicity 300 years before the timeline diverged–not in the slightest.”

Yes. It is the equivalent of replacing Dick York with Ricardo Montalban as Darin on Bewitched.

It’s a continuity issue, one which Orci painted himself into a corner with QM MWI.

@481. Robman007,
“What about Sulu being played by a Korean? Bother you much?”

John Cho may not be Japanese (which is tradition, NOT canon), but that is the difference of nationality and not race. If Khan were being played by an English actor of Indian descent, there would be no problem. Dick Sargent at least was the same race as Dick York. Had he been a white English actor affecting an American accent, it would have made no difference.

507. Yanks - September 3, 2013

Star Trek is broken. Here are ideas on how to fix it:
Those polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Both are small unscientific polls, one reacting to the other. What “they” do need to pay attention to is the overwhelming desire for new and original writing for our historic characters. (read any number of reviews on-line, even if they praise STID, most at least mention that “regurgitating” needs to go)

It’s about the Mission Statement:
Sounds good; don’t know how practical this is though. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, we don’t “listen” to them either.

It’s about exploration and new ideas:
Sure, that sounds good too.

It’s about breaking from the past:
Don’t agree with this at all. I would argue that the audience is craving for a series centered on the Enterprise. With these great actors and characters no less!

It’s about good writing
Always… no different for ST than any other movie or TV series.

It’s about being on TV
Agree. Star Trek has ALWAYS shined brighter on TV.

Closing
I think one of the problems is writing “science fiction” as we all know it. True SCI-FI has always been how advancements in technology will affect humans and society in the future. Star Trek did that some, but trek isn’t true SCI-FI either. What new “science” can we tell stories about humanity with? Lots of new science, but it’s all so “microscopic or quantum” I’m not sure it is as easy to make folks relate to it as it once was.
The new trek series needs to be a wonderful space drama with new science & effect sprinkled in where they can.

508. RaveOnEd - September 3, 2013

With regards to the argument about the casting of Khan: you folks do realize that these are actors playing a role, correct? That in their universe, it is the same Khan.

Some of you probably don’t see Shakespeare plays being performed live, do you? Or Broadway shows? Or maybe James Bond movies?

509. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@495 re: 481 Robman007 MORE ^^^^

Moreover, for the Trek purist, Roddenberry intended Sulu to represent all Asians, hence the name Sulu which has its origins in South Asian island nations with strong Islamic associations, neither of which is represented by Takei nor Cho. And genetically speaking Japanese and Korean people are often indistinguishably similar.

510. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@497. RaveOnEd,
“Some of you probably don’t see Shakespeare plays being performed live, do you? Or Broadway shows? Or maybe James Bond movies?”

Get back to me when they cast a black James Bond. Or a black Kirk.

511. Jai - September 3, 2013

JJ Abrams has made some surprising comments in interviews this year.

When JJ was talking to Jon Stewart on The Daily Show after STID’s global release, he said the new Star Trek movies are deliberately dumbed down: “Back in the day, I wasn’t smart enough to ‘get’ Star Trek. So the new movies are”…JJ looked at the studio audience and laughed sheepishly…”for people like me”. (Or words to that effect).

In other interviews during the past few months, JJ claimed Star Trek’s original philosophical, intellectual and “talky” elements have been deliberately reduced in the new movies because he didn’t find all that stuff very interesting in the original franchise.

512. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - September 3, 2013

Someone from one of my S/U groups mentioned the article over here, and I figured I’d give it a look. I think it politely points out problems the author has with STID. I’ll leave it at that…

@#457 PaulB

”That exec was trying to sell the SG-1 team on a Hollywood version of their own story that was Star Trek instead of SG–in other words, he loved the SG team SO MUCH he wanted to remake them into a different franchise altogether.
Sounds familiar…”

It’s interesting that you say this. For the last couple of months, I’ve noticed that this whole scenario seems quite familiar to what happened, at least at first, with the last Stargate series. The similarities are striking. I’ll just list some:

- Syfy (run by Paramount) appeared to have wanted a darker, edgier Stargate to replace BSG the same way Paramount (perhaps in conjunction with Bad Robot??) appeared to have wanted the latest Star Trek installment to be ST’s version of The Dark Knight.

- The product of that premiered fairly well, but it was considered a “disappointment” by the network. STID has done fairly well, but reports from reputable sources have stated that Paramount considers STID’s performance “disappointing.”

- Fans (particularly of the SG-1 spin-off, SGA, but many SG-1 fans also joined in) complained about the new direction of Stargate. Now, fans (particularly of the TOS spin-offs (TNG, etc.), but with some TOS fans also joining in) are complaining about the direction this latest ST film has gone, at least in part by stating that it’s gone either nowhere or backwards in its storytelling.

- People started calling for new writers. Some people are now calling for new writers.

- There was this thinking that as long as they tried to appeal to the “original” fans, that this paired with their “new audience” would be enough, and that the spin-off fans didn’t count. It now seems like the “haters” are being labeled as the TNG fans and perhaps onwards. “Don’t like it, don’t watch.” Adding in my personal view here, I never understood this one. I think all fans should count. And both SGA and TNG (and DS9’s premiere episode, iirc) had the highest ratings out of all of the shows in their respective franchises. DS9 had the most critical acclaim.

There are more, including comparisons to the 200 episode, but I’ll leave them be. It is interesting, and it makes me wonder about Paramount. Also, I could just be reading too much into what I’ve seen and I’m mistaken. That’s very possible too. One good thing about this situation is that we’re dealing with movies that don’t require a dedicated audience to show up every week. They just need a round of people to show up every few years, and the world’s certainly big enough for that. Personally, even though I’m not interested in where it looks like things are going, I wish them the best success possible.

I don’t hate anything about STID, but I can’t say that I like it. I’m happy with DS9 and the reboot movie, like I said I would be if things went somewhere I couldn’t follow.

513. Jai - September 3, 2013

Bob Orci, re: #398:

“you are the most listened to fans ever. That doesn’t mean you will get is to do what you want. just means what I said: I listened. Then we decided, having heard as many opinions as possible.”

That’s interesting. When talking to BBC News in Britain, in an interview transmitted on May 6 (8.50-9.00 pm, local time), a few days before STID’s release, JJ Abrams said: “I have no idea what Star Trek fans think”. To reinforce the point even more, JJ shrugged and dismissively repeated it: “I have no idea what Star Trek fans think”.

514. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - September 3, 2013

@boborci

You asked a question somewhere up thread that I was going to answer until it looked like you got the response you were looking for. Still, I do have a suggestion and an observation if you are interested.

The Suggestion: If it’s possible, try to forget that you wrote and worked on ST09 for a couple of hours and just watch the film as a regular viewer. At the end of the movie, when you get to those beautiful pre-ending credits that list off each actor one-by-one, please ask yourself 2 questions. 1) Where do you, as an “average viewer,” think this story is going and 2) Do you think that’s where other “average viewers” think it’s going too?

What am I’m getting at? At the end of that film, we had a crew that had been put together by circumstance, and the promise seemed to be that they were moving full speed ahead into having bright new adventures. I never would have guessed they’d be going Into Darkness… on Earth. This is where I don’t know the difference between what you were told to do by the Studio (Paramount did extensive research, I’ve read, that said international audiences wanted an Earth-bound story with plenty of action) and what you wanted to do.

You mentioned something about pitching or what someone might have pitched. What I would have pitched is the crew going on their 5 year mission in the second film and seeing them become more of a family unit. I had a professor that said the questions you ask determine the answers you get. I don’t think the story needed to be “Earth-bound,” by no means. Perhaps it only needed to be planet-bound, and that’s what I would have pitched.

If they told me that their research said it had to be Earth, I’d challenge that. I’d shamelessly mention that almost all of Avatar took place on a fictional planet that was not Earth and that a good portion (half to two thirds) of the next ST film could successfully do the same. What are they going to say? That it can’t make money? Lol. The style and tone of Avatar (which made 2.7 billion) are much closer to the kind of storytelling the first film seemed to be moving into than TDK (which made 1 billion). I’m guessing number crunchers will love that.

The Enterprise could have gotten sucked into the atmosphere of a planet, and somehow the atmosphere of that planet doesn’t allow the ship to function properly. So, they can’t leave—they have to figure out a way to get out lest they’ll be stuck there. This definitely sets up opportunities for character development, teamwork, learning about a new alien civilization, science, plenty of action, a new “mysterious” villain, etc. So that would have been my pitch.

Being fair, I guess we can say the Nibiru portion of STID was a “bright” new adventure. My only issue with that is that it’s like 5 minutes of a film that runs for 2 hours.

The Observation: Based off of what I’ve read from posts on different forums and message boards, articles, and reviews, the top complaint from my view seems to be stated in different ways, but it amounts to the same thing: Consistency.

From the Kirk and Spock relationship not being consistent with 2 people who’ve only known each other for about 7 months at the most, started out really not liking each other, and are still having “issues,” to Spock and Spock/Uhura not being consistent with what we saw in the last film (I now know PTSD had something to do with this, but it wasn’t shown and even that only explains so much), to Khan not being consistent with what people who know the character know to be true about the character, and on down the line.

I like to think of the first movie in a trilogy (if this is to be a trilogy) as setting up the story that you’re going to tell. The next 2 movies typically go on to tell that story. Since I think Damon said that The Dark Knight was your inspiration, I’ll mention that. Batman Begins did a wonderful job of setting up the story that was coming in with the next film. The excitement I felt when Gary Oldman’s character flips over the card and shows Bruce that the new guy in town causing trouble is the Joker was about the same as the excitement I felt seeing the new crew of the enterprise together and ready to go explore.

The Dark Knight came through in delivering exactly what it promised. The Dark Knight Rises, although it had some clunky parts, tied up loose ends and finished the story in a satisfying way. And, the characters, as well as their interactions, stayed realistically consistent the whole way through. Yes, Bruce had been through a lot, and Alfred had been through a lot. But, at no point did Alfred, knowing what Bruce had been through, become a nagging “ball and chain” that Bruce had to put up with in addition to his problems. Yes, Alfred complained and made suggestions, but he did it in-character and from a loving place. I wish I could say the same for Uhura. And Bruce always treated Alfred with respect and heeded his words. Spock should remember that.

I know, I know. I delved off into S/U. The love story isn’t about them. I will say that I did miss the dynamics of McCoy being Kirk’s best friend in ST09 (after all, they are the ones that clicked right from the start and have been friends for years), with Kirk and Spock maintaining their respect of the fact that despite their differences, they work well together, and Spock and Uhura being more of a team as well as a couple. That’s what I thought I would see in the next 2 films, but I guess I thought wrong.

Anyway, I just figured I’d give you my suggestion and observation because you genuinely seemed to be frustrated by asking a question and not getting a thoughtful response back. I’ve now said all I have to say. Good luck.

515. Khan Noonien Critic - September 3, 2013

I enjoyed Into Darkness a lot. I thought it was well done. I wonder sometimes if its the wishes of the studio that outweigh the mission statement or if that statement is even possible given the current cinematic climate? We live in a age of blockbuster Super Hero epics and Comic-Con hype. Video Games have become epic films in their own right. Studios want space battles. A cerebral Star Trek movie would not work in this day and age. Going through V’Ger for a Half hour in this day and age would put people to sleep.

Into Darkness was critically acclaimed. I think a lot of the vitriol was just pure hate towards JJ. I agree that Star Trek works well on television. Maybe they can create a companion series with new characters embedded in this new continuity i.e. Marvels Agent of Shield.

It is bloody nonsense to think that the ‘old’ Trek would be able to hold up in this new age we live in. Star Trek had become a members only club during the 80s and 90s. As great as the Next Gen was on tv with the exception of one film, their film franchise was not very good. Paramount is not going to give you a ‘pure’ Trek film anymore. The next film will probably be about the Klingon War and maybe it will somehow tie into exploration and all that. I hope its not a story about finding pain and I hope its not about protecting a species. Trek has done that. They need to stop recycling ideas.

Those Trek fans are going to keep being angry. Star Trek had to evolve or it would have died. Rick Berman was killing that franchise and people seem to forget that. You can’t beat up JJ when you have films like Generations Nemisis and Insurrection that were sub par and basically glorified television episodes.

One more thing, did not Kirk at the End of Into Darkness address the very issue we are going back and forth about? I loved into Darkness. Paramount wants blockbusters not glorified tv episodes exclusively fo the guy who has a Laforge action figure on this shelf. When you take on a beloved franchise its either Damn if you do, and Damn if you don’t. Don’t tell me Into darkness was the worst when you have Star Trek V the final frontier sitting out there. I pretend that movie never happend. It was a glitch in space time. It was a quantum universe anything to wash the taste of that mess out of my mind.

516. Jai - September 3, 2013

Bob Orci, re: #398:

“you are the most listened to fans ever. That doesn’t mean you will get is to do what you want. just means what I said: I listened. Then we decided, having heard as many opinions as possible.”

That’s interesting. When talking to BBC News in Britain, in an interview transmitted on May 6 (8.50-9.00pm, local time), a few days before STID’s release, JJ Abrams said: “I have no idea what Star Trek fans think”. To reinforce the point even more, JJ shrugged and dismissively repeated it: “I have no idea what Star Trek fans think”.

517. CmdrR - September 3, 2013

Dear Bob,

So… are we safe for another six months?
Remind me to wear my SPF 5,000 around March 1.

I understand most of your points, sir. I do not understand the condescension in “there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.” I’m hoping that, and the cussin’, are from a sock-puppet. If not…

Please understand that Trek fans more than most believe we are vested in this project. A bad day with Bond doesn’t hurt as much as “JJ’s Khan.” Oh, and I don’t see any remakes of “Goldfinger” in the works. We know you’ve got the goods. Speaking only for myself for a moment, what I doubt is that you have the confidence to truly fly the Enterprise and her crew into a fully-realized NEW story.

Minimal fist-fights. Sparing splosions. No jump-up I’m mean villains. Maybe even a real test of the Prime Directive.

I am a writer, albeit only TV news (#1-rated station in America!) and I know it is hard to meet all the demands and still tell a story. Here’s to hoping you give it a shot.

518. Joseph Dickerson - September 3, 2013

So, how’s everybody doing?

There is some great feedback to my article, pro and con… I appreciate ALL of it, even if you feel my premise was deeply flawed. Constructive criticism makes me (and anyone) a better writer. Thanks, and please keep the conversation going.

Finally, let’s be cool… especially to Bob Orci. He and his writing partners worked very hard to make the new Trek movie, and as I stated in my article we have NO IDEA the type of pressures that are involved in writing/making a multi-million dollar film… so have some perspective. While I disagree with many of the creative decisions he and others made in the new film, be kind and respectful to him. Criticize the work if you don’t like it, not the man.

And regarding Bob’s comment that there’s a reason he writes multi-million dollar movies, and I don’t… Well, let’s let that one slide, shall we?

519. Basement Blogger - September 3, 2013

Can we stop reporting the Las Vegas “poll” as being newsworthy or accurate? As I pointed out on the Convention Costume story (8-13-13 @ 72) , the poll was at a forum. The source for the poll was Devin Faraci who hates Star Trek Into Darkness. But he did report it was attended by one hundred people. Bill O’ Reilly of Fox News noted that convention was attended by about twelve thousand. No numbers on the poll were released, leading me to think it was done kind of applause style. Gary Seven on the poll said it was done Gong Show style. (Posted at 92 on the Convention story.) And any poll that has Galaxy Quest as a Star Trek movie can’t be taken seriously.

So the whole premise by Joe Dickerson that Trekkers hated STID has no merit. Yeah, there are those who hated STID. But based on the fact that it’s the highest grossing Star Trek movie, one can easily say much more Trekkers liked it.

520. NuFan - September 3, 2013

Thank god elderly fanboys like Joseph Dickerson will never be taken seriously. And if we are going to point out the real rehashing, Joseph Dickerson writes the exact same article every time.

521. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@499 re: 497 RaveOnEd MORE ^^^^

But the real problem is Nimoy, and the efforts to make Quinto resemble a young Nimoy — and Orci has gone to great lengths to emphasize that Nimoy is the proof of his QM MWI premise. So once they establish that Khan comes from the same universe that Nimoy comes from, both unaffected by Nero’s arrival, and Spock looks like Nimoy; then Khan should not look like Cumberbatch.

Using your anology, each Shakespeare production is in essence a reboot with no connection to the original. But Orci dedicated many hours on this website and elsewhere persuading the fans that ST09 was NOT a reboot, again emphasizing this by pointing to Nimoy’s inclusion in the film. So, imagine a production of Hamlet advertised as an authentic Shakespearian production as would have been presented at the Globe Theatre in 1601, yet the female parts are played by women. Well then something would be rotten in Denmark.

522. RaveOnEd - September 3, 2013

509 –

However, in the same ST09, Nimoy’s Spock has no trouble recognizing Pine as Kirk (despite different hair color and eye color) and Pegg as Scotty (despite a different look also).

I saw nothing before (unless I may have missed it) where Orci said that ST 09 and it’s universe would be authentic as seen on NBC (in living color!) in 1966.

Nothing rotten in Denmark, just the concept that there is a fictional role and an actor to play said role. What should matter is how that actor embodies that role.

523. Flake - September 3, 2013

boborci the real question is… the one you have been dodging… the one thing that is so overdue is….

Animated series. Where is it?

CGI series set just after Into Darkness concentrating on the NCC-1701 with all the gang. New original adventures and old re-imagined ones. Unlimited virtual budget. Entire Trek universe at your disposal. Recurring villain can be thrown in (Khan).

Why has this not been made yet? Make it so!

524. PP - September 3, 2013

@504 Jai:
J. J. was not Writer of STID. He directed the movie.

And you should be happy that bob IS listening to the fans. Or maybe you should be angry about it. Because Nicholas Meyer had no clue of Star Trek and was in no contact with any Star Trek Fan. But he made TWOK, he co-wrote and directed it.

525. MrChristian - September 3, 2013

I did not think STID was awful… but I did have some serious problems with it. And I do not think Star Trek is broken. I think of it as getting old and kind of senile. Certainly time to revamp, but I think JJ Trek can still muster it.

A clean break is needed – but not from the Enterprise and her crew. The clean break is from the established and expected stories. Okay, we got the conflict with Khan out of the way, now, lets not revisit old villains for a very long time. Let’s see something new! Let’s have more new villains! Let’s see new planets!

No more paper-thin chick character writing. No more “OMG. Like, Spock, you hurt my feelings!” Uhura and no more obligatory blonde chick in panties shots.

No more fan service. Yeah, I said it. No more fan service. Firstly, I thought that while the TWOK echoes at the end were KIND of cool, but mostly I spent the whole scene thinking, “Really! Really? Really.” It was too early in continuity for this to be happening and frankly, it was just stupid and gets more stupid every time I see it. Oh look, alternate universe so this time Kirk sacrifices himself… yawn. Talk about obligatory… Come on guys, Trek is more creative than this.

526. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 3, 2013

I say it’s now, officially, “bob orci appreciation day” at TrekMovie!
Seriously, thank you for the Star Trek into Darkness, boborci.

You know that as a Trekkie, I had some major issues with STiD. But after thinking about this story for some time, I now consider that I may have over judged some of your intentions in your writing.

As an American in a post 9-11 world I am obviously concerned with terrorism in our times and I am vigilant about how such acts can affect, or are affecting our individual personal liberties. So when it came to watching this new Trek, I was obviously confronted directly with a couple passions in my life. Star Trek, and vigilance against any threats to personal liberty and country. Yeah, it may sound funny to some, but we ARE living in strange times and are expected to speak up in our “See Something? Say Something society.”

So bob orci, when it came to the 9-11 analogies in ST09 and STiD, it REALLY tripped my Red Alert.

What was Star Trek commenting on in this latest movie?

Star Trek always had a social commentary, and when I realized that my Star Trek was possibly saying, in allegory, that someone in our government could be responsible for a 9-11 type c0nspiracy, it really hit my hot button.

Let me make this long story shorter by saying, I think I may have let the negativisms of this past decade’s news, alter my perception of this new Star Trek. Was this Trek about 9-11 and the post war machine? I can’t say for sure, I sure got me thinking heavily about the whole topic again, but this time, it made me mad, because for me, I still do not think we have the whole story on 9-11, or the many post wars we are involved in, Yet, when I watched this latest movie, it seemed to me that the makers were saying, Yeah, we know the real truth. And in fact you were ALL duped and us writers are way smarter than you and we can serve all those 9-11 c0nspiracies on the silver screen, and you will not even know what you are buying. But it might make you think later.

So boborci, I’ve heard of c0gnitive diss0nance, but I think it hit me on the reverse side, as I never expected to see so much of todays c0nspiracy headlines in a Star trek movie!

So, yes. I’d say as a Trekkie, I was played in a way by your story. But it was interesting, and made me think, and for that I credit your good work.

I will see STiD again and I will try and see past some of the uncomfortable
plot lines and try and enjoy it on another level. A higher level where I believe Star Trek is a real place, with real characters and are not just being used as a commentary on today’s world. I am sure it will make for a more enjoyable viewing experience.

Thank you, bob orci. I sincerely do appreciate your efforts writing for Trek.

And please accept my apologies, Sorry for some of the highly critical things I did write about your movie, It was the negativity of recent times that has clouded some of my reactions to the movie and your writing. I am actually looking forward to another viewing now that I got this off my chest.

I do hope you do have a happy bob orci appreciation day!

527. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@510. RaveOnEd,
“Nimoy’s Spock has no trouble recognizing Pine as Kirk (despite different hair color and eye color) and Pegg as Scotty (despite a different look also) … What should matter is how that actor embodies that role.”

Both Pine and Pegg took steps to look like the original characters. Pine already has a striking resemblance (the differences retconed by anything you like, given a premature birth near a black hole) and Pegg died his hair and spoke with a Scottish accent — he wasn’t a Blonde with an American accent. Also, these characters are 10 years younger than we ever saw them in the Prime universe, so who is to say the prime counterparts didn’t look exactly like that?

If you want to talk about Cumberbatch embodying the role, then he missed the mark for me. He was a fantastic villain, but I did not mistake him for Khan for one second, appearance notwithstanding.

Of course there are to be expected differences in the appearance of everything, especially the characters. However, my point about Shakespeare was not that Trek was promising us original carbon copies, but original intent. If you do Hamlet with women playing the women’s roles, then it’s not as originally intended to be performed. And that’s what Orci promised: everything before Nero arrived should be indetical per the intent of the original character and Khan was not a white man, nor English.

But like I said earlier, get back to me when they cast a black Kirk.

528. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 3, 2013

I say it’s now, officially, “boborci appreciation day” at TrekMovie!
Seriously, thank you for the Star Trek into Darkness, boborci.

You know that as a Trekkie, I had some major issues with STiD. But after thinking about this story for some time, I now consider that I may have over judged some of your intentions in your writing.

As an American in a post 9-eleven world I am obviously concerned with terrorism in our times and I am vigilant about how such acts can affect, or are affecting our individual personal liberties. So when it came to watching this new Trek, I was obviously confronted directly with a couple passions in my life. Star Trek, and vigilance against any threats to personal liberty and country. Yeah, it may sound funny to some, but we ARE living in strange times and are expected to speak up in our “See Something? Say Something society.”

So boborci, when it came to the 9-eleven analogies in ST09 and STiD, it REALLY tripped my Red Alert.

What was Star Trek commenting on in this latest movie?
Star Trek always had a social commentary, and when I realized that my Star Trek was possibly saying, in allegory, that someone in our government could be responsible for a 9-eleven type c0nspiracy, it really hit my hot button.

Let me make this long story shorter by saying, I think I may have let the negativisms of this past decade’s news, alter my perception of this new Star Trek. Was this Trek about 9-eleven and the post war machine? I can’t say for sure, I sure got me thinking heavily about the whole topic again, but this time, it made me mad, because for me, I still do not think we have the whole story on 9-eleven, or the many post w0rs we are involved in, Yet, when I watched this latest movie, it seemed to me that the makers were saying, Yeah, we know the real truth. And in fact you were ALL duped and us writers are way smarter than you and we can serve all those 9-eleven c0nspiracies on the silver screen, and you will not even know what you are buying. But it might make you think later.

So boborci, I’ve heard of cognitive dissonance, but I think it hit me on the reverse side, as I never expected to see so much of todays c0nspiracy headlines in a Star Trek movie!

So, yes. I’d say as a Trekkie, I was played in a way by your story. But it was interesting, and made me think, and for that I credit your good work.

I will see STiD again and I will try and see past some of the uncomfortable plot lines and try and enjoy it on another level. A higher level where I believe Star Trek is a real place, with real characters and are not just being used solely as a commentary on today’s world. I am sure it will make for a more enjoyable viewing experience.

Thank you, boborci. I sincerely do appreciate your efforts writing for Trek.

And please accept my apologies, Sorry for some of the highly critical things I did write about your movie, It was the negativity of recent times that has clouded some of my reactions to the movie and your writing. I am actually looking forward to another viewing now that I got this off my chest.

I do hope you do have a happy boborci appreciation day!

529. Russell Meyers - September 3, 2013

Wow, stop back in to see what’s going on and have to say very disappointed in boborci and his reaction. Loved 2009, was underwhelmed by 2013 and very disappointed by a professional’s reaction to criticism here. Not cool.

530. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Hey I’m happy as a clam that these new iterations of Star Trek are embraced by a whole group of folks and that they really like the latest movie.

The point I would like to make is that there are a vocal group of people who tear to shreds anybody who isn’t on board. So maybe I’ll just play their game:

Stop being so condescending, you bunch of insufferable twits. Would you like to debate like grown up people or shall we just shout at one another? As the kids would say, “Come at me, bro.” Unfortunately most of you won’t be up to the task.

Apparently reading comprehension is not a strong suit among some of you. You see only what you wish to see and remain about as balanced in your view-points as Fox News. I mentioned above that Trek fans were the most intelligent in the world. Thanks for proving me wrong. Enjoy your pablum. Celebrate your white-washing.

And by all means, go see JJ’s take on Star Wars (since he won’t be anywhere near Star Trek) and thrill to the adventures of Luke, Han, and Leia as they battle the evil Sith Cloverfield monster all in amazing post-processed 3D now with more Lens Flares! Watch in amazement as they rush to the aid of Lando Calrissian (played by Benedict Cumberbatch), whose X-Wing fighter is careening down the Deathstar trench, trying to save the rebel base on Yavin IV.

See? Being rude and condescending isn’t much fun when the shoe is on the other foot. But I packed a lunch and can be insulting all day long if that is your wish.

531. Jonboc - September 3, 2013

#509 “So once they establish that Khan comes from the same universe that Nimoy comes from, both unaffected by Nero’s arrival, and Spock looks like Nimoy; then Khan should not look like Cumberbatch.”

If this were real life perhaps. But it’s a film and there are certain suspensions that one must put into play to make it work. And the one thing that makes it work is Nimoy. Nimoy’s Spock recognizes Chris Pine’s blue-eyed, born-on-a-starship, not-in-Iowa Kirk as his old friend, Jim Kirk. Nimoy’s Spock also recognizes, without formal introduction, Simon Pegg’s Montomery Scott. Cumberbatch is Khan, because he says he is Khan. In THIS timeline, that’s all that is required.

532. Keachick - September 3, 2013

In defense of Bob Orci, he was responding to one poster. This poster has been consistently criticizing STID and its poor writing, yet when Bob asked the poster to actually pitch the movie’s story to him, Bob was met with dismissive sarcasm. The poster could not bothered, or perhaps, was not able to actually tell Bob or the rest of the contributors here what the plot of STID was about.

I did that and received sarcasm and criticism from another poster for doing so. Bob Orci commented “Not bad”. OK, so at least I seem to be on the right track with my summary of the film’s plot and with my simple interpretation of the film’s message.

Yet another poster has come in with her own pitch and did not fully understand what Bob was asking.

Sheesh, almighty.

Frankly, Bob had every right to say “F…off” to that particular poster and others like him. All these posters make often inane criticisms and can be rude and sarcastic and seem to make little, if any, positive contribution to much at all.

533. Red Dead Ryan - September 3, 2013

498. Curious Cadet – September 3, 2013

“@495 re: 481 Robman007 MORE ^^^^

Moreover, for the Trek purist, Roddenberry intended Sulu to represent all Asians, hence the name Sulu which has its origins in South Asian island nations with strong Islamic associations, neither of which is represented by Takei nor Cho. And genetically speaking Japanese and Korean people are often indistinguishably similar.”

WTF??? I’m not sure where you’re getting this information from?

Are you suggesting that Asians look the same? That is incorrect. Koreans do not look like Japanese. Their facial features differ enough to set them apart. John Cho simply does not look Japanese. Not one bit.

534. TreK_Fan - September 3, 2013

Refreshingly honest article. Funny how those of us who were crtical of the reboot but still loved Star Trek were disregarded. Without appealing to the fan base Star Trek cannot move forward. The fans always know better than any director or actor.

535. RaveOnEd - September 3, 2013

519 – Please tell me you’re being sarcastic by the last sentence. Do you honestly think, deep down, that the fans know more than those who create and produce Star Trek?

I’m of course leaving out the upper echelon at Paramount, but if you think that the fans know more than, say Leonard Nimoy for one, you’re off your nut.

Please disregard if you were joking.

536. Red Dead Ryan - September 3, 2013

#513. Curious Cadet

“Both Pine and Pegg took steps to look like the original characters. Pine already has a striking resemblance (the differences retconed by anything you like, given a premature birth near a black hole) and Pegg died his hair and spoke with a Scottish accent — he wasn’t a Blonde with an American accent. Also, these characters are 10 years younger than we ever saw them in the Prime universe, so who is to say the prime counterparts didn’t look exactly like that?”

Apart from being white — neither Chris Pine nor Simon Pegg look “exactly” like their predecessors. Plus Pegg’s Scottish accent is different from the version James Doohan used as Scotty.

I highly doubt that young versions of Doohan and Shatner would line up with the current appearances of the new actors. Just find some photos and compare.

Sorry, but your arguments simply don’t hold any water here.

537. Meni - September 3, 2013

So let me get this straight. Star Trek Into Darkness is…

- The best reviewed blockbuster of 2013 (87% on RT)

- The most successful Star Trek film of all time (approaching $1/2 billion worldwide)

- Rated by Star Trek fans in a poll on this very website as one of the best Start Trek movies (the poll is down now, but several thousand fans voted and placed it in the top 5).

… and this article claims Star Trek is ‘broken’.

Lol.

538. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Keachick

If Orci is so sensitive then maybe he should find another profession. It’s not safe out here.

It amazes me to what levels people will got to keep defending him when they lie to the fans. For how long did they keep telling us that Khan wasn’t in this movie? Paint it how you like (as you most assuredly will) but it was a lie. I am curious why they chose to lie to fans as opposed to just saying they weren’t going to say anything. I guess people skill aren’t a strong suit with these guys. Oh yes, they are so engaging with the fans. Until someone says they don’t like what they saw on the screen. Then they accuse people of not understanding what they saw and issue challenges to explain the plot or to write a better story. And they have the gall to act like a pr*ck to the writer of an article who offered his views on the state of Star Trek. “Well I’m a Big Time Hollywood Blockbuster Movie Writer and your just some schlub.” Real nice. “You didn’t bow to my internet command? F**K OFF!” Classy.

Nice work, Bob Orci. Way to build bridges with your detractors. What do you care. You have enough lap-dog yes-fans here to satiate your burgeoning Big Time Hollywood Blockbuster Movie Writer ego.

539. TreK_Fan - September 3, 2013

@520 The fact is fans do know more. Fans read more novels, examine storylines and are not driven by ego. Actors and directors have to agree with studios to get to participate in a Star Trek tv show or movie. They say anything to ‘sell’ it to the public not necessarily because they ‘get Gene Roddenberry’s concept or care what fans feel. I believe to make a good production fans input should be heard by those in charge of making a film. If JJ was a fan we would have a better set of films.

540. Barney Fife - September 3, 2013

I guess 91% of the STID fans are considered “lap-dog-yes-fans” – - – so I’m in that group simply because I happen to love nuTrek. I love the old stuff…have all the movies and series on DVD/BR, but those days are over. If CBS brings Trek back to TV, do not expect it to be like your father’s Trek.

Let me have nuTrek and you can enjoy the fan-fiction films because you are never going to see Paramount/CBS make that style of Trek again.

541. RaveOnEd - September 3, 2013

524 – I’ll have to disagree with you to a degree. There are quite a few of the actors over Star Trek’s franchise that knew about Star Trek inside and out.

You know, those who have “examined storylines” like the scripts that became episodes and movies.

To use Nimoy as an example, do you really think he only says what he can to get into the movies? Be honest with this answer. Think about one of only a few people who’s been a part of Star Trek since the very beginning, who’s been a part of every process through Star Trek’s evolution (acting, directing and producing), who said he would participate in ST 09 only after he read the story first, and tell me that he only said what he could to get involved.

542. Jonboc - September 3, 2013

#523 “Nice work, Bob Orci. Way to build bridges with your detractors”

Why should he give 2 rat’s asses about building a “bridge” with his detractors?? lol He has a 50th anniversary movie to write, no time to waste with arm-chair quarterbacks!

543. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@517. Keachick – September 3, 2013

“In defense of Bob Orci, he was responding to one poster. This poster has been consistently criticizing STID and its poor writing, yet when Bob asked the poster to actually pitch the movie’s story to him, Bob was met with dismissive sarcasm. The poster could not bothered, or perhaps, was not able to actually tell Bob or the rest of the contributors here what the plot of STID was about.”

Like I told Bob, what plot ? The movie is incoherent. Was I supposed to write the whole bloody incoherent story to Bob or what?

“Frankly, Bob had every right to say “F…off” to that particular poster and others like him. All these posters make often inane criticisms and can be rude and sarcastic and seem to make little, if any, positive contribution to much at all.”

Interesting coming from you, my dear lady.

544. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#525

Yeah, I was right about that part concerning reading comprehension. Like I said, I’m glad that people like the new take on Trek. What I don’t like is their insulting treatment of differing views or criticisms.

#527

Well if he’s so damn busy writing a movie what is he doing here playing commentary grab-a$$ with stupid fans? You can be one of the worst offenders when it comes to jerk behavior. You and RDR ought to get a room.

545. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@428. Hat Rick

“I think we’re asking for the impossible here, or at least, asking for lightning to strike exactly when we want it. We want an art-house film with a tentpole budget that appeals to the masses of cinema-goers worldwide. How likely does that sound?

No matter what we say here it never seems to matter at all. The movies keep on being made the way they are. It’s almost a formula.”

Agreed. We are making a mistake if we thought for a second that Hollywood will come up with a fresh & decent Trek movie. Guess we have to accept that movies like STID are the norms these days & that we need to lower our expectations.

546. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#530

Agreed. We are making a mistake if we thought for a second that Hollywood will come up with a fresh & decent Trek movie. Guess we have to accept that movies like STID are the norms these days & that we need to lower our expectations.

Or we should go to different movies.

547. Flake - September 3, 2013

“two movies that don’t live up to the premise of the concept”

The whole movie franchise – not just JJ movies – does not live up to the premise. Which movie features the Enterprise actually doing its job? (exploration)

None of them!

TMP: Enterprise despatched from Earth to intercept an intruder
TWOK: Khan story, training cruise etc
TSFS: Deals with events from TWOK
TVH: Kirk responds to a distress call from Earth whilst enroute from Vulcan
TFF: Enterprise despatched to Nimbus 3 to deal with terrorists
TUC: Enterprise on a mission to escort Klingon Chancellor to Earth
GENS: E-B responds to distress call near Sol system, E-D responds to distress call @ Armagosa observatory
FC: Enterprise vs the Borg in Sector 001, Time travel
INS: Enterprise called to Briar patch to retrieve malfunctioning Android
NEM: Sent to Romulus to negotiate with a new government
09: Responds to Vulcan distress call
STID: Deals with terrorists and conspiracies

Someone point out the exploring to me please? We never see this in the movies. This is not unique to the reboot.

548. Keachick - September 3, 2013

#523 – I am nobody’s lapdog nor do I kiss ass or brown nose. I just know what I like…All I can say is that I guess Bob Orci’s *sensitivity* helps make up for the lack of sensitivity and abundance of rudeness and stupidity that appears to be so prevalent…/:

Bob Orci never lied to anyone about whether someone calling himself Khan would appear in this movie. He refused to answer the question. Refusing to answer a question is not a lie. It is not a denial, nor is it a confirmation. Bob Orci and others simply chose to exercise their RIGHT to remain silent.

Yes, Bob Orci did challenge Ahmed to pitch the plot of STID as he (Ahmed) remembered and understood it on this thread. Ahmed did take on the challenge.

I decided to take on the challenge myself to see if I could tell the basic storyline and then offer a simple interpretation of what I thought the message was. I was not trying to be a “know-it-all” (as a poster described me). I thought that the challenge was good enough for any of us to take on.

Bob Orci is, no doubt, sure about what I dislike about the movie, mostly to do with so many scenes where there is fighting, violence and brutality.

Oddly enough, it is not those scenes that stick in my memory. It is the lovely little character scenes that hang around, eg Kirk being so elated and excited at the very thought that he might have been selected to go on a great exploratory mission or when Kirk tells Dr McCoy to get that thing off his face (they are on the shuttlecraft and Bones is trying to give Kirk a quick regulation medical – Kirk has not been at all cooperative…). I could go on.

549. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@532. Flake

“Someone point out the exploring to me please? We never see this in the movies. This is not unique to the reboot.”

True, none of the Trek movies, old & new, live up to the premise. But, that doesn’t mean that they can’t make a movie about exploring new dangerous area in the space in a movie full of mystery & action as well.

550. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

Keachick,

Since you are Chris Pine biggest fan here, have you heard anything about his new movie “Jack Ryan: Shadow One” ?

551. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 3, 2013

Wow. Well at least bob never told me off so badly. And as a tribute to the good will, I declare it is now, officially, “bob orci appreciation day” at TrekMovie!

Seriously, thank you for the Star Trek into Darkness, boborci.

You know that as a Trekkie, I had some major issues with STiD. But after thinking about this story for some time, I now consider that I may have over judged some of your intentions while watching in your writing in action.

As an American in a post Sept11 world I am obviously concerned with terrorism in our times and I am vigilant about how such acts can affect, or are affecting our individual personal liberties. So when it came to watching this new Trek, I was obviously confronted directly with a couple passions in my life. Star Trek, and vigilance against any threats to personal liberty and country. Yeah, it may sound funny to some, but we ARE living in strange times and are expected to speak up in our “See Something? Say Something society.”

So boborci, when it came to the 9-eleven analogies in ST09 and STiD, it REALLY tripped my Red Alert.

What was Star Trek commenting on in this latest movie?
Star Trek always had a social commentary, and when I realized that my Star Trek was possibly saying, in allegory, that someone in our government could be responsible for a Sept11 type conspiracy, it really hit my hot button.

Let me make this long story shorter by saying, I think I may have let the negative rumors of this past decade’s news, alter my perception of these new Star Trek productions. Was this Trek about Sept11th and the war machines we created? I can’t say for sure, I sure got me thinking heavily about the whole topic again, but this time, it made me mad, Because for me, I still do not think we have the whole story on how Sept11th – or the many post wars in which we are still involved,

Yet, when I watched this latest movie, it seemed to me that the makers were saying, Yeah, we know the real truth. And, in fact you we think you were all duped, and us writers are in a way, smarter than you, and we can serve all those same Sept11th conspiracies on the silver screen, And you will not even know what you are buying. But it just might make you think later.

So boborci, I’ve heard of cognitive dissonance, but I think it hit me on the reverse side, as I never expected to see so much of today’s conspiracy headlines in a Star Trek movie of all places!

So, yes. I’d say as a Trekkie, I was played in a way by your story. But it was interesting, and made me think on another unknown level, and for that I credit your good work.

I will see see STiD again. And I will try and see past some of the uncomfortable plot lines I may have read too deeply into and try and enjoy it on another level. A higher level where I can still believe Star Trek is a real place, with real characters and are not just being used solely as a commentary on today’s world. I am sure it will make for a more enjoyable viewing experience.

Thank you, boborci. I sincerely do appreciate your efforts writing for Trek.

And please accept my apologies, Sorry for some of the highly critical things I did write about your movie, It was the negativity of recent times that has clouded some of my reactions to the movie and your writing. I am actually looking forward to another viewing since I am obviously still wondering about how all these possibilities continue to play out for our beloved crew.

Again, I do hope that you enjoy a very happy “bob orci appreciation day!”

552. Keachick - September 3, 2013

And yet, Ahmed, I was able to tell here what the plot/the story of STID was about, when I have not seen the same film in more than three months. What I wrote was, I think, was pretty coherent, and that was because the story in the film was as coherent, if not more so.

#312 Bob Orci – “You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive. Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s compare it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?”

On re-reading Bob Orci’s post (quoted above) – it was a gauntlet he laid down for everyone, not just Ahmed. To date, only I, Keachick, have picked the gauntlet and run with it and have been dumped on as a result by -
#434 – I am to Smurfy
“427)
And here comes Keachick once again with her Know it all attitude.
We don’t need a long @ss diatribe by you, about why you know the plot blah blah blah, a dingo ate my baby blah blah blah”

Pathetic.

553. Flake - September 3, 2013

534. Ahmed

The article seemed to put the point across that it is the reboot has broken Trek because it doesn’t focus on exploration when infact none of previous 10 movies before the reboot spanning 25 years didn’t either.

If we have a movie about exploring a strange new world somewhere then thats great but not if it means a superior movie is shelved! It is not neccessary, its just an excuse wheeled out when the latest installment does not live up to their personal vision, IMO

554. Moputo Jones - September 3, 2013

So there was a high point in 2009, but 4 short years later we are at a low point? Just because STID didn’t make a billion dollars?

555. Allenburch - September 3, 2013

398. boborci – September 2, 2013
“To paraphrase of one of my great and beloved heroes, George W. Bush, “we’re the deciders….”

Hahahahaha — I love it!

I am looking forward to New Trek III, and
I LOVE ALICE EVE

556. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@537. Flake – September 3, 2013

“534. Ahmed

The article seemed to put the point across that it is the reboot has broken Trek because it doesn’t focus on exploration when infact none of previous 10 movies before the reboot spanning 25 years didn’t either.”

I reread the article & I think the author is pointing to several reasons why he think Star Trek is broken. I don’t think he is saying that lack of exploration is the only reason.

For my part, I don’t think Star Trek is broken, it just need someone at the helm to guide it.

We should have something along these lines:

1) A television series to focus on the exploration of new worlds & character developments.

2) A movie every 2 to 3 years that is more tailored toward the general moviegoers.

3) Comics with new adventurers & not rehash of old stories as it is done now.

557. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

TrekMadeMeWonder,

You made a promise that you were going to leave this site for good.

Do you not honor your promises?

in·teg·ri·ty
inˈtegritē/Submit
noun
1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
“he is known to be a man of integrity”

558. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

“I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided. Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of “broken.” And frankly, your tone and attitude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. Sorry, Joseph. As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.”

Well said, Bob Orci.

And, I’ll repeat again what I said earlier:

S H A M E

O N

Y O U

J O S E S P H

D I C K E R S O N

…..You have done a disservice to Trek fandom with you unnecessary and incendiary remarks here. As someone who has the honor of being given an editorial slot on this slight, you could have used “your pen” for something constructive; instead, you went “DRAMA QUEEN” on all of us.

I am embarrassed for you, and embarrassed to be a Trek fan.

559. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@525 “I guess 91% of the STID fans are considered “lap-dog-yes-fans” – – – so I’m in that group simply because I happen to love nuTrek. I love the old stuff…have all the movies and series on DVD/BR, but those days are over. If CBS brings Trek back to TV, do not expect it to be like your father’s Trek. Let me have nuTrek and you can enjoy the fan-fiction films because you are never going to see Paramount/CBS make that style of Trek again.”

Well said, Barney. Well said.

560. Keachick - September 3, 2013

#535 – I know as much as what is published on the IMDb Jack Ryan: Shadow One site or what can be found on other internet sites.

I do know that there is no trailer yet, but the first is coming soon. I also know that Chris Pine was in New York a week or two back shooting or reshooting scenes. He was seen wearing knee-pads. Some of the story takes place in New York, as well as Moscow, Russia. Most of the film was shot in England, on location and at the Pinewood Studios.

The US release date is 25 December 2013. Other release dates have been published on the IMDb site, except for Australia and NZ. The downunder Keachick is not amused…:(

It is interesting to note that this movie is another Paramount production and as yet there is still no trailer. It seems that this is how Paramount may prefer to do its promotions of movies, as in letting trailers out, along with the publicity, much nearer to the actual release dates than what other movie companies prefer to do with their promotions.

561. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@513 “But like I said earlier, get back to me when they cast a black Kirk.”

I hope to be able to get back to you one day with exactly this response; but I believe it will actually happen and will welcome it, while for you it is biting sarcasm.

That is a major difference between you and I.

562. Locutus - September 3, 2013

Boborci,

Can you write a scene for the next film that includes the marshmallow replicator device from Star Trek V, a bottle of Chateau Picard, a 3-D chess set and a ‘green’ drink for Scotty.

Thanks.

563. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@527 “Why should he give 2 rat’s asses about building a “bridge” with his detractors?? lol He has a 50th anniversary movie to write, no time to waste with arm-chair quarterbacks!”

Jonboc, I could not have said it better myself.

564. Phil - September 3, 2013

@542. Did you read the same article I read? It’s an op-ed piece, and unless you are managing editorial content here he’s entitled to his opinion, and makes many of the similar points we all have in recent weeks. I was more put off by Bob’s rather patronizing tone, but considering some of the s**t and personal attacks that have come his way via this ‘fan’ site, I can’t blame him for popping a gasket.

Relax…

565. Keachick - September 3, 2013

Darn it – refer to my post #534 – I wrote “…Ahmed did take on the challenge.”
I meant to write – “… Ahmed did NOT take on the challenge.”

That’s me vehemently thinking the word and my fingers typing the word(s) that follow…

566. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@ 402 “Oh, for frak’s sake. Gods save us from the purists who just can’t bear to let the past be the past. STID wasn’t perfect, but it was far from a flop, so let’s get a frakking grip”

Yep!

@538 “So there was a high point in 2009, but 4 short years later we are at a low point? Just because STID didn’t make a billion dollars?”

Yes, that is apparently what Dickerson’s dad taught him “a trend” was.

@522. “So let me get this straight. Star Trek Into Darkness is…
- The best reviewed blockbuster of 2013 (87% on RT)
- The most successful Star Trek film of all time (approaching $1/2 billion worldwide
- Rated by Star Trek fans in a poll on this very website as one of the best Start Trek movies (the poll is down now, but several thousand fans voted and placed it in the top 5).… and this article claims Star Trek is ‘broken’? Lol.”

Yep! That’s what Joe Dickerson — THE EXPERT — is saying. LOL

567. Dave in RI - September 3, 2013

I don’t think Trek is “broken”, I think it’s more accurate to say it’s missing something. That *something* is in-depth character development and themes that challenge the viewer to see things from different perspectives.

This is classic Trek at its finest and you can’t really do much of that with a flash in the pan movie that needs to appeal to the masses. We’re only getting part of what made Trek great with the movies–we need the deep character parts to make it whole, and you can only get that through television.

All of this is my opinion only–I would never speak for anyone else.

568. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@547

THEN WHERE IS THE OPPOSING POV? This is Trekmovie.com — not FixTrek.com.

Matt, I volunteer to write the opposing view editorial.

I am serious. Please let me know if you want to take me up on this offer. I can have it ready for you by Friday this week.

569. WannaBeatle - September 3, 2013

“The feedback from fans was pretty unanimous – the best film was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and the worst… was Star Trek Into Darkness.”

heh, I completely disagree with both of those opinions. While, the two new ‘Trek’ films don’t hold a candle to most of the original films (or tv shows). I would not say that Into Darkness is the worst. That title still goes to “Trek ’09″, but with a dishonorable mention to ‘Generations’.

But, for me the best was Search for Spock, it had a couple of flaws, but was still great nonetheless.

570. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@MJ,

So, do you think all is well & great in Trekland ?

571. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 3, 2013

Is this thing on?

572. Disinvited - September 3, 2013

#526. RaveOnEd – September 3, 2013

You are forgetting Nimoy was the author of I AM NOT SPOCK. The man is extremely talented and I am a very big fan of his, but for fans to try to take his wavering TREK commitment over the decades and reconstitute it into some constant shining Trek beacon with the power of a papal imprimatur is just showing ignorance of history and the man himself.

And, yes, I’d argue that after lobbying for Spock’s death for most of 1970th decade, and finally getting it in Phase II, his conspiring to undo its being carried over to a motion picture was largely self-serving along with his getting to direct 2 pictures.

I think it would be fair to paint me as a conflicted fan over what has become known as the Trek “film franchise”. I find Nimoy’s TVH my favorite of the bunch but I am also very cognizant of the fact that he derailed the absolutely excellent original trajectory the films would have explored without his character’s resurrection to get himself there which was also direct cause for Trek V’s existence.

573. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 3, 2013

@570 Sorry, everyone.

I was trying to post that for hours. Some sort of TM filter had is deleted a few times.

574. Matt Wright - September 3, 2013

@ TrekMadeMeWonder – You attempted to post the same large comment about twelve times. Trying to do it again and again does NOT work. All you did was clog up the comment moderation queue.

I don’t know how many times I have to say this…

If your comment “disappears” right after you post it, that means it was flagged for moderation, it just needs to be approved. It is not being deleted, it is not being censored, etc. Trying to ram the same exact comment down the throat of the site doesn’t work.

We try to come by a few times a day and approve things. Remember currently TrekMovie is being run by the volunteer staff of myself and Kayla, remember we have days jobs.

575. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@570. Ha! LOL

We have a pretty good Trek movie here, with some issues — I will agree — that wasn’t quite as good as the near perfect Trek 2009.

Nothing’s broken here — that is a complete fracking joke and an insult to my intelligence.. Some tweaks would be good — and I don’t think Bob would disagree on that.

The Supreme Court has saved and revitalized Star Trek. I am more than comfortable given them the benefit of the doubt on Trek 2016.

576. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

I think it is about time we stop calling them The Supreme Court.

577. LCDR T'Pau - September 3, 2013

I concur with the article 200%. How many of the problems with ST:ID were the result of JJ Abrams, how much the fault of the writers, how much the fault of the suits at Paramount . . . . . . . .That ST:ID is not a Star Trek movie, except in title only, cannot be doubted — that it relied on special effects and action sequences — also cannot be doubted.

I have never been one of those for whom ST II: TWOK represents the BEST of the films — I lean more toward ST VI: UC and ST VIII: FC. MANY fans were almost screaming for a redo of TWOK — and so they sort of got their wish — but given that an alternate timeline had been created — why repeat — why not do something original — something creative — instead of rehashing an old story — albeit from a different place in the timeline of that story. And to recreate the death scene at the end of TWOK? Really?

It may be time to “abandon ship” when it comes to the NCC 1701 and her crew. IF the suits at Paramount and CBS can be convinced that to do so will extend the life of their important franchise — and maybe even bring in some of the new fans they need.

The bottom line is that Star Trek thrives on good writing, well developed characters, and good stories that help us examine something about being human, about the human condition, about our moral complexities and ambiguities, about growth — and rely on action only when it serves to further the story, not as filler for the absence of a story or well developed characters.

And I agree with the author and Mr. Shatner — with the way Hollywood focuses on action movies, with little room for the little movie that does not feature lots of action — the only way to really revive Star Trek IS to put it back on TV.

578. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@577 “I concur with the article 200%”

200% concurrance is mathematically impossible 100% is the maximun.

Sounds like you may have went to the same university that taught Joseph Dickerson that one single data point was a “trend”?

579. shackles - September 3, 2013

Tommy Wiseau as a ferengi would be outstanding for the next film. Just an idea

580. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 3, 2013

574. Matt Wright -

Much appreciated!

581. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@574. Matt Wright,

Thanks Matt & Kayla for keeping the site active. It is really ridiculous the owner of the site, AP, went AWOL for months now without any explanations whatsoever.

582. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@ 578. MJ (The Original). – September 3, 2013

“Sounds like you may have went to the same university that taught Joseph Dickerson that one single data point was a “trend”?”

Hey MJ, take it easy on Joseph Dickerson. He is entitled to his views as much as you are.

583. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

Me too — thanks Matt and Kayla — YOU ARE THE BEST !!!

PS: Matt, I am serious; as I mentioned above I would love to have the chance to write a differing POV editorial.

584. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 3, 2013

Relax Ahmed.

AP did all he needed to do with this site a few years ago. Its working fine.

Matt, drop us an address to send you a few buckles a month! ; )

585. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@581. He got to write the editorial, with no opposing view. So no, I am not going to be easy on him.

I certainly wish him no ill will personally.

But he has fanned the flames here unnecessarily. It’s easy for you to say, “MJ’s being too hard on him,” because you agree with his “alternate” viewpoint. And I say “alternate,” because by any broad measure of public assessment, this film is liked by most people.

586. Anthony Thompson - September 3, 2013

Agree. But..

1. Most of the earlier Trek films were also ‘Earth jeopardy’ stories. Why? The far more popular sci-fi franchise, Star Wars, doesn’t even make one reference to Earth.

2. ‘Wrath of Khan’ was a mediocre film at best. And not original.

3. Trek on television sounds great, but is it financially feasible in this era? Audiences are stretched thin because of so many choices. A trek TV show would be VERY expensive to produce.

4. The Trek film series needs writers with a vision. I love Bob, but he and his team do “research” (watching the TOS eps., for instance) instead of having a compelling vision and a story they really want to tell. Lindelof has been talking about a war with Klingons for Trek 3. Zzzzzzzzzzz.

587. Matt Wright - September 3, 2013

@ MJ – we’re open to user contributed content, feel free to contact me through the e-mail address on the contacts page.

588. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Keachick

Reading comprehension. Get a handle on it. I said “they” lied. They most assuredly did lie and did say Khan was not going to be in the movie. You are wrong. And I think you’re a lap do yes fan. What of it?

But all of that is for naught. The makers of these movies show their real colors when they say things in public such as They were never fans of Star Trek or that it was too intelligent for them so they purposely dumbed down the movies to make them more accessible or that they must assume some sort of “parental” role over the fans, like we are children or something. What a load.

Believe it or not but they have cast themselves in an unfavorable light. You have been too blinded by the lens flares to see it.

Anyway, like I said, the movies are nothing more to me than a diversion from real Star Trek. The Star Trek you get on TV.

589. Matt Wright - September 3, 2013

@ 512. Spock/Uhura Admirer — FYI: SyFy is NOT owned by Viacom/Paramount/CBS (the company names have changed over the last decade), it has always been a Universal property. Viacom briefly jointly owned it with Universal, but it got out of joint ownership in 1997. Well before BSG was created and well before Stargate SG-1 was brought over after the original Showtime production agreement ran out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syfy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_SG-1#Broadcast_and_release

590. Phil - September 3, 2013

@587. Really? I’d love to see Science Saturday come back…..

It’s been a while, but I did get some op-ed pieces in the Press Enterprise a while back….

591. Colin - September 3, 2013

I don’t think its possible to fix Star Trek. The people in charge (the “parents”) are taking instruction not from the fans (the “children”), but from a higher authority. This authority tells them, “We want to sell this film on the foreign market. This market wants a film that is less Trek and more action. Do it..” While ST: ID struggled on the domestic front, it succeeded on the foreign front.

Am I the only one troubled by the notion that the people in charge are parents and fans are the children? Or that this notion was even mentioned by someone who is as intimately connected to the production, as Bob Orci is?

592. Disinvited - September 3, 2013

Here are answers that Damon Lindelof gave:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1707650/star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-special-burning-questions-answered.jhtml

”As for Mr. Nimoy, well… we continue to feel blessed that we get to carry the Trek torch and the best way of expressing that in story is to acknowledge the parallel world we are deviating from — a world whose sole ambassador just happens to be Mr. Spock. It would have been hubris for us to represent to the uninitiated that Khan was our idea and there was no one better to pop in briefly and say — “Hey, these guys are just doing their own spin on a bad guy that was around a long time before they came along.” The minute we stop honoring, acknowledging and representing the original Trek, we are bound to lose sight of the enormous gift we have been given in sustaining it.” – Damon Lindelof

”First and foremost, let me reiterate this film DOES work for the uninitiated… but let’s be honest. None of them are interested in reading this exchange of dorkitude, so seriously, screw them.

Did any callbacks not make the cut? Hmm. I suppose I always did want to settle the Joaquin/Joaquim controversy (if you [Josh Horowitz] don’t know what I’m talking about, then I just lost all respect for you), but there was neither the time, nor the space (get it? GET IT?!?) to do so. As for Genesis… that was never part of the plan. Not for this movie anyway. But wouldn’t it be great if Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins COULD get back together? Sigh.

But seriously. We were ever wary of the line between “reimagined homage” and “direct ripoff” and erred on the side of the former. As a fun FYI, Bob, Alex and I code-named the script file “PLANT STUDY” as we sent it back and forth.

We never considered leaving Kirk dead at the end of this movie. No one would’ve believed we’d leave him that way and in this spoiler-centric culture, the inter webs would have known we were bringing him back and how long before the release of STAR TREK KIRK IS BACK WE PROMISE.

I’m purposely avoiding talking about the blood thing, but by writing a sentence in response about it, it will feel like I’m not avoiding it completely.” – Damon Lindelof

”As for our friend Mr. Harrison (I am still uncomfortable even typing his true identity, so conditioned I have become to not do so), yes — there was a fair amount of back and forth as to whether to take on such an iconic character. But it was never really a “Should we or shouldn’t we?” as much as it was “We really have to do this but if we don’t get it right people are going to kill us.”

I think that character is so iconic — he has such an intense gravity in the Trek universe, we likely would have expended more energy NOT putting him in this movie than the other way around. But more importantly, Josh?

He monologues. He monologues like no one else. Pop in the original Star Trek II and watch the scene where poor Chekov stumbles into the Botany Bay. Seriously. In this day and age, most bad guys just run and jump and do that cool neck-breaking move and get the hell on with it. Outside of a Bond movie, does ANYONE monologue like this guy?

No, Josh. They do not.

And when you can get that monologue to come out of Benedict Cumberbatch’s mouth, does the “writing” even matter? I mean, seriously, I made that guy say “Milk, milk lemonade, and this is where the fudge is made” and it scared the living sh*t out of me.” – Damon Lindelof

593. gen - September 3, 2013

Seriously? Into Darkness is the worst? In a Universe where The Final Frontier and Insurrection exist??? I don’t think so… I’m a long time trekkie (starting with the 80s movies) and I enjoy the new alternate timeline movies quite a lot.

594. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#591

No Colin, you’re not. Way back before ’09 was released and we all found out that the story was going to take place in an AU so that the film makers could dispense with canon I wrote on this very site that I found that decision to smack of hubris. Of course I was shouted down for such heresy. Thankfully TPTB (Orci) has come out and vindicated me.

595. T'Cal - September 3, 2013

Trekkers are broken. The new movies are making money and the audience has grown beyond the die hard fans, most of whom didn’t show up for Nemesis, a mediocre film at best. The franchise is successful again and you people are complaining – it’s not MY Star Trek! Boo-frickety-hoo! Trek is evolving in a successful way and, just as when TNG came out and TOS fans cried foul, the audience will evolve and grow if the movie or series is of a high quality. Same thing happened when DS9 came out, which, IMHO, may be the best Trek show so far.

Enjoy the success or don’t. But for God’s sake stop whining!

596. Marja - September 3, 2013

Film worked for me on many levels but after six viewings I felt pummeled by all the action sequences, relentless, indeed.

There is a story in there, and a pretty good one. It just kinda got lost in the CGI sauce.

Quickest fix?

Bring Trek3 out during the holiday season where we can have a more family-friendly [LESS VIOLENT] film that speaks more to ideas and morality than before.

For godsakes Paramount leave the RELENTLESS ACTION to Marvel and Superman. Star Trek is not a comic book.

Loved the character writing, acting, and dress uniforms, though.

597. MiuMiu - September 3, 2013

Star Trek HAS to be brought back to the small screen. Never has there been a better time for it to be on television in this golden era of Tv drama.

Vince Gilligan and David Benioff and D. B. Weiss should join together to create the next series of Star Trek.
It would be brilliant.
It’s the only way.

598. Keachick - September 3, 2013

#588 – The only person I can recall lying about Khan not being in the film was Simon Pegg. Actually what we mostly got was no answer or a good deal of ambiguity – much like what the film has told us about this Harrison/Khan actually.

This is what you wrote -
#538 -”It amazes me to what levels people will got to keep defending *HIM when *THEY lie to the fans. For how long did they keep telling us that Khan wasn’t in this movie? Paint it how you like (as you most assuredly will) but it was a lie.”
Which is it? Are you accusing *him (Bob Orci) or *they – presumably him and others, who were, for example? I was referring to my memory of what Bob Orci (him) had said or written.

“Oh yes, they are so engaging with the fans. Until someone says they don’t like what they saw on the screen.”

Bullshit! A totally unfair comment. Once again, who are “they”? The only person from the STID writing team who posts here is Bob Orci. Bob Orci pops in and out fairly regularly and I have no doubt reads much of what has been written by people on the various threads. Many people have written about what they have not liked in the movie – quite vehemently, angrily, more often than not repeating what someone else has written. Bob Orci either has not responded or has written a singe word like “Fascinating”.

He chose to respond this time to the thread’s commentary and to one or two posters. That is his right. He might be one of the movie’s producers and writers, but he is also just another poster, just like everyone else. If it is OK for others to say what some other might describe here as being crazy, over the top, rude, silly, brown nosing, a lap do yes fan, diatribe etc etc, then it is certainly OK for Bob Orci to use whatever terms he chooses to describe how he feels about something some other poster has written here about the latest Star Trek movie, a film that would have as much meaning to him as it would to anyone else.

I have not been blinded by any lens flares. In fact I barely notice them and I have near 20/20 vision. Also, I do NOT need to be told what “real” Star Trek is – not by you, not by anyone. Thank you…

I guess I am standing up, attempting to defend another person who, I believe, is being unfairly treated by some people here. I have done similar for other people, like Chris Pine, who has also been subject to unfair criticism. Anthony Pascale once told me not to take it so seriously and that I did not need to defend anyone. I’m not sure whether he mentioned if all was OK or not…

I am sorry, Bob Orci, if what I say annoys or bothers you. I just don’t like being badly treated and I don’t like it when I think others are being badly treated, no matter who they are, and I tend to say so…

599. Matthew Taggart - September 3, 2013

Is this really a quote from Lindelof?

And when you can get that monologue to come out of Benedict Cumberbatch’s mouth, does the “writing” even matter? I mean, seriously, I made that guy say “Milk, milk lemonade, and this is where the fudge is made” and it scared the living sh*t out of me.” – Damon Lindelof

If it is, I’m sure it was partially in jest, but either way that was one of my problems about the movie. I’m no purest, Trek needs to evolve, good to let a new audience in, but Mr. Cumberbatch speaking slowly in a British accent doesn’t scare me. Writing does matter. Again I know the comment if accurate was probably half a joke, but at the same time it felt like this was how the writing was done for the movie.

600. Keachick - September 3, 2013

#591 – “we all found out that the story was going to take place in an AU so that the film makers could dispense with canon I wrote on this very site that I found that decision to smack of hubris. Of course I was shouted down for such heresy. Thankfully TPTB (Orci) has come out and vindicated me.”

Bullshit. Bob Orci has done nothing of the kind. The film makers have not dispensed with canon. They are not subject to the entire weight of prime universe canon. They made a good, sensible decision to go with telling stories that could take place in an AU.

This alternate Star Trek universe is very similar to the other prime universe, which is why there is so much that is almost the same, including many of the people. STID was a perfect example of how MWI theory may actually work in practice.

I suspect that most of any hubris belongs to you.

601. ensign joe - September 3, 2013

I agree with the article.

Though I cannot say where I would rank STID as I haven’t seen it..

Will be looking forward to ST Continues #2

602. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@598. Keachick

“This alternate Star Trek universe is very similar to the other prime universe, which is why there is so much that is almost the same, including many of the people. STID was a perfect example of how MWI theory may actually work in practice.”

LOL, really ?? IF that is the case, how come KHAN is a British white guy in this universe ?

603. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

#588 – Not a nuTrek Sheep:

“Anyway, like I said, the movies are nothing more to me than a diversion from real Star Trek. The Star Trek you get on TV.”

Hmm? The only two Trek series that were really good were TOS and DS9.

TNG let’s call “OK.” Voyager and Enterprise were nearly unwatchable, which is the primary reason why Trek on TV ended its run.

So the TV series let’s say “batted about .500.” In other words, I’d say about half of the episodes were really worth watching over and over.

I think its very easy to argue that the movies fall into about exactly the same ratio; about 1/2 are really good/worth watching over and over.

And nuTrek, well if you liked Trek 2009 and didn’t like STID, here again, we are batting .500.

So your point is rather meaningless.

604. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

# 600 / Ahmed:

“LOL, really ?? IF that is the case, how come KHAN is a British white guy in this universe ?”

Because none of this is real, my friend. These are actors cast to play imaginary parts, and the writers and creators can make a few changes over time.

Again, this universe is not real, it will never happen…period…exclamation point. It is imaginary, which is why “fiction” is used to make it up, and why people called actors are needed to “pretend” that this universe actually exists.

605. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Keachick

Double dumb ass on you. He certainly has demonstrated hubris on this very site, which was the point I was getting at. Are you clear on the definition of hubris as it pertains to this subject? By putting himself in the role of parent and fans in the role of children his condescension toward everyone is proof enough. Just the very notion of setting the new films in an AU in order to dispense with canon and tell TOS stories that aren’t beholden to nearly 50 years of established story telling is pride defined. If he were so bold then why not be brave and tell an original Trek story without the fanservice? Why lean on an established baddie such as Khan? To get butts in seats, that’s why. Not some noble creative gesture.

But let’s get to that last statement of yours: my own hubris. My own pride. Let me have it. Give me a cogent example and I will proffer an apology. I suspect you confuse confidence with pride.

606. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@ 602. DiscoSpock – September 3, 2013

“Because none of this is real, my friend. These are actors cast to play imaginary parts, and the writers and creators can make a few changes over time.

Again, this universe is not real, it will never happen…period…exclamation point. It is imaginary, which is why “fiction” is used to make it up, and why people called actors are needed to “pretend” that this universe actually exists.”

Dude, I know that. I was simply replying to her point that the two universes are the same. Within that fictional universe, the incursion of Nero should not changed Khan into a white guy.

607. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Disco Spock

Hmm? The only two Trek series that were really good were TOS and DS9.

What a pile of garbage. Who are you to make such pronouncements? If you are so certain of this then support your position with some sort of substantive evidence. Your argument is based wholly on your own personal opinion and is beneath serious discussion. Get back to me when you can make a qualified statement.

608. Romulus - September 3, 2013

A C CRISPIN the writer of Yesterdays Son and Time for Yesterday is in poor health and has posted a “goodbye notice” on her Facebook ..ANN CRISPIN. Thought you should know, now go back to your squabbles.

609. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

603 / Not a Nutrek Sheep

Well, for starters, you sound like you are having a little hissy fit because Bob Orci actually stated what a lot of us already accept, which is that he and JJ have been pretty much leading the franchise since 2009. And now with JJ’s semi-departure, well yea, Bob is kind of like the franchise parent, and you, like most of us here (myself included), behave like the spoiled little kids of the franchise.

Duh !

And think about this. When you act petulant like this, with all your whining about Bob, you assume the child role, which is exactly what you are claiming you don’t want to accept.

610. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

And, Disco Spock, if none of this is real (no kidding, you come up with that on your own?) Then why should any fan be emotionally invested in characters that can change ethnicity on a writers whim? If characters are not who they once were then why should they be used at all?

So much effort to find actors that would resemble their predecessors so as not to take viewers out of the moment only to toss that out the window with the #1 bad guy in Star Trek.

Is it any wonder that there is division among Star Trek fans as it pertains to the current state of the franchise?

611. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

#605 / Not a Nutrek Sheep:

“What a pile of garbage. Who are you to make such pronouncements?”

Ah, see, you are falling right into the spoiled child role. You don’t agree with what I said, and so you start attacking me.

And you wonder why Bob think’s he needs to assume a parental role.

LOL

Start talking like an adult here, and maybe Bob and others will start treating you like one. I just voiced my opinion, and you tried to attack and bully me into submission. That is “childish” behavior.

612. Dave H. - September 3, 2013

@ NuTrek Sheep

Ref: “Who are you to make such pronouncements?”

Well, I do know that DiscoSpock has been posting for at least 4 years or more here. We know his voice.

However, for your part, I have never seen you post here until today? So “who are you?” might be a more appropriate question?

613. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

That’s a good one. Petulant, that is.

You mean when I don’t get in line and just love, love, love everything that comes from his gilded pen i’m being petulant?

Huh.

My perspective is that Orci is the one being petulant when he tells fans to Eff off because they don’t kow tow to his challenges and barbs. I am nobody’s child and I do not perceive Orci or Lindelof or Abrams to have any superior intelligence to my own. They are established movie makers, not my Trek overlords. I would be more respectful of them if they were more respectful towards the fans. Showing up on a fan site to get your ego stroked is not the same as engaging the same fans in a reasoned debate about the merits or lack there of of your product.

614. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

“Showing up on a fan site to get your ego stroked is not the same as engaging the same fans in a reasoned debate about the merits or lack there of of your product.”

I not believe that you want to have a legitimate discussion with Bob Orci, Nor do I believe that you are a supposed new poster here. I think you are one o the group of several people here who keeps changing your name so as to give the false impression that more fans who dislike nuTrek are supposedly emerging. My bet is that you are a fake.

615. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Dave

I have been posting here longer than most of you, since the inception of this site. I assumed a new name so that I could dispense with formality and “niceties” since I noticed that a growing number of “pro AU Trek” fans were only shouting down anyone with a differing point of view. I decided to take the gloves off and give back as good as I get.

So maybe you can help me out: Why should Disco Spock be the one to tell which Star Trek was good and which was not? The only answer I can come up with is Disco Spock’s own arrogance.

I give not a whit whether you know know my voice from anyone else’s. My voice is as valid as yours.

616. Ceti Alpha 5 - September 3, 2013

In my opinion, I’d place “Into Darkness” in my top 3.

To the haters: If you want completely “original” stories, then you need completely new(i.e. different) characters. Simple as that.

617. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

Dave H, you hit the nail on the head. See my post #611 above. I agree 100%.

—————————————-
609. Dave H. – September 3, 2013
@ NuTrek Sheep

Ref: “Who are you to make such pronouncements?”

Well, I do know that DiscoSpock has been posting for at least 4 years or more here. We know his voice.

However, for your part, I have never seen you post here until today? So “who are you?” might be a more appropriate question?

618. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

@612

Oh, so you make a new fake identity so you can be an a-hole to everyone and not take responsibility for your identity that we would all recognize here.

What a FRAUD!!!

619. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Disco Spock

My bet is that you are a fake.

What? What does that mean? I explained who I was. What should it matter? You are just trying to avoid a legitimate discussion yourself.

620. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Disco Spock

That’s funny coming from a character called Disco Spock. You are just trying to avoid engaging me. I can’t actually blame you. You are ill-equipped.

Quit being evasive. It doesn’t matter that I changed my handle on Trekmovie.com. You couldn’t answer my questions clearly no matter if my name were Santy Clause.

621. Dave H. - September 3, 2013

@ NuTrek Sheep

Thanks for the explanation.

I assume though, that you, like all of us here, would like your opinions to be read and taken seriously? Assuming you agree with this goal, then I would urge you to let us all know your historical identity on this site? I think you will find that being honest about that will increase the perception by others of the credibility of your posts here today.

Otherwise, your strategy here of presenting an alter-ego who can be more tough and mean with people comes across as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. It’s like you are trying to come up with a clever way to not call this sock-puppetry and trolling, but that is kind of what you are doing here, in my humble opinion. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, my friend.

622. Keachick - September 3, 2013

Nobody is shouting down anyone, NuTrek Sheep.

Double double dumbass on you. They have NOT dispensed with canon. The alternate universe idea is actually part of Star Trek canon. It is also based on MWI scientific theory (google the meaning of “theory” in the context of scientific).

The writers decided to use that idea presented within actual Star Trek canon in order to tell new stories or tell a similar story to one already known about in the prime universe, except that it takes place in an alternate universe where events, places, people, timings are not necessarily quite the same as they were in the other better known universe.

Your hubris is to criticize the writers without fully understanding what the hell it is that you are objecting to. DUH!

623. BatlethInTheGroin - September 3, 2013

The poster on this thread pretending to be Bob Orci is obviously NOT Bob Orci. For one thing, he’s being a complete asswipe. And for another, his posts indicate illiteracy. This is clearly an impostor, and you’ve all taken the bait.

624. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - September 3, 2013

Bob Orci. I only Saw Star Trek Into Darkness once. I know you did the best you could and feel like it was a great movie. But for the first time ever of all 12 Star Trek Movies. This is the first time I did not go back for repeats. I enjoyed Into Darkness. But was just not blown away like I was with Trek 09. Having Khan in there was simply for me way to early. Again. I respect you and have loved the little banter we have had over the years. I just hope that the next Trek Movie you write will be a new and original and I hope will bring me back for many repeated viewing’s.
Oh and I will get the Blu-Rey.

625. Matt Wright - September 3, 2013

@ 623 — The TrekMovie staff is on the lookout for fakers. That is Orci, we know what private e-mail address he uses when he comments, and unless someone has figured it out, that’s the real Bob Orci.

626. Jonboc - September 3, 2013

#604. “Within that fictional universe, the incursion of Nero should not changed Khan into a white guy.”

…from that perspective, nor should it have resulted in Kirk being born with blue eyes, on a Starship…rather than in Iowa. But he was. The audience just has to accept it because that’s how things roll in the alternate universe. You don’t have to like it, but in the alternate universe, Kirk has blue eyes, leather insignia has been replaced with metal pins, Chekov has light hair, Pike doesn’t live the remainder of his life with the Talosians, Klingons have ridges and Khan, this go around, is a British white guy. He just is…it’s an alternate timeline, no explanations are necessary beyond that.

627. cd - September 3, 2013

Star Trek’s not dead, as long as we remember it.

>;>}

628. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

@625.

Matt, thanks for the update.

Interesting here that when Bob decided that he needed to make a stand, he didn’t feel the need to come up with a sock puppet name change. He “was a man” and delivered his message from his consistent identity on this site.

Bob Orci doesn’t try to hide from anyone here. What you see is what you get.

629. Phil - September 3, 2013

Hey, MJ, not to sure why your buddy Lil’ blogger seems to think you two are tight, but he insists you are looking for this:

Famous Kentucky Crow

Ingredients:
I large feathered crow
4 c. cow manure
1 pt. Old Crow Kentucky Bourbon

Mix one cup Old Crow Kentucky Bourbon with 4 cups cow manure, until dough is firm. Place crow in baking pan and top with mixture, then bake at 375 for two hours, or when inserted toothpick comes back clean. Remove from oven. Serving suggestion: Feed the crow to the dog, and toast the chef with remaining Bourbon.

Cheers….

630. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Dave H.

Clearly you are a sound and reasonable person. But here is the deal:

In my opinion who I am does not matter nearly as much as what I have to say. I decided to employ the same tactics that I see Keachick, Red Dead Ryan, Jonboc, MJ and a number of others use against opposing viewpoints. I wish to demonstrate that their lack of civility and name calling isn’t any fun when the tables are turned. And I humbly think that I am better at it than they are.

As for sock-puppeting: I am not engaged in that practice. By definition, sock puppeting is the act of using one name to make a point and then using another name to come back in and support that same point thereby giving the impression that more than one person share the same opinion. All I can do is give you my assurances that this is not the case. I use one voice and one name. And I am in full compliance with this site’s policies in this regard.

Trolling? Perhaps. But I have chosen to use the same tactics that the aforementioned posters use. After all, it wouldn’t be prudent to show up to a gun fight armed with a knife. But please note that I am in no way baiting people. I am taking on their opinions head-on.

Keachick

Reading comprehension. Please take the time to read my posts and fully understand what it is I am saying. You drive a person to drink with this constantly having to repeat myself.

631. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Disco Spock

Does it say that on your birth certificate? Then that is not your real name? Prove to me that you don’t post as someone else on this site and then we can dispense with this attempt at derailing the real discussion going on.

You cannot match wits with me, therefor I am through with you.

Is there not one of you to challenge me?
(That’s just a little joke, don’t come unglued. Except for you, DiscoSpock. You come unglued all to heck.)

632. BatlethInTheGroin - September 3, 2013

Wait a minute… so you’re saying, Matt, that Bob Orci really IS being a crude dick to those who are expressing their opinions after paying to see the movie, that he really has that much of a holier-than-thou superiority complex, and that he is utterly incapable of writing a coherent thought in forum posts? If he’s the real boborci, then that’s a shame, as I was defending the guy, thinking him better than that. Apparently, I was wrong–apparently he really is as big a jerk as people say he is. My respect for the man has dropped a lot after reading this thread. I greatly enjoyed parts of INTO DARKNESS, but the criticisms leveled at the film’s script are entirely valid. If he can’t accept criticism of his work, he should stop writing scripts.

633. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@624. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire,
“for the first time ever of all 12 Star Trek Movies. This is the first time I did not go back for repeats.”

You went back to see TFF and Nemesis multiple times!? And paid money for it!? Really!? You’re not just a Trek fan, you’re a sadist!

——————————
“Oh and I will get the Blu-Rey.”

Oh yeah, which retailer’s extras package will you opt for, or perhaps all of them?

Sorry to make a point at your expense, but this is what I’m talking about — a Trek fan who did not love the movie particularly but will buy the BluRay to add to his collection despite the call to boycott over the insulting money grab Abrams has made.

This is why the BluRay is going to add over 100 million to STIDs bottom line by Christmas, and Abrams will earn even more money to line his pockets with as he jumps ship to Star Wars. And Paramount will see how well this tactic worked and continue gouging Star Trek fans for years to come. And that’s just the Trek fans, to say nothing of the general public who care little for such extras to begin with.

634. cd - September 3, 2013

There are cycles. Right now, we are in a action-packed-3D-churn-it-out-for-the-international-audience-who-doesn’t-care-about-story-or-characters-or-quality-by-the-studios-who-wouldn’t-know-what-those-things-were-anyway cycle. I am hopeful that, one day, things will cycle back to where good storytelling, good characterization, and quality are important.

Hopefully within my lifetime.

>;>}

635. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

@630.

What a load of shit, guy. You win the “a-hole trifecta” — you are a fraud, a troll and a sock-puppet.

Bob Orci, myself and others here don’t need to “troll shape-shift” to get our points across.

Come up, who have been really been for years on this site? Why the bullcrap 007 stuff — just be straight with all of us? You don’t see Orci being such a wuss here this this.

Just say no to be another troll-loser on this site. Come on, what is your real handle on this site?

636. BatlethInTheGroin - September 3, 2013

“Bob Orci, myself and others here don’t need to troll shape-shift”

Perhaps not… but you DO need to learn when to use “myself” in a sentence.

637. Check the Circuit - September 3, 2013

Yeah…I have to suspect that the boborci posting here is an impostor. He claims that George W. Bush is a hero but then writes a movie that some have interpreted as anti-Bush/anti-Cheney/anti-Rumsfeld/anti-hawk metaphor about the mistakes made in the aftermath of 9/11. Doesn’t seem to be consistent.

(Marcus/Section 31 = Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld)

638. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Curious Cadet

Be nice to Emperor Mike and don’t make your points at his expense. He’s a good man and is undeserving of such treatment.

I ask politely that you make your point without having to bring him into it.

And no, I am not Mike. Just ask Matt. Like he doesn’t have anything better to do.

639. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

@636. OK, sure. BTW, though, a lot of us are just quickly typing this stuff while at work on while mobile on our smart phones. And I expect that Orci has been in a similar situation with his posts.

Congrats to you and others who have the time and location access to do this from a PC/mac with a spell checked, and who are not rushed.

640. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@632. BatlethInTheGroin – September 3, 2013

“Wait a minute… so you’re saying, Matt, that Bob Orci really IS being a crude dick to those who are expressing their opinions after paying to see the movie, that he really has that much of a holier-than-thou superiority complex, and that he is utterly incapable of writing a coherent thought in forum posts? If he’s the real boborci, then that’s a shame, as I was defending the guy, thinking him better than that. Apparently, I was wrong–apparently he really is as big a jerk as people say he is.”

Yep. to be fair, most of the time he is a nice guy. But yesterday, he was total jerk on people who didn’t like STID. Maybe because he was posting while in-flight.

641. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

DiscoSpock

Are you still trying bait me? Who is the loser, exactly? You got a problem with me, take it up with Matt. I ‘aint breaking the rules, buttercup. You just can’t handle it.

Now get back to your Hot Pockets, the grown-ups are gonna talk for a while.

(That would be trolling BTW)

642. Not an Oldtrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

Nutrek Sheep is starting to sound a lot like Mr. WB…

“You cannot match wits with me, therefor I am through with you.”

643. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

“And no, I am not Mike”

See! Everybody is more interested in who you really are than your opinions. You have unintentionally made your actual opinions a secondary issue. Your identify is the issue that most people are wondering about now. No one really cares much anymore for the content of your posts.

At least if you are going to do sock-puppetting and trolling, don’t be so clumsy about it. These tactics of yours are just coming across as so lame now — hard working trolls everywhere are embarrassed for you right now.

644. Matt Wright - September 3, 2013

@ 637 – Unless they know exactly how to spoof him, it’s Bob Orci.
Most people took his GWB thing as tongue in cheek.

@ 635 – Enough of the sock-puppet witch hunt. You might not like it, but Not a Nutrek Sheep doesn’t appear to be one. I know what his IP and e-mail address is, I can look up his past comments. A couple of years back he posted under another name, but hasn’t used it in some time. I don’t know why he chose to change his comment display name. But let’s all chill out about it, okay?

645. MikeM - September 3, 2013

If Orci and co. weren’t unequivocal that all Trek continuity remained in tact prior to the point of divergence, the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch wouldn’t have been a big deal. In fact, the writers were so cocnerned with establishing some degree of continuity that they invited Leonard Nimoy to play Spock Prime. Presumably, this was an attempt to placate the concerns of traditional Star Trek fans, like myself, so we would fork over our hard earned money to come and see their film. That’s right, I purchased a product (the movie) and so I’m entitled to my criticism of this film and I shouldn’t be disrespected for said criticism by some of you NuTrek loyalists. With that said, I don’t think the movie was all that bad, it’s certainly not the worst, and the writers are due a large degree of credit for some of their work. My big issue: don’t manipulate traditional Trekkers into believing that you`re going to respect everything that has come before and then turn around and cast Khan the way you did so the orthodox will pay to see your movie. That IS disrespectful. Remember, fans of what has come before are just as important to this frnachise as it is to bring in new fans.

646. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

“Now get back to your Hot Pockets.”

LOL.

So much for your claim that you were going to “better than Red Dead Ryan, MJ and others” at posting warfare. Those guys would never say something that dumb.

If this were a Kurosawa film, you wouldn’t be a samurai; you’d be the jester. :-))

647. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

My apologies, Matt. I will resume my normal screen name when civility returns as the order of the day.

As for my explanation, it exists in post number 630.

But if you would prefer to play “Guess who Not a Nutrek Sheep Really Is” you go ahead. I am not WB. Guess again.

And yes, if you guess it correctly I will tell you.

648. DiscoSpock - September 3, 2013

@644. Yep, I’m done with him. It would be good of you to tell us his original post name though, if you can do that?

This will be my last post for today.

649. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#646

Oh lord. I think I’ll power down. It is hard work to suffer such fools.

650. The Batman - September 3, 2013

Excellent article. I agree completely.

The best thing that could happen to Trek is that Trek 3 is the swan song for this particular iteration of Trek, which will go down in history as a sort of weird retro-revisit like the “Brady Bunch” and “Addams Family” movies.

To mark the 50th anniversary, a new Trek TV show premieres on cable. It’s set in a new continuity during the time of the original series. We occasionally hear about the Enterprise and her crew, but very infrequently. New ship, new crew, new mission.

If the new show has top-notch writing like Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Burn Notice, Mad Men, etc., then it will succeed.

651. Check the Circuit - September 3, 2013

Also…have to say that after 2 critically-acclaimed and box office successes, Star Trek is hardly “broken.” It may seem like it to the demographic skew that seems to populate this site….of which I am included. (“If there is to be a brave new world, our generation will have the hardest time living in it.”) Too many older, rigid fans that want everything EXACTLY the same way is was nearly 50 years ago.

STID is a great sequel to ST09 if you look at them discreetly from what’s come before. The biggest issues fans here seem to have about the former is the “echoes” to TWOK. They bothered me too…but if you divorce yourself from the rest of the 45 years of continuity, the two films are a great jumping on point for (literally) the next generation. There are other issues that I struggle with, but they are mainly nits.

Call it NuTrek if you will, but it has a lot going for it; a great cast that harkens back to the classic, iconic characters, a sense of pace that modern movie-goers seem to demand, sci-fi stories that are metaphors for current issues and a brilliant device with an alternate timeline that allows for the existence of what came before while letting the new creative team to work outside of established continuity. (So smart!)

Now…go make a movie with a truly great, original story that is intelligent, tightly plotted, that lets us learn more about this Enterprise family and aligns with the Star Trek mission statement; to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

(Let NuKhan stay frozen for awhile.) Just my two cents.

652. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

Hey guys, I came across this post on Reddit by TheZaal , thought might be a good idea to share it here:

“The ‘art’ of arguing a position while still being civil and at least attempting to understand why someone has an opposing position has long since been lost on the Internet. This is assuming an actual argument can be found as opposed to a flame fest where people post their opinions and then assume they are right and everyone else is wrong only to follow up with lots of capital letters, insults and hyperbole.

If more people understood the value of argument, and how different it is to ‘posting’ an opinion, the online world would be a better place. “

653. Check the Circuit - September 3, 2013

@644

Ah…interesting point. (Sarcasm often doesn’t translate to written posts. At least for me.)

654. BatlethInTheGroin - September 3, 2013

#640: That’s truly a shame, as Bob Orci is a mediocre writer at best, and thus doesn’t deserve to be so full of himself. His work lacks substance or polish. I have often defended him, here and elsewhere, as I DO enjoy his work, which is usually harmless fun despite basically being insubstantial fluff. But the way he’s carrying on here has changed my opinion of him. INTO DARKNESS, while at times enjoyable, is a huge mess from a writing standpoint, and while that hack Damon Lindelof is apparently responsible for the cluster-frak involving Khan, there are problems throughout the entire film for which Orci clearly deserves a share of the blame. It’s always disappointing when someone whose work you enjoy turns out to be an a-hole. Mr. Orci, you need a reality check–you are a weak writer and not yet good enough at what you do to be looking down on others. Get some humility, man. You lost a lot of respect here on this thread. If you’d like to earn it back, you might try an apology–followed by a better script for the next film that doesn’t rip off other writers’ superior work and contain plot holes big enough to steer the Vengeance through.

655. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@626. Jonboc,
“nor should it have resulted in Kirk being born with blue eyes, on a Starship…rather than in Iowa….and Khan, this go around, is a British white guy. He just is…it’s an alternate timeline, no explanations are necessary beyond that.”

You’re just repeating stuff without any substantiation. Orci was very clear about how the alternate timeline works, and adamant that this was not a reboot. That means, anything prior to Nero’s arrival is the same as it was in TOS, or darn close given the need to recast. Anything after that is up for grabs.

Why was Kirk not born in Iowa in the AU? Because he was born prematurely as a result of the encounter with Nero. His eye color? Aside from being played by a different actor, Orci actually suggested a reason himself having to do with solar radiation; but an even more plausible answer of many, is that most babies are born with blue eyes that darken over time, and disease and trauma as well as genetic mutation can lead to eye color changing over time, if you really want to play that one out:

http://www.surveyophthalmol.com/article/S0039-6257(97)80018-5/abstract

But those are all minor trivialities, and/or are attributable to your explanation of “it’s an alternate timeline” which in this instance is perfectly valid.

But Khan — well Khan should not look substantially different than he did in Space Seed, aside from being played by a different actor. Bob Orci was very clear about that. Obviously they must cast a different actor, so they will not be exactly the same, but all the physical traits of Khan seen in Space Seed should be there, or the absence of which should be explained. And Khan’s changes are not mere eye color, but major changes to race and ethnicity. He went from a swarthy Indian to a white Englishman. “He just is” is not an explanation, especially considering no other character in the alternate timeline has undergone such a dramatic transformation, let alone one who was said to be immune from such changes. And Bob Orci’s own testimony refutes your explanation of “it’s an alternate timeline” as any justification for such changes whatsoever.

But then you know all of this, don’t you?

656. Melllvar - September 3, 2013

And so, rather than coming up with new ideas for the next installment, it seems this thread has devolved into a ‘who has been commenting on this site the longest’ competition — as if that actually makes any sort of difference the the validity of one’s ideas.

Something new would be rad, however Tribbles are always fun. Perhaps something new and ALSO tribbles.

Ok! How’s this for an idea.

The crew, as a result of an efficiency test on the warp drive system, are send to an unexplored corner of the galaxy (kinda similar concept to ‘Where no one has gone before’ TNG). They then discover the first stable wormhole for the federation, through which the NX-01 flies inexplicably and severely damaged (similar story to ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’).

At first, they don’t understand why the disappearance of the NX-01 hasn’t changed history until they realise (too late) that it’s actually the NX-01 from another universe — specifically…

The EVIL Universe.

And then there’s a huge power struggle between Kirk/Spock and evil Archer/T’pol… etc… etc…

Eventually, the ‘good’ NX-01 will also come through and take out the evil guys with the assistance of whatever

Man… I’m just throwing it all out there. Perhaps the guardian of forever could do something! When I have more well formed / developed ideas I will consider posting again. I’m hoping that people will start also coming up with new ideas for the new film as the article suggested that we would, instead of ‘abrams this’ and ‘dvd sales that’ and ‘i hate star trek the other’ if you get my drift :)

657. Check the Circuit - September 3, 2013

@649

Are you Stanky McFizzibinch (Or something like that.)

658. Keachick - September 3, 2013

#610 – “Then why should any fan be emotionally invested in characters that can change ethnicity on a writers whim?”

Because people are not just their colour and ethnicity. They are external features that help make up who the person is, but these external factors do not necessarily constitute the fundamental nature of each individual. I think that might be the point that the writers may be trying to make here, by having this Harrison/Khan not look anything like the Khan Noonien Singh of the prime universe.

I think that, although it might be at first harder to imagine a black Captain Kirk, if his temperament and *attractiveness were so similar to the one already known, then acceptance would occur, because the nature of James Kirk as a person has little, if anything, to do with his colour or ethnic background. However, people tend to be more attracted to those who look similar to themselves, which is why James Kirk is white, because the people creating this character were themselves white.

*Good looking people are to be found in all races and cultures. Of course, who and what is considered attractive can vary from culture to culture.

Actually, what I find amazing and rather discomforting is the fact that someone like Jai (who says he is an Indian Sikh) being angry because this John Harrison/Khan character is not the right colour and should be. Harrison/Khan revealed himself to be an incredibly cruel individual – this Khan delighted in stomping on Carol’s leg and breaking it and he seemed to take a vicious pleasure in crushing her father’s skull with his bare hands. Clearly, he was just getting started…Why would you be so desperate to see a man possessing such cruelty look like, be associated with your race/culture/religion?

I don’t like the fact that now we have this white guy calling himself Khan, a prince/ruler of men, who is capable of performing such despotic acts on other beings. I am aware that there are no doubt people who share my racial ancestry (Anglo-Saxon/Celtic) who were/are capable of such deeds, but frankly, I don’t like the idea that I or any of my family, could be seen as being associated in any way, shape or form with such a person as Harrison/Khan because he is now white like me.

659. Dave H - September 3, 2013

@ NuTrek Sheep

Hey guy/gal, I don’t want to get involved in this titanic struggle (lol) between you and DiscoSpock, in which poor Mr. Wright is having to referee on now.

However, it does seem like Disco was right in one regard. People are more interested now in who you really are on this site than in the content of your posts. And not only that, you have now joined in on this game by daring people to start guessing your identify.

This just all seems a bit childish to me, and gets you away from your previous stated goal of challenging people on their ideas here?

660. Dave H. - September 3, 2013

@ BatlethInTheGroin

“That’s truly a shame, as Bob Orci is a mediocre writer at best, and thus doesn’t deserve to be so full of himself. His work lacks substance or polish. I have often defended him, here and elsewhere.”

So other than him being an average writer whose work stinks, you’ve always been a great defender of his?

Really? ;-0

661. K-7 - September 3, 2013

Dave H,

That’s funny. Battle in the Groin is like the Fredo Corleone of Trekmovie.com.

662. Keachick - September 3, 2013

#655 The problem is that your ideas have been done before – sort of. Certainly the Guardian is not a new idea, anything but.

What I find astounding is that so many people come up with ideas and story outlines that deal with established characters, vessels, events that already exist within Star Trek canon – Canon means directors’ cut of all that has been recorded on film to do with Star Trek (television series and movies). These story ideas are variations on established characters, events and themes.

Yet when Bob Orci and co. do it, they incur the severest of horse whippings because these people complain that the story is not really original, a sort of rip-off.

BTW – It is not the first time that the notion of seeing the Guardian of Forever in the next Star Trek movie has been brought up, if only to “fix” the timeline. Doh.

This is what I don’t get…

663. Maltz - September 3, 2013

Coming late to this party, but I also agree with EVERYTHING that Mr. Dickerson says.

And I would add one thing: go back to the original universe, set it in the future, past the Next Generation years.

And let Captain Pike live out his years on Talos IV.

664. Jonboc - September 3, 2013

#653. To Bob Orci : “…You lost a lot of respect here on this thread. ”

…and gained as much in the process!

665. K-7 - September 3, 2013

@664.

I agree with Jonboc. My respect for Mr. Orci has never been higher.

Enough is enough!

Give em hell, Bob! That’s what I say.

@663. Oh, pleassssse! I think I am going to throw up. And you forgot bringing back Rick Berman. :-(

666. K-7 - September 3, 2013

@662 “What I find astounding is that so many people come up with ideas and story outlines that deal with established characters, vessels, events that already exist within Star Trek canon – Canon means directors’ cut of all that has been recorded on film to do with Star Trek (television series and movies). These story ideas are variations on established characters, events and themes.Yet when Bob Orci and co. do it, they incur the severest of horse whippings because these people complain that the story is not really original, a sort of rip-off.”

Rose, I agree completely. It’s many time the same posters here as well who bitch about them ripping off WOK, etc, who come up with these “new” ideas that similarly use established items from TOS, etc. This is complete hypocrisy.

667. Keachick - September 3, 2013

You go back to the prime universe.

I am quite happy to stay in the alternate universe with the younger Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura et al. I just hope that a writer like Bob Orci might find a way of allowing Kirk and co discover this lovely planet called Menosia and meet its inhabitants, some of whom are space faring nulis…I am not sure what dangers may be lurking out in this new corner of the universe, or what disputes might be ongoing closer to earth, but hopefully, there will be some great character moments with good humour to be had.

Perhaps it is too much to ask for, to hope for…

The more I read of the complaints about STID, the less I have to do with the prime universe, the better.

668. K-7 - September 3, 2013

The prime universe had its day. Time to move forward now.

669. K-7 - September 3, 2013

Not a Nutrek Sheep,

Me thinks you are the return of William Bradley.

670. Capes - September 3, 2013

A simple problem for me is that “if” this is about being character driven in it’s new incarnation then there is a flaw in it’s present state: Kirk is/was/should be….the core of the big three and the cast as a “whole”.

This ‘new” Kirk is….well, he is weaker than he should be to carry this journey. Granted that 1) New timeline 2) Different background than the original….but he is weaker nonetheless.

This troubles me because 1) Yes I do love all things ‘Shat” but 2) There ultimately MUST be a strong characterization of Kirk if Kirk is to stay central to the core. (Doesn’t have to be Shat)

So far two movies in….Kirk is interesting but I’d almost rather have had Pike in the center chair with Kirk as his Number 1. Kirk’s “bravado” has been replaced with “libido”. It just isn’t enough.

So…..the next movie should flash forward a few years. It is time for “new” Kirk to be more seasoned. Yes we know he can “look before he leaps” just as he is right now but he needs to “Command” the situations more….change the rules more….less getting his ass kicked to show what a “tough guy” he is. (Old Kirk actually made a “dent” in Khan when facing off with him…..I grant you it was a visible stunt double, but still….)

Seasoned “Old” Kirk didn’t have his emotions on his sleeve in the same way….it was a channeled anger at the inequities of a situation and a grim determination to make things better……THAT is at least in part what made Kirk…..Kirk.

Chris Pine is fine casting although I wish he’d either wear contacts or explain how he had his eye color genetically redefined to piss off his step-dad for some reason. (Mind you….he trashed his ‘vette….so it makes sense.) But it is now time to man up….grow up….and if he is chasing his own personal manifest destiny….it is time to “take it”.

My two cents again….feel free to ignore it…..

671. BatlethInTheGroin - September 3, 2013

#664: Only from the socially inept.

672. pock speared - September 3, 2013

Can’t help but notice that the loyal haters of STID (it’s now pronounced “stihd”), are now leaving thoughtful criticism and entering the whacky-ass realm of just base ranting. Do carry on. it’s “fascinating”.

673. Jonboc - September 3, 2013

#655. ” “He just is” is not an explanation…”

Oh, but it is…at least for the many in the audience that didn’t require one.

674. Li'l Shat - September 3, 2013

@663. Maltz

“And I would add one thing: go back to the original universe, set it in the future, past the Next Generation years.”

I have nothing against the prime universe, but I don’t see any need to go back there and shoulder the weight of all that old canon. I think this new universe is just fine, and I enjoy these new characters and the way in which these younger actors interpret them. I just don’t get why the writers seem determined to bog Star Trek down in the old canon again.

Surely, other things have changed besides Kirk’s eye color and location of birth, or the destruction of planet Vulcan. I don’t mind seeing Klingons, tribbles, Andorians, etc. as background players but let’s keep them there. Let’s go off in a totally new direction and encounter things that no one has seen before. And please, no more Spock Prime. He’s had his day. It’s time to move forward now.

675. russ - September 3, 2013

If there’s going to be a new Trek series, do it right. We need more exploration stories. Not war stories or dark future plots. What good is it for CBS owning the franchise if you don’t put it to it’s full potential.

No more reboots, start fresh.

676. Not a NuTrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#659 Dave H.

An interesting position to take since you we’re pretty much the one who was being inquisitive about the nature of my other name. Hypocrite much?

I attempted civility with you and look where it got me. Thanks for proving my point.

677. K-7 - September 3, 2013

BatlethInTheGroin, your posts are average, your ideas aren’t that great, and your writing is subpar, but I got your back, guy! I will always be one to defend you here!

;-)

678. Basement Blogger - September 3, 2013

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS WAS A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

Look, I liked Star Trek (2009) but thought it was aimed at the teenage kids I coached. It was made for the ADHD. The movie didn’t breathe. It had a cardboard villain in Nero. And I cringe when I saw the DVD documentary on the film where the Supreme Court asks “What can we learn from Star Wars?” To me, the 2009 movie was Star Trek Lite.

So, I was happy when the writers announced they were going to go deeper for the second film. And while some of us posters deduced that Khan was in the film, I thought it was a bad idea. But I always wrote that I would view the film with an open mind.

What I was looking for was a Star Trek movie. And to do that we have to ask “What is Star Trek?” I’ll boil it down to this. Star Trek is a science fiction franchise that is about adventure, heart and intelligence. Leonard Nimoy says this all the time and talks about Star Trek working on many levels. But don’t take my word for it. Gene Roddenberry in defending The Cage wanted a science fiction show with substance.

Link.
http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/30/letter-of-note-gene-roddenberry-defends-star-trek-the-cage-pilot/r

Star Trek Into Darkness featured plenty of adventure. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. From the thrilling beginning on the strange new world of Nibiru to a firefight with Klingons to a duel between The Enterprise and the Vengeance, the film was exciting.

What about heart? Spock is still learning to deal with his emotions. The friendship between Kirk and Spock deepens. Some good moments of humor that were not forced. That comes from McCoy and Scotty. Note for Bob. More McCoy please.

But what was lacking in the 2009 movie is in STID. Ideas. And there were plenty of them. Maybe too many but you would have to be asleep to miss them. The ideas in Star Trek Into Darkness were:

1. The Prime Directive
2. War
3 The War on terror; Listen to Spock’s objection about killing Khan with a missile. See American use of drones.
4. Loss of freedom in the war on terror. The title is appropriate as one Starfleet officer rejects what Starfllet stands for to obtain more security.
5. Militarization of Starfleet
6. Guantanamo Bay- See the fate of the seventy two.

STID is not a perfect movie. J.J needs to trust the audience and stop with the camera gymnastics and a bunch of the fast cutting. But one of the biggest compliments I can say about STID is this. It is Star Trek. And it is excellent Star Trek.

I recently talked to a young person on XBOX Live about STID. He loved it but did not know Star Trek. He went back to watch the Original Series. And he loved that too. We ended up talking about the ideas in some of the episodes. As long as Star Trek goes in the direction of STID, we have nothing to fear. Star Trek will have ideas, scientific and philosophical. I think Bob Orci knows that.

Maybe it takes Khan to move Star Trek in the right direction. New York Times film critic Janet Maslin wrote about The Wrath of khan, “Now, this is more more like it.” comparing TWOK to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. As for Star Trek Into Darkness, I say, “That’s more like it.”

679. Lemingsworth Bint - September 3, 2013

What sort of delusional lunatic has successfully convinced himself that Viacom would rather please the sockpuppets than the shareholders?

What sort of delusional lunatic has successfully convinced himself that a return to 90′s Trek is just around the corner?

Silly me, look who I’m asking.

680. Hugh Hoyland - September 3, 2013

Anyone who doesnt think that STID is TOS centered should get out their Trek DVD “Court Martial” and give that a watch.

One of the best TOS episodes IMO and has themes that are similar to STID.

681. Curious Cadet - September 3, 2013

@657. Keachick,
“although it might be at first harder to imagine a black Captain Kirk … the nature of James Kirk as a person has little, if anything, to do with his colour or ethnic background.”

Oh there will be a black Kirk one day, and I’m sure it will be great. But that will be a reboot, rather than just mid-5 year mission switcheroo like the Darins in Bewitched for the sake of some sort of continuity. But you are wrong in that Ethnic background does play a role. Kirk is from Iowa. Even 300 years from now, I suspect a boy raised in Iowa will be ethnically different from a boy raised in Mumbai, or even New York City.

“Actually, what I find amazing and rather discomforting is the fact that someone like Jai (who says he is an Indian Sikh) being angry because this John Harrison/Khan character is not the right colour and should be. …Why would you be so desperate to see a man possessing such cruelty look like, be associated with your race/culture/religion?”

Really? There are bad people of every race, culture and religion. Why shouldn’t an Indian Sikh get his shot? Why would anyone want to play MacBeth, or Hamlet, Iago, or Richard III?

You see the problem with your notion that race has nothing to do with a character is fine, and the way it should be. But right now, with the first black president of the United States in office, and slavery outlawed a little less than 150 years ago, we still don’t largely see people separate of their color. We’re simply not there yet. And to that end, Hollywood rarely casts non-white actors in major roles, despite growing international audiences which films are increasingly reliant on for their profits.

So the question is not why would anyone want to be associated with such a despicable character, the question should be why shouldn’t a non-white actor have the same opportunity to portray an evil character as a white actor does? Why shouldn’t an Indian Sikh be afforded the same amount of screen time as white Englishman?

So what STID has done is not saved the Indian race from yet another stereotypical depiction of their people, it has denied an Indian actor the opportunity to play a major character in a major motion picture, and replaced him with yet another white Englishman. And in the process, removed a vital platform for the Indian actor to express his thoughts about playing such an evil character and how it relates to his race, culture and religion, thus expanding audiences understanding about such things.

Hopefully in 50, or 100 years it won’t make any difference. For now, such whitewashing limits the diversity the world sees in media, which is vital to eventually achieving that lofty goal of racial color-blindness.

682. K-7 - September 3, 2013

@680 “But you are wrong in that Ethnic background does play a role. Kirk is from Iowa.”

240 years ago, the ethnic background of people from Iowa was exclusively Native American.

It’s going to be radically different 240 years from now as well.

And if you knew anything at all about Iowa, you’d know that the Hispanic population is growing there at a tremendous clip, and is expected to hit 15% by 2050.

White, Black, Hispanic — all of these are equally good choices for a Kirk from Iowa in the 23rd Century.

683. Ahmed - September 3, 2013

@ 668. K-7 – September 3, 2013

“The prime universe had its day. Time to move forward now.”

Interesting, because the new timeline went BACK IN TIME, not forward. Instead of going forward with new characters & stories, we are back to stories of Captain Kirk !

684. pock speared - September 3, 2013

why is is difficult for me to take “criticism” from someone called “not a new trek sheep”?

if i get this right, he has contempt for anyone who appreciates j.j.’s work so intensely that if they like it, they are mindless farm animals, and he is so advanced that he defines himself with/by not being one of them?

perhaps you should join a right wing focus group and take your outrage to where it originated.

685. Marja - September 3, 2013

The issue many had with STID was that several of the characters were either not the characters we are used to seeing (from the original series)

Exactly. This is an Alternate Universe. We are here to watch these characters grow, which we did NOT get to do on TOS, because the series had an automatic reset button after every episode. Spock was going to be married and almost killed his friend? No biggie. The only acknowledgement of any residual grief was in “Paradise Syndrome” when Spock briefly melds with Kirk, so Kirk can “forget.” And that is what big, brave men in the big brave ‘60s television model did. Picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got on with life.

I say this as a ST fan all the way back to 1967: I cannot say enough how grateful I am that Spock and Kirk were so moved by Pike’s death in STiD. Spock, to the point of considering and sorting through what he had just felt, and Kirk, to the point of grief-struck weeping. This made these two characters real for me.

There’s plenty I don’t like; I excuse Spock’s rage attack by citing PTSD, and he may not have had time between the events movie one and movie two to completely work out the grief for SIX BILLION PEOPLE, but I’d rather see him doing Vulcan meditation to overcome the impulse to rage. Grief is one thing, often expressed as rage in human males … add deep Vulcan emotions … holy crap, Batman – you’ve got the one-man ass-whuppin’ army!

And that’s the problem; good character moments – which O&K write SO WELL – [I don’t care what anyone says, I like Kirk’s death scene because it crystallized the new friendship between him and Spock. I liked it fine up until “KHAAN!!”] are then exploited to propel us into violent action, apparently the only thing that will take the isolated iGeneration away from the electronic teat for a moment.

Star Trek isn’t Summer Tentpole material. It’s holiday stuff. No, not airy-fairy feather-headed stuff, but something serious and occasionally humorous that the adults can see in between all the Holiday dross they take the kids to. Something with characters and a sense of family and a story of people drawing together, their strength greater in each other, to face a surprising, alien thing and find a way to understanding it or a way of dealing with it.

686. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 3, 2013

@MattWright#589

I know that Viacom/Paramount/CBS doesn’t currently own Syfy, but for some reason while typing I thought Paramount still had something to do with running it. As you’ve stated, that time passed long ago. Believe it or not, I do have the information saved, but I haven’t had a need to look at it for a good while. Everything else I said is correct. I just checked. Thx for the links.

@585 ”because by any broad measure of public assessment, this film is liked by most people.”

It’s liked by most of the people interested enough to watch and review it. In America, that interest seems to be down as of late… The international interest helps to make up for much of that, though. No need for an argument. I’m already done with this topic.

687. Li'l Shat - September 3, 2013

@682 Ahmed

Not only that, but we’re back to stories with Captain Kirk and Khan! And Carol Marcus! Not to mention (yet again) Old Spock. With whole dialogue and situations lifted right out of The Wrath of Khan!

Time to move forward, indeed. Apparently, the prime universe has not had its day.

688. Not a NuTrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#659 Dave H.

An interesting point to bring up, seeing as you were one of the primary people talking about who I may or may not be. I find that to be a tad hypocritical. I attempted civility with you and this is the result, I suppose.

Curious Cadet’s argument about Khan’s ethnic heritage seems to spot on. I made a similar point, albeit not as well phrased and concise as Cadet’s.

And so far nobody has come close to guessing who I am. But continue to be side-tracked by the issue if that is what pleases you.

689. pock speared - September 3, 2013

@683
uh…did you imagine TOS was some new form of storytelling?
it wasn’t. It defined appropriation, and STID is a noble continuation of the craft. Every episode was a genre, a metaphor, a retelling of tales.

690. Marja - September 3, 2013

Just as the original series broke from convention to tell adult stories, Star Trek needs to once again break from the past and stop being about the Enterprise and crew. Yes, I know, this might be a scandalous idea to many of you reading this, but think about it: We have had hundreds of episodes and almost a dozen movies about the crew of the Enterprise.

I beg to differ. We’ve had 79 episodes [OK more, if you count TAS] about THIS crew of the Enterprise. I happen to like them, and the new actors cast to play them, all of whom are perfect casting choices.

I’d like to see maybe 10 episodes with this crew, with a gradual hand-off to a CONTEMPORARY ship [I mean wtf would a ship from 125 years forward from TOS’s time look like? Oh yeah a Hyatt Hotell], to begin a new series of adventures set in a storyline established by the ten [or five : ( ] episodes.

691. Matt Wright - September 3, 2013

@ 686 – I didn’t question the rest of your info, I honestly don’t know much about Stargate. Just pointing out that if you want to take issue with a company for the direction of the SG franchise it’s all on Universal.

692. Platitude - September 3, 2013

Into Darkness may have some “Trek” issues, but it is a damn fine film. I firmly believe that anyone who says that STID is the worst Trek film hasn’t seen Nemesis recently (or ever). Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci have saved the franchise, and anyone who thinks otherwise, again, probably hasn’t seen Nemesis recently (or ever). While I hope for a third film that has a stronger Science Fiction type feel that seeks to boldly go where noone has gone before, I’m still super glad for ST09 and STID because Star Trek is cool and profitable again, and that is a good thing!

693. Not a NuTrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#684 pock speared

No, you don’t have it right. I am attempting to reflect the condescension that certain vociferous supporters aim towards people with valid criticisms of STID. I am also doing it as a response to Bob Orci’s unwarranted display of what I perceive as contempt for Star Trek fans on this very thread.

I am taking their negativity and throwing it right back at them. I don’t expect that any of these people will change their stripes. But by being as vulgar and distasteful in my presentation as I find theirs to be I hope that just one of them takes a moment to reflect on just how insulting they can be.

694. Red Dead Ryan - September 3, 2013

All,

This “Not a NuTrek Sheep” fellow is trying his darndest to derail this thread. Whoever this clown is, whether “William Bradley” or “I am Not Herbert”, he clearly has nothing constructive to say and so is resorting to insulting people here.

Also, Batlethinthegroin seems a bit wishy-washy on whether he likes or dislikes Bob Orci as a writer. Must be a symptom of not wearing a jock strap during a batleth duel. :-)

695. Marja - September 3, 2013

I’m thinking the writers – if freed from the demands of PLENTY OF ACTION! of a Summer Tentpole movie – in consultation with a science-fiction writer, could come up with a great script.

I share the fear of many however, that it’ll be a predictable story of Dastardly Doings with [for a third time, more if you count the TOS movies] Earth In DANGER!

Cut TWO VERSIONS of the movie [I'm probably talking out of my aft, cos I know so little about Hollywood]:

- a Domestic/English-speaking countries/European version, with the thoughtful moral quandaries and discussions among our dear characters whom we love, with interstitial, meaningful action, running about 2h 15m and

- a ['hem, how do I say this, oh yeah:] an INTERNATIONAL version, running about 90m. Cut out all that character and alien jazz and have the Enterprise crew act like a bunch of Marvel superheroes. [I AM ROLLING MY EYES SO HARD RIGHT NOW.]

The issue that needs to be overcome is the meaningless sameness of the summer tentpole movie, and Star Trek needs to be above that, and needs to move. its. release. date.

696. Li'l Shat - September 3, 2013

694. Brain Dead Ryan

“…he clearly has nothing constructive to say and so is resorting to insulting people here.”

The irony.

697. Jamie - September 3, 2013

STID definitely delivered. It took its time in telling what faith the characters acted upon and had a couple of ideas that I wrote here that I would love to see (especially was delighted to see how the writers handled Pike; more Klingons, and yes, more Scotty+Keenser!). Although it was a shame that the whole arc revolving Spock’s emotions did not conclude with him actually confessing to the dying Kirk that “he knows” what Kirk is talking about…accepting his human side…he’s still grieving over his mother plus mind melded with the dying Pike for crying out loud! But that’s pretty much the only thing I disagreed with it. Loved how they sneaked in a very, very brief exchange Sulu and Kirk shared too. I love how John Cho and Chris Pine interact between cuts and interviews and it’s nice to see it reflected in the show. Hope the third installment comes out sooner!!! :D

698. Once again we've saved civilisation, as we know it. - September 3, 2013

New Album, New Documentary, Civil Rights, and The Avengers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-wilson/william-shatner-on-his-ne_b_3857377.html

699. Not a NuTrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#684 RDR

There you go again, proving my point for me.

I brought up many points but did you bother to take me to task? No. I’ll try again.

Let’s start with a subject such as whether or not Trek was better served on TV than it has been in any of the movies, including and maybe particularly, the last two.
While Trek ’09 was a decent popcorn muncher, it wasn’t aimed at Star Trek fans. It was aimed at general movie-goers. In that regard it succeeded but it failed to capitalize on it’s momentum. But in any event we had a movie that took place in an alternate timeline with the purported notion that it would free the writers from the “burden” of established canon and allow them to write stories where the outcome of the characters would not be known. So how did they follow it up? By doing their own take on TWOK ( a piece of my hubris discussion, or did you miss that part, RDR?). And how did it end? With essentially the same ending as TWOK save for a character switch and Kirk being saved by magic blood.

So let’s see–No original story and no real peril for the characters, seeing as they were brought back from the dead. So what is the point of the AU again? A missed opportunity if you ask me.

And now JJ is going to do Star Wars. How can this be positive for any movies beyond the third one? It was JJ’s cache that got him the gig and the sequel and now without him who takes the reigns? Orci? I can’t see this as being anything more than a “three and out” situation. And how would that scenario do anything to “save” Star Trek?

Star Trek needs a fresh take and bold people with new ideas; ideas such as those that can be afforded by the real creative forces behind the best TV has to offer. Face it, the most popular, talked about, and well written stories are happening on TV. Doctor Who, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones are just a few of the titles that are getting most of the eyeballs. The biggest of summer releases (Pacific Rim, John Carter, Elysium, Prometheus) are not without their share of problems and underwhelming box office. I contend that when Star Wars get’s rolling it will vastly overshadow Star Trek on the big screen. Why even allow that to happen when they aren’t even the same idiom? Get back on TV with a Trek set 200-300 years after Nemesis and play the game you’re good at.

How’s that, chief?

700. Li'l Shat - September 3, 2013

678. Basement Blogger

“Maybe it takes Khan to move Star Trek in the right direction.”

I think John Harrison would have done much better.

701. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 3, 2013

What a nice surprise to see STID went from 144 to 958 theatres for the long weekend. I am part of the ticket sales :-) I was there Sunday

Pulled in another $1,056,014. Every bit counts :-)

I am going 1 more time for the grand finale (for Montreal, in english at least) last showing. I will be there at the last projection @ 9h45 at the Cineplex(old forum).

An appeal to all ST fans, bring a friend or just yourself and go see it one time. LETS FILL THE THEATRE 1 LAST TIME IN RESPECT FOR THIS MASTERPIECE.

Woohoo!
STID has truly made my enjoy summer a whole lot more.

702. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 3, 2013

oh.. and the last projection is Thursday Sep 5, at 21h45.
Be there!

For the other places in North America who still have the privilege of seeing it after that date, lucky you. :-)

703. Peter G - September 3, 2013

Just FYI the author of this link bait piece is not a journalist or writer of any note. He’s goatee’d IT professional and old-school Trek fundamentalist. His one supposed ‘published’ book is conveniently out of print at Amazon and received one single star review that trashed the writer for not even being a proper book.

And in the real world, Star Trek Into Darkness is, by objective consensus, a huge critical success for both mainstream audiences and Trek fans. STID is also the most successful Star Trek movie in history, now approaching a half billion dollars worldwide (still going as it just premiered in Japan). No amount of negative spin (3D screens etc) will alter that comically obvious fact.

The sad part is that TrekMovie.com was once THE place to get the best inside scoop from people directly affiliated with Trek production. Sadly this is not the case any more, partially because of z grade ‘journalism’ like this. TrekMovie.com is now no longer relevant. The hundred or so convention losers in Las Vegas who voted STID as the worst Trek movie had their 15 minutes of fame before quickly being outvoted by a far larger (and less delusional) group of fans in Seattle.

This site has degraded to catering to the stereotypical trek losers depicted so perfectly by that Onion piece for Trek ’09.

And now I’ll be joining the rest of the mentally stable that have already left this site.

704. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 3, 2013

TIP If like myself you consider Khan’s sickbay showdown with Kirk to be one of the most powerful acting moments of any movie, sit on the right hand side of the theatre. The 3D shows Khan clearer as if he is right in your face. Intense. hehe

** MARCUS USED ME! **

705. cd - September 3, 2013

626, 655: The 2009 and 2013 movies show an alternate universe, different from the TOS/TNG/post TNG universe. Previous statements from Orci indicate that these are separate universes: the 2009/2013 universe exists, and the TOS/TNG/post TNG universe exists. For the last few years in these discussions here, as far as I have seen, it is commonly accepted that the movie(s) show an alternate universe, not an alternative timeline. See the entries below from 2011 with Bob Orci’s comments.
——————————————————————-
318. StarFuryG7 – March 28, 2011

291. BeatleJWOL
“The above is a potentially inaccurate transcript from IMDB, but the words “alternate reality” and Spock’s reply of “Precisely” are absolutely found in the film. Not only is it a fantastic “revelation” scene played out through Spock (as happened in many episodes; the most recent one that comes to mind is Spock’s last minute speech in “Spectre of the Gun”), but it lays out exactly why the film did NOT have to adhere to canon.”

:::Sigh:::
No, what it “lays out” is why the timeline has been UNDONE and (by the looks of things) rewritten.

And I sighed at the outset there because I’ve been over this one countless times over the last few years after the film hit theaters. It boils down to this really: an “alternate reality” does not necessarily equal an ‘alternate universe’. An ‘alternate universe’ in the sense that everything has changed, sure, but we’ve seen things change in the past, with those problems then having to be rectified in order to set the timeline and everything right again. Take “City on the Edge of Forever,” an example I usually cite in these situations: same universe, altered timeline, therefore alternate reality, yes, but in order to rectify the order of things, Kirk has to stop McCoy from preventing Edith Keeler’s death.

“The only argument ignored by the film is whether or not the prime universe ceased to exist at the moment that Nero emerged from the black hole.”

YES!

And there ya go.

“If you then agree that the Countdown comics are also canon (unusual, but that’s what THEY said),”

I would point out that Orci has contradicted himself on this by the way, initially acknowledging them as canon, then refuting them as canon. But I would also add that you’re putting forth an argument I have also made in relation to this in the past. (Yes, I’ve argued it from both sides, and for a reason when I’ve decided to.)

“then the (admittedly brief, if I recall correctly) scenes of the Prime universe after Spock’s ship disappears into the black hole would suggest that in fact, Nero time traveled into the past and created a new reality (and here’s where my non-canon theory begins) because of the presence of red matter, a substance that we do not fully understand.”

But then you’re looking for an out. The film doesn’t establish it.

320. boborci – March 28, 2011

318.

Here is what clinches it as proof:

Nimoy/Spock remembers his own life, not Quintos. He remembers Kirks father being alive. therefore, his universe has not been erased.

Also, if you google alternate reality, it is considered synonymous with parallel universe within first three listings.

It is your preconceived notions of what the term means based on internally inconsistent time travel movies you’ve been a fan of all your life that have
Taken you to this error in judgment;)
——————————————————————–

706. VJR - September 3, 2013

Some of these so-called purists fans need to go get laid for once. Get a life!!!! Into Darkness was fantastic. It had the allegory, the fun, the chemistry between the characters, and 2 strong villains in Khan and Marcus..

Nemesis was so much better, right? lol… Yikes.

707. Red Dead Ryan - September 3, 2013

#697.

That’s your own opinion, genius, which doesn’t line up with the fact that the movie is rated at 87% on Rotten Tomatoes and has gotten an 8.1 out of ten on IMBD. Not to mention that worldwide the movie is the most successful to date.

You and other haters here keep rehashing your complaints over and over. You and your fellow Talifans continue to insist that those of us who like the new movies are wrong and that you seem to think you have the right to force us to change our opinions to suit yours — you don’t.

708. Not a NuTrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#703 RDR

There you go again calling me names without me calling you anything. You are a hypocrite. You invalidate anything you have to say and can offer nothing cogent to contradict any statement I make.

You are nothing more than a puerile bully and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

I don’t care to change your opinion, I wish to discuss differing points of view, but its the people who post here just like yourself that make reasoned discussion impossible. I contend that it is you that is the Talifan, swaggering around like some comment section terrorist who uses bluster to get people to cringe at their remarks and barbs.

You are not even in my league, junior.

709. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 3, 2013

Domestic: $228,496,824 49.4%
+ Foreign: $234,000,000 50.6%

Sad that USA/CAN has handed over the ST trophy to abroad. ahmed and others who are critical of the movie, get out there soon and buy another ticket. All will be forgiven. :-) The franchise needs more domestic support.

And if some ST fan out there is a billionaire, please cut Paramount a cheque for $5 503 176 + 1$. lol

710. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

All,

Don’t feed these trolls who like to hide under supposed newbie names, but who are not man enough to maintain their identity here.

They are simply out to get attention. This is all about ego and in forcing the discussion in their direction. And their game is to get you all riled up about the supposed mystery about who they are.

I don’t give a flying fuk about who Not a NuTrek Sheep used to be. I see a troll who is just messing with people for his own entertainment and ego, and I choose not to give this troll what he is seeking — a discussion with me like I consider him a legitimate person to interact with.

NO !!!!!

711. Li'l Shat - September 3, 2013

@MJ (The Hypocritical)

” And their game is to get you all riled up about the supposed mystery about who they are.”

No, that would be Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof regarding the identity of their latest Trek villain.

712. Not a NuTrek Sheep - September 3, 2013

#706 MJ

I think I brought up some valid points. Do with them as you will. But I’m not going anywhere.

Well, except to bed. I’ll school you tomorrow.

713. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

NO !!!!!

714. Red Dead Ryan - September 3, 2013

All,

I have posted some of Not a NuTrek Sheep’s obnoxious posts to point out just how much of an ass he is. Not to mention his relentless attacks on DiscoSpock and Dave H. upthread.

“Well if he’s so damn busy writing a movie what is he doing here playing commentary grab-a$$ with stupid fans? You can be one of the worst offenders when it comes to jerk behavior. You and RDR ought to get a room.”

“Stop being so condescending, you bunch of insufferable twits. Would you like to debate like grown up people or shall we just shout at one another? As the kids would say, “Come at me, bro.” Unfortunately most of you won’t be up to the task.”

“Nice work, Bob Orci. Way to build bridges with your detractors. What do you care. You have enough lap-dog yes-fans here to satiate your burgeoning Big Time Hollywood Blockbuster Movie Writer ego.”

“Double dumb ass on you.”

“I have been posting here longer than most of you, since the inception of this site. I assumed a new name so that I could dispense with formality and “niceties” since I noticed that a growing number of “pro AU Trek” fans were only shouting down anyone with a differing point of view. I decided to take the gloves off and give back as good as I get.”

“In my opinion who I am does not matter nearly as much as what I have to say. I decided to employ the same tactics that I see Keachick, Red Dead Ryan, Jonboc, MJ and a number of others use against opposing viewpoints. I wish to demonstrate that their lack of civility and name calling isn’t any fun when the tables are turned. And I humbly think that I am better at it than they are.”

“Now get back to your Hot Pockets, the grown-ups are gonna talk for a while.”

As you can see, this guy has some sort of axe to grind with a number of us here.

715. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@707

If you had been paying attention, I broke it here on Trekmovie.com nearly 1.5 years before the movie came out that Khan was the villain, based on assessing several minor clues and putting together what a thought was a valid circumstantial case. This was subsequently confirmed in a breaking news story by Anthony, which just like for me, a lot of people buried their heads in the sand and chose to ignore.

I can’t force you to listen to me and believe what I say though. Ignore my Trek predictions at your own peril. It’s your problem, not mine.

716. Red Dead Ryan - September 3, 2013

Lil’ Shat is upset that his older brother, Big Shat, isn’t in either of the two reboot movies. :-)

717. Sean - September 3, 2013

STID wasn’t bad….in all honesty I enjoyed the fact that it was a fun 2 hrs…felt like an avg / good 2 parter…a lot of TNG, DS9, VOY, & ENT had fan service episodes with a lot of in references….some of which in STID were fun (section 31, the cat girls, etc) & I was fine with a new khan who was white. But the story was a bland revenge is bad, it just felt like the momentum was stalled in this one going over the same things again…I thought Kirk & Spock hugged it out in 09…we gotta see a reluctant bromance move again? Admiral robocop was a fun Cheney-esque villian….I groaned at quinto’s khan scream….these are nostalgia movies nothing more so in that vein I enjoy them as homage & not true trek…you gotta do better than the transformer writing crew…..

WANT TO MAKE THE FANS HAPPY PARAMOUNT?!

LET RONALD D MOORE TAKE OVER THE ENTIRE FRANCHISE (film & tv) AS A BENEVOLENT TYRANT & you will have hardcore fan support, critical acclaim & a sustainable franchise that doesn’t have to low ball the story & risks cause it has to make 1/2 a bill to make a profit….

& honestly? The effects were on per with an expensive 2 parter of BSG so where did all that money go?

718. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 3, 2013

@691 Matt “@ 686 – I didn’t question the rest of your info, I honestly don’t know much about Stargate. Just pointing out that if you want to take issue with a company for the direction of the SG franchise it’s all on Universal.”

It’s not all on Universal, although for all I know most of it could be. Stargate is an MGM property (or it was before MGM’s bankruptcy). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate

Syfy/Univ was the network that carried it, and the creator(s) of the spin-offs (which includes SG-1 since the movie came first) were involved. There was this whole thing going on about “who to blame,” and I’m not entirely sure as to how it got sorted out because of all of the finger pointing going on once they realized that they might have made some mistakes. I can’t say I know much about Stargate or Star Trek in general, but I’ve followed some of what interested me. I wasn’t taking issue with anything, just pointing out some of the similarities I’ve seen. That’s all.

719. Disinvited - September 3, 2013

#699. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W – September 3, 2013

Hmmm…when I checked Box Office Mojo they were crediting ticket sale of the double bill to WORLD WAR Z. But you seem to be saying revenue from the double ticket is being credited to STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS? Do you know if the ticket revenue is being split in the tallies you cite?

720. I am to Smurfy - September 3, 2013

Wow I think everyone here on both sides need to calm down,
I thought my posts were looking foolish yesterday. (they were very foolish, but some of the things I see others posting on here tonight are just wow)

Can we just admit one thing, we all love trek in one form or another.

721. LieutenantMike - September 3, 2013

Dear Bob Orci,

I’m a frequent reader of these boards but have never posted before. After seeing how this topic (and you surprisingly) blew up, I felt the need to add my two cents for what they’re worth.

Star Trek is not broken. There are parts of this story I do agree with. The last 5 Trek movies now have had a revenge theme in the plot. Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed the last two films, especially Star Trek Into Darkness. I’ve been a fan since the 1st grade (I’m 26), and my favorite part of Trek has always been the Kirk & Spock relationship. I love the way their scenes were written and played out in STiD, not to mention the great performances of Pine and Quinto. Regardless of the plot, the big appeal of Star Trek to me was always the characters, and I thought all the characterizations in STiD were great. I had FUN watching the film.

Secondly, everyone here knows just how much our input is heard. There were less lense flares in STiD. Engineering got a warp core and less resembled the brewery. Kirk’s fast ascension to the chair was addressed with his demotion. We’re heard and we appreciate it.

The one part of the article I related to was that the sense of awe and wonder isn’t all there right now. That’s what drew me to the show, watching these characters that I loved face these strange and fantastic things that you’ve never seen before. Ironically, I felt JJ’s Super 8 had a lot of that awe and wonder that I associate with Trek. However, I have no idea how to create a summer blockbuster. I’m quite sure “The City on the Edge of Forever”, one of the greatest Trek episodes ever, wouldn’t have translated well to summer blockbuster.

In conclusion I wanted to say thank you, the past two films have been good ones. I am loving watching the original crew come alive on the screen again, only because (in my opinion) they are being done right and with care. And I enjoy catching the Christine Chapel, Harry Mudd, and various other winks thrown in to Trek fans. Anything can be nitpicked, but I had a lot of fun watching both films, which is really what these things are about.

722. Basement Blogger - September 3, 2013

@ 633, 624

Curious Cadet,

Who made you Grand Poobah for Trek Fans? If Emperor Mike wants to see Star Trek Nemesis multiple times then it’s his prerogative. If Emperor Mike wishes to buy Star Trek Into Darkness then it’s his choice. God bless him. Who knows? Emperor Mike might learn to love Star Trek Into Darkness. This is all subjective.

Buying the Blu-Ray is not just about supporting the “evil” J.J. Abrams. I bought the VHS for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Why? I wanted it for my collection. And I didn’t think much of the movie. But as I watched it more, I found there were parts that I did like.

It comes down to a subjective decision. You opinion is no more valid than Emperor Mike’s or mine.

723. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 3, 2013

@715
I learned of the week long STID + World War Z double header in the States after my post. I wish we had the double header promo here in Canada. I have plans on seeing World War Z soon.

Still, even if it was half, it is still nice. But who is to say the box office numbers are not already split in half.

Japan should still roll in a few million. All in all a decent box office success.

724. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 3, 2013

Does anyone know if the 3D blu ray comes with the 3D glasses? I have a pair of red blue 3D glasses but I don’t know if they are ‘calibrated’ for precide 3D with the STID br.

725. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@718. This must be the most secret double-feature of all time, because nowhere that I have checked anywhere near me seems to showing it.

726. Colin - September 3, 2013

When I read threads here and on TrekBBS and on TrekCore, I feel that there is a strong effort by ardent fans of this film to convince people to bend to peer pressure and conform to their opinion. If that doesn’t work, these fans work hard to marginalize these other fans. When the “parents” take a side, as Bob Orci did above, I have noticed that their supporters seem to get a new wind and become more strident in their attacks. I think they are winning this war, and I think it is time to recognize that they have won, and to move on. They have the numbers and they have the “parents” supporting them. Should we, the bad “children”, the ones who don’t like this movie, go to the corner wearing a dunce hat?

727. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

@719. Dude, you would need both a 3D Blu-Ray player and a 3D TV to get the 3D to work, and the glasses would need to be ones that match your 3D TV’s technology.

Since you are asking this question, I don’t think you have the required hardware to make it work? You can’t just pop in an existing blu-ray player and watch it on an existing standard flat-screen with Red/Blue glasses. The technology isn’t that simple, unfortunately.

728. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 3, 2013

Here’s an idea for Paramount for the Star Trek 3 Blu-ray.
Include 3D glasses with engraved cast signatures and various Star Trek logos on on the frame. Would be a nice collectible.

729. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 3, 2013

@722
I will check the br box first to make sure it requires special hardware. If the prices are reasonable might be a good time to consider upgrading my TV and br player.

730. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 3, 2013

@722
hmm you appear to be right. FutureShop.ca is full of 3D TVs and blu ray players now. I didn’t even know 3D was out.

Prices are normal.

731. MJ (The Original). - September 3, 2013

“When I read threads here and on TrekBBS and on TrekCore, I feel that there is a strong effort by ardent fans of this film to convince people to bend to peer pressure and conform to their opinion. If that doesn’t work, these fans work hard to marginalize these other fans.”

Right point, but wrong form of the comment.

The people who don’t like this movie have been incessantly trying to force their opinion on those of us who do like it. As an example, you will note that one regular poster has admittedly “gone internet terrorist” on those of us here who really like the movie — changing his name, and vowing to settle the score and get down and dirty with those of us who happen to like the movie — and he/she is proud of this troll tactic, and is wearing it like a fuking Knight’s Templar for anti-nuTrek. How sick is that?

And many of us who like the film have pointed out a number of issues with it. I even provided a detailed list of 7 lessons learned from STID that can be used on the next movie. Others here like Red Dead Ryan and Keachick have pointed out other issues as well.

What you are missing here with your well-meaning post, is that a number of these people who are being negative on STID, were just as negative on Trek 2009 — and they have spent the last four years continually bitching and whining about all things nuTrek. Who is thus marginalizing who here…please ask yourself that question before you post again here.

This is not new, my well meaning friend.

732. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

Phobos,

Yea, if you upgrade your blu-ray player, you might consider getting a region-free blu-ray/DVD player. This now allows me to play any Blu-Ray or DVD on the planet. And, even with shipping, a lot of Blu-Rays from UK-Amazon and UK-Germany are cheaper than the U.S. Some of the recent titles I have purchased are Blu-rays that are not avalable in the US: Silent Running (UK), Quatermass and the Pit, Robot and Frank, Touching the Void, The Russia House.

You can get some discount models for $150 price range with 3D. I got the following Panasonic mid-range 3d model for only $210 on Ebay, which is like $70 less than Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-BDT230-Network-Region-Player/dp/B00CELFLA2

Here is another site with many other models of region-free players:

http://www.world-import.com/region_free_blu_ray_DVD_players.htm

733. Cygnus-X1@hotmail.com - September 4, 2013

310. boborci – September 2, 2013

—Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of “broken.” And frankly, your tone and attitude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future.—

Bob, what about Joseph Dickerson’s tone and attitude don’t you like? He interviewed fans, listened to guest speakers at the Trek Convention, analyzed it all and synopsised it here for us. There’s not a hint of disrespect or resentment in his article. One can only assume that what you don’t like about the article above is that it is critical of your movie.

And do you really think that Joseph Dickerson’s article was an aberration? Do you really think that STID got “the best” reviews generally? You must be ignoring all of the reviews that aren’t by fan-site writers because MOST of the reviews for STID were critical ESPECIALLY of the writing. Of the reviewers that gave your movie a thumbs-up, “fresh” tomato, etc…MOST of them did so IN SPITE OF THE WRITING. Just go to rottentomatoes.com and read the top critic reviews for yourself. Most of the positive ones go like this:

“The conceptual sci-fi of the original series is nowhere to be found, though you might enjoy watching the skinny young actors approximate their counterparts from the 60s; Chris Pine is especially good as Captain Kirk.” –
J. R. Jones, Chicago Reader, Top Critic.

“It’s generally a lot of fun, but it’s exhausting, and the busyness only somewhat disguises the fact that the story doesn’t entirely make sense.”
- July 12, 2013 Full Review Source: EricDSnider.com, Eric D. Snider
EricDSnider.com.

“…a summer film that dimly reminds viewers of what it used to be – and could be again – while still being little more than a rollercoaster ride.”
- June 15, 2013 Full Review Source: MovieCrypt.com, Kevin A. Ranson
MovieCrypt.com.

“Moment to moment, it’s as entertaining, rousing and visually impressive as any recent science-fiction action epic, but the script is cratered with illogical motivations and plot holes large enough to swallow Classic Trek’s Doomsday Machine.” – June 3, 2013 Full Review Source: Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), John Beifuss.

And these are the GOOD reviews, Bob. The GOOD ones.

Are you seeing a pattern there? They’re all basically saying that STID was enjoyable mainly due to the actors’ performances, the action/3D/special FX and overall experience of seeing it in the theater. Nobody had praise for the story or the writing. Nobody.

And if you dare to read an analytical, in-depth review that points out all of the plot holes and bad ideas in your story, go ahead and have a look: http://www.standbyformindcontrol.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-vs-star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan/

And that review there, Bob? I’ve yet to meet someone who didn’t agree with all or most of it. Still don’t believe it? Watch the RedLetterMEdia

The people I know who enjoyed STID—and I count myself among them—enjoyed it for most of the same reasons that the reviewers enjoyed it: the acting, 3D and “thrillride” of it. Basically, the best of your movie was eye candy and generally a fun distraction on a Saturday afternoon. And the acting, as always, was good. Were we thinking about your movie after it was over? Were we quoting lines from it or talking about how awesome certain scenes were? Absolutely not. Your movie was basically a cheap thrill, which is not a knock on cheap thrills, per se, but many of us feel that Trek can be, should be and deserves to be more than just a cheap thrill.

I’ve yet to meet anyone who thought that the writing in STID was good and who generally likes or even approves of the direction that the franchise is headed. Granted my friends are in their 30s, and maybe that’s a decade or two older than your target audience. But even as a child of single digit years I recognized quality and depth in movies when I saw it. I couldn’t describe it, but I knew when there was serious, quality stuff in there.

Bob, you sincerely seem to be proud of your movie, and I have to believe that you really do think that you wrote a good story. My friends tend to be of the opinion that you, Alex, JJ and the gang are generally ripping off iconic characters and interloping just to make some money for yourselves, and I do my best to defend your motives, if not those of JJ who, let’s be frank, really does seem to have all of the attributes of an interloper into the Star Trek franchise.

Yes, the likes of me don’t get to make movies like you do, but here’s a very basic piece of advice for you anyway: Simply mentioning or raising the idea of a theme isn’t the same as thoughtfully and emotionally developing that theme in depth. I’ll keep it simple, but your writing has two main problems: (1) Your themes tend to be either only superficially developed, and/or they simply “don’t work,” often because; (2) you seem to have a hard time avoiding plot holes.

Don’t believe me because I don’t write blockbusters? Read the critics’ reviews for yourself. Either we’re all dumb in the exact, same way, or there just might be something to what we’re all saying.

And consider that movies tend to have, in economic parlance, (ignoring price) a somewhat inelastic demand so long as the quality of the supply clears a certain threshold. In other words, in any given Summer, people are going to go to the movies to see whatever the best, big-budget action movie showing happens to be. “Going to the movies” is the activity, for most of the audience. Those 20 million people are going to see something on Saturday. Either it’ll be your movie or someone else’s. If there’s a choice between two big-budget action movies, the one that looks better will sell more tickets. This is why, as I’m sure you know, studios try to schedule big-budget blockbuster releases so as to avoid competition with other studios’ big-budget blockbuster releases.

If the movie that movie-goers see is at least a C +, most of the audience will generally say they had a good time, and many people are already walking into the movie with generally low expectations. (At least, my friends and I usually are). That a movie made $300 million doesn’t mean that it was a GREAT movie; it means that it was GOOD ENOUGH to get that many people into that particular theater instead of into the one next door showing Iron Man 3 or whatever.

And what about Iron Man 3? You think it was a fantastic movie? One for the ages? Right up there with Citizen Kane, 2001 and Star Wars? Maybe you do—I seem to recall you mentioning that one of your favorite movies of all time was Superman 2—but let me just go out on a limb and state that, in 20 years time, Iron Man 3 will not be regarded as a classic film. Iron Man 3 will not be the basis for Literature and Film class lectures. Iron Man 3 basically had the appeal of your movie—fun, titillating and entirely forgettable. And Iron Man 3 made what…over $400 million? People want to be entertained, and they’ll see the best thing showing.

Don’t know what kind of music you like, but let me try a music analogy. There are Madonna albums (back in the 80s and 90s) that sold around the same number of units as a Beatles album. Does that mean that Madonna music is as good as Beatles music? Does Madonna music have the intelligence, creativity, musical proficiency, soul and emotional expressiveness of Beatles music? This one should be a no-brainer. Food for thought.

But I do have to say this: Ripping off the death scene from Wrath of Khan was totally shameless. I have no idea what could have been going through your mind that you thought that was a good idea, but trust me—it wasn’t.

734. Cygnus-X1@hotmail.com - September 4, 2013

P.S. I mean the “Half in the Bag” review at Red Letter Media…if it’s still up.

735. James - September 4, 2013

MJ post 726.

I agree entirely. The silent majority of trekkies clearly liked the film and rated it highly, All we have to do is check Trek Movies own poll to see that.

736. boy - September 4, 2013

No star trek is not broken. However it is showing some cracks. What we need is something fresh and new like the 09 film. Also why cant we get a film that is not so fast paced?

I was not a fan of the last arc of the film, it was like a blur. Kirk dies, Spock fights Khan, Kirk is resurrected and all this happens in less than 10 minutes.

If Kirk was going to be resurrected 5 minutes after he died then he shouldn’t have been killed in the first place because it takes away the impact of his death.

The whole killing kirk was an excuse to put in the famous WOK scene, You my dear Orci chose fan service and paying homages to old school Trek instead of writing a better script.

We need more character interaction. I would like to see a star trek film that is 2 hours 45 minutes long so that we can have a balance for everything like the story, character development, character interaction, humour, romance, team effort, drama and of course the action sequences.

I also despise the way you treat women in your films. Its like the women in Trek are just sex objects.

Uhura strips, The Green chick strips, Carol strips. Please no more stripping females in Trek 3.

Did you have to ruin Christine Chapel character as well?

How is it that Christine is another one of Kirk’s conquest?

It was a disrespectful way to pay homage to Chapel. If you felt that you needed to reference her, why make her another sex toy for Kirk?

Uhura is showing progress , However she is no Princess Leia. Her romance with Spock is overshadowing her character. We need more uhura speaking Klingon. A strong woman is suppose to find a right balance between her private and public life. that is real feminism.

As for Carol , what is her purpose again?

If you brought her in just to be the mother of Kirk’s Child then I say, stop right now. Carol, while been overshadowed by the gratuitous lingerie scene seems to have a lot of potential as an additional science officer. I hope we see her use her intelligence in the new film instead of her been in Kirk’s bed 24/7.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that we humans we need some R&R but what separates Kirk from the two cat girls he was having sex is that. Kirk actually has a life. He is the captain of the enterprise. those women only existed to fulfil his sexual needs.

Star Trek does not need to treat women like that anymore.

It makes me sad that I cant officially say Abram’s Trek has any true Heroine that can compete with the female characters of other fandoms like Star Wars or Harry Potter.

737. RNase-free Jeff - September 4, 2013

No, Star Trek is NOT broken. And I will describe it in 4 ways:

1. Star Trek Into Darkness is a fine entry into the Star Trek canon, even with the homages to the Wrath of Khan, because it is a character study of a young Kirk, who makes brash decisions based on emotion counteracted by logical objections by Spock (something we have seen in many TOS episodes, including Arena, Conscience of the King, and Obsession). But it shows it at a time before there is complete trust and understanding between these two characters, and therefore gives a reason why they would be so trusting and reliant of each other in the future. It is, in my opinion, in the top 5 in the pantheon of Star Trek films.

2. STID is a box office success. The only things that have brought it down, is the fact that A) it took 4 years for a sequel for the immensely successful ST09 to arrive, B) the studio messed with the release date by opening a day early, and C) subsequently expanded the weekend projections to close to 100 million dollars/4 days, in contrast to the original $85 million original projection (you can look up the actual numbers). Paramount shot STID in the foot right as it hit screens.

3. If anybody was worried about STID making over .5 billion, they have to remember that Star Trek has an immense STIGMA still! There’s a significant nerdy, obnoxious opinion out there about Star Trek that the Superhero franchises don’t have, and I’m not sure Star Trek will ever overcome that.

4. We have ourselves (the fans) to blame. The best facet of Star Trek can also be its worst, and that’s the fans. The short-sightedness of the Las Vegas convention-goers voting STID as the worst Trek film is just disappointing. While STID isn’t a perfect film, I feel like there are a lot of fans who pick on the Abrams films for silly reasons (destruction of Vulcan, his love of Star Wars, the lack of pontificating in the films, etc). Keep in mind that the only ST film to explore a strange new world/civilization is Star Trek Insurrection, and everybody considers that one pretty low on the totem pole. Plus, STID is a great summer film when the summer film idea is dying very quickly (for the marketing for Man of Steel, its returns have been good, not extraordinary).

I loved STID, and think it is superior to ST09 in many ways. I really want another adventure with Kirk/Pine and Spock/Quinto on their Enterprise!

738. HairyTrekker - September 4, 2013

Here’s my twopenneth.

After the death of TOS on TV all we had were the movies and I loved them, even ST: V. It felt to me like old friends coming to visit. They were older and bigger. They’d moved on, but don’t all our old friends?

ST09 didn’t feel like the old friends coming to visit, it felt like a group of new friends who had the same characteristics that made us friends with the old bunch. I still had a few doubts, but I looked forward to seeing them again.

It was a long wait.

And in that long wait, things changed. These people certainly weren’t the old friends, and they weren’t the new friends I’d hoped to meet.

Don’t get me wrong, STID was a fantastic sci-fi movie and I loved it. I would go and see the sequel. But it’s not Trek. And that’s what I want, somebody to make more old Trek.

On this site, Damon Lindelof said “It’s Not Your Daddy’s Star Trek”.

No, Damon, it’s not and for me and thousands – if not millions – of trek fans, that’s the problem.

739. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@730.

With all due respect,

William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForrest Kelley, Gene Roddenberry, Gene L Coon, Dorthy Fontana, Harve Bennett — none of them are “walking through that door tomorrow” to start prepping for Star Trek 2016. That age is gone and will never come again. IT”S OVER!!!

I’m turning 50 this year, buy heaven help me if I ever start sounding like the “resigned old geezer” you are coming across as here, guy. And I mean that kindly, with no malice.

Enjoy the past, but don’t live in it. Accept new things and revel in what you do like about nuTrek. That would be my advice to you.

740. Castle74 - September 4, 2013

Thank you for writing this article. From the trailers of the recent movies alone I was wondering if this was the new “Trek” movie or the new “Mission Impossible” movie.(Seems everybody has to shoot through the atmosphere by themselves when they have shuttles and transporters instead)
A whole new ship and a whole new crew would be a great idea. You could do it either in this reality or in the TOS or even TNG reality. By doing it there is less continuity problems. Also fans have less reason to complain since this ain’t Archer’s, Kirk’s or Picard’s Enterprise..hell..it isn’t the Enterprise. Whole new stories and characters with some connections to the Star Trek universe.
Reminds me of Picard’s great line “Does anybody remember when we used to be explorers?”

741. Aurore - September 4, 2013

@ Curious Cadet

“…So the question is not why would anyone want to be associated with such a despicable character, the question should be why shouldn’t a non-white actor have the same opportunity to portray an evil character as a white actor does?…”
________

The question you asked is a very interesting one, in my opinion.

Not to mention that, speaking of despicable characters (in movies), when actors portraying such characters are very good, at times, in Hollywood and/or elsewhere, things may happen to their career.

….One of those things happened to an actor I like ; it was due to his (chilling) portrayal of a guy who liked to eat people’s liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti…

:)

742. Scott McC - September 4, 2013

@ 432 MJ

I have to say that I completely agree with your view that this article is one of the worst that has ever appeared on this web site. First a needlessly provocative and unsubstantiated title “Star Trek is broken” (wow, how matter of fact!). The author in an attempt to justify this claim then cites not one but two of the most crackpot sources imaginable, namely the convention polls. It is of course common knowledge that the infamous (STID is the worst Trek film poll) involved around 100 people (clearly of the easily led variety), that were steered to “their conclusion”-lol, by the MC.

If that was not bad enough, I then had what for me at least, was the first sighting of an alleged 1 billion dollar box-office expectation from Paramount. What was worse, was that the author decided to use this nonsense to cast dispersions on STIDs box office performance (+$460 million globally and rising, the highest in the series history).

With all due respect to Matt Wright and Kayla who are trying to keep this site going, I cannot imagine that such a poorly researched and needlessly inflammatory article would ever have gone to press during the heyday of Anthony’s tenure. To be fair to Joseph, the rest of his article in which he later makes a case for Trek to return to TV is reasonable (although somewhat naïve), however the damage to the articles credibility was for me irrevocably damaged prior to this point and I just couldn’t get on board the rest of his remedies to Treks alleged malaise.

Clearly I’m in the Star Trek is not broken camp. Why? Well in summary, STID has enjoyed a critical reception (87% on RT, Cinemascore rating of A etc.), that most movies can only dream of. In addition, Star Treks commercial viability has been transformed from box office poison to back to back +$200 million domestic US box-office hits. Particularly impressive is the improvement in the global $ contribution this time around.

Perhaps harder to define but for me even more satisfying has been the reaction of my children and their friends, who were mesmerised by STID and importantly wanted to see more. Not in a million years could I have gotten them to sit through the earlier Star Trek movies and as much as I like all of them (obviously to different degrees-ST V, Insurrection and Nemesis I’m looking at you), the interest in the current movie series shown by the young is in my opinion perhaps the greatest triumph of Star Treks latest incarnation.

743. I am to Smurfy - September 4, 2013

MJ
I just want to note even though I was PERSONALLY disapointed with the movie, I have not tried to force others to feel the same.

I get why a large number of fans love it, doesnt change that it disapointed me, but that is MY opinon for ME ALONE.

You are right though to a degree there are a large number who do not like it who are trying to get others to agree with them.

My thought is this I was disapointed by this one, but I want to see Star Trek XIII so I will support this one to a certain degree to see Star Trek XIII

744. I am to Smurfy - September 4, 2013

(Cont)
Though the BS with the bluray special features is not helping matters.

745. I am to Smurfy - September 4, 2013

730)
I will say this, I do think in terms of recasting Iconic characters Trek 09 did a amazing Job. and in no way do I feel the things that i find disapoining in Into Darkness have to do with the actors or the acting.

Chris Pine is Kirk
Zac is Spock
Karl Urban is McCoy
Zoe is Uhura
Simon Pegg is Scotty
John Cho is Sulu
and Clumbsy smurf is Chekov ;)

The casting has never been the issue, these guys & gal took and made the parts their own. Story and direction wise though that is a different matter for me, while I loved what was done with 09, I thought Into Darkness wasted the opprotunities that 09 granted.
For me we didnt need to see Khan 2.0, I know JJ said certain things have to happen in both universes but that doesnt mean we need to see it happen onscreen in both universes.

Having said that I would have love into darkness much more if Harrison had just been Harrison or even if he had just been khan from the outset.
But that is just me and my personal feelings.

746. I am to Smurfy - September 4, 2013

On a side note the jokes about Cumby’s character in Star Wars VII
have allready begun as well

“Cumby is most certainly playing a Villian, named John Clark, who is most definately not Grand Admiral thrawn, though rumor has it the second act of the script reveals John Clark to be the Evil Grand Admiral Thrawn.”

747. boborci - September 4, 2013

526. Trekmademewonder
Interesting post. truly. thanks for that feedback

748. Boy - September 4, 2013

No star trek is not broken. However it is showing some cracks. What we need is something fresh and new like the 09 film. Also why cant we get a film that is not so fast paced?

I was not a fan of the last arc of the film, it was like a blur. Kirk dies, Spock fights Khan, Kirk is resurrected and all this happens in less than 10 minutes.

If Kirk was going to be resurrected 5 minutes after he died then he shouldn’t have been killed in the first place because it takes away the impact of his death.

The whole killing kirk was an excuse to put in the famous WOK scene, You my dear Orci chose fan service and paying homages to old school Trek instead of writing a better script.

We need more character interaction. I would like to see a star trek film that is 2 hours 45 minutes long so that we can have a balance for everything like the story, character development, character interaction, humour, romance, team effort, drama and of course the action sequences.

I also despise the way you treat women in your films. Its like the women in Trek are just sex objects.

Uhura strips, The Green chick strips, Carol strips. Please no more stripping females in Trek 3.

Did you have to ruin Christine Chapel character as well?

How is it that Christine is another one of Kirk’s conquest?

It was a disrespectful way to pay homage to Chapel. If you felt that you needed to reference her, why make her another sex toy for Kirk?

Uhura is showing progress , However she is no Princess Leia. Her romance with Spock is overshadowing her character. We need more uhura speaking Klingon. A strong woman is suppose to find a right balance between her private and public life. that is real feminism.

As for Carol , what is her purpose again?

If you brought her in just to be the mother of Kirk’s Child then I say, stop right now. Carol, while been overshadowed by the gratuitous lingerie scene seems to have a lot of potential as an additional science officer. I hope we see her use her intelligence in the new film instead of her been in Kirk’s bed 24/7.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that we humans we need some R&R but what separates Kirk from the two cat girls he was having sex is that. Kirk actually has a life. He is the captain of the enterprise. those women only existed to fulfil his sexual needs.

Star Trek does not need to treat women like that anymore.

It makes me sad that I cant officially say Abram’s Trek has any true Heroine that can compete with the female characters of other fandoms like Star Wars or Harry Potter.

749. Aurore - September 4, 2013

The author of the article shared his opinions as he had previously done in an article entitled :

Star Trek, after Darkness: What is next for the franchise?

In it, he said the following [ with which I agreed, as (re)-stated in my post @ 446] :

“…..People LOVE Star Trek, and it holds a special place in people’s hearts. And as long as it provokes such a passionate reaction, Star Trek will never die…..” :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/07/11/star-trek-after-darkness-what-is-next-for-the-franchise/

I do not agree with everything he said in his recent article, but, again, he is entitled to his own opinions. So are we all…in my opinion.

750. Surak1701 - September 4, 2013

While attention-grabbing, think ‘Star Trek is Broken’ is a little harsh. Sure, the Abrams rollercoaster / Star Wars-esque approach deviates from the spirit of the classic show. And this approach clearly sours the pudding for a lot of Trekkers (along with some plot clangers like transwarp beaming). But they are also both very enjoyable, funny, slick, gratifyingly big-budget films that are never boring. I also think the evolution of Kirk and Spock in the two films is very underrated and often ignored.

Each incarnation of Trek is a little different, and brings its own take. The two recent films are Trek seen through the prism of its team, chiefly Abrams and the writers. If the third film happens, and I fervently hope it does, a different director will bring a different treatment. Science fiction ideas, and the unknown, should be explored. Character development should be foregrounded, and not just Kirk and Spock. Let’s see more Bones. I respect a lot of what the team accomplished. And I’m not at all sure that yet another new crew is the way to go. I offer – a film to complete the trilogy, and then eventually back to TV – with new actors playing the classic crew -along with some new faces.

751. JKP - September 4, 2013

Couple thoughts.

One agree with most of the author’s thoughts and have shared the same thoughts about character and something new numerous times.

It’s a shame that Warner Bros don’t own ST instead of Paramount. Then they could put trek on HBO and up the ante on TV for sci fi.

752. Someone - September 4, 2013

What a great article, the perfect riposte to this one.

http://whatculture.com/film/5-reasons-star-trek-into-darkness-is-a-truly-great-star-trek-film.php

753. crazydaystrom - September 4, 2013

@739. Boy
“As for Carol , what is her purpose again?
If you brought her in just to be the mother of Kirk’s Child then I say, stop right now. Carol, while been overshadowed by the gratuitous lingerie scene seems to have a lot of potential as an additional science officer. I hope we see her use her intelligence in the new film instead of her been in Kirk’s bed 24/7.”
_________

I wouldn’t want Carol Marcus to be ‘just the mother of Kirk’s child’ either, I’d like to see more of her (no pun intended) as an extremely able and professional Star Fleet officer. But I WOULD like to see the relationship develope that would lead to David Marcus. I think the relationship between Kirk and Carol will go a long way towards maturing Kirk into the captain he will be. Particularly if events play out more or less the way Carol described in TWOK. That Jim and Carol WILL get together in this version of Star Trek is a high probability, if not all but inevitable.

@boborci
I’ve said here many times I do not like the way Khan was handled (and that he was used at all, for that matter) but ‘Kirk and Carol’ would not be the sideways retread the way Khan felt to me but instead covering signifcant history of a main character, the details of which have never been depicted on screen. It would be a chance to show sides of Kirk never seen before and would be a chance for great character developement. And it could better balance the running and shooting and booming.

And I don’t know if it is at all possible but I would love to see a return or at very least a mention of Wynona Kirk. Kirk’s birth, his father’s death and the whole Kelvin scene, for that matter, still are my favorite parts of nuTrek. I’m really into symmetry so if the ‘trilogy’ could be bookended with something that moves me the way the Kelvin scene did and does I would be pleased.

754. Basement Blogger - September 4, 2013

@ 740

Aurore,

Good to see a friendly face. Er…. I mean good to read a friendly face. You know what I mean. Swimming with the trolls, I see. You have strange ways to amuse yourself.

Soon, we’ll have to take a break from all the fighting. Let’s do it sometime after post one thousand.

I think it’s afternoon in France. So, “Bon apres-midi. “

755. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@713. Sean,
“The effects were on per with an expensive 2 parter of BSG so where did all that money go?”

Well, I wouldn’t go that far. The BSG effects were good, but if you put them side by side with STID, I think you’d see the difference.

Nevertheless, I’ve been asking myself the same question. And think about this, most of the sets, costumes and props were already built for ST09. Here’s a production that pleaded poverty for not having a dedicated engineering set four years ago, yet with most of the standing sets already built, and 40 million added to the budget, they still don’t build one?

I have to imagine it’s not the quality of the effects in the movie, but the sheer quantity and length that ate up their budget, and there was an article early on here when Anthony was still around that indicated much of the additional 40 million went to the 3D process (which seems excessive to me, but I have no way to verify that myself). But still, there was all that stuff carried over from the first film …

Where DID all that money go?

756. Barney Fife - September 4, 2013

@743 Someone
That article was right on….and it’s last point, “Fun Factor” is absolutely correct. That Vengence catching the Enterprise in warp was spine chilling!

An earlier post said this was nothing better than a Battlestar Galactica two-parter. I laughed out loud after reading that. I love the nuBSG and I think it’s the best TV science fiction show to-date. But STID is light years ahead of any BSG episode. I could see where a lot of the budget went in STID and it was top-notch…except I still don’t care for the Budweiser plant.

I look forward to viewing STID on my 3D TV next Tuesday!!!

757. BatlethInTheGroin - September 4, 2013

#677: My writing is superior to that of most people who post here, so your point is moot.

758. BatlethInTheGroin - September 4, 2013

Putting aside for a moment whether or not Khan was the wrong ethnicity (which, clearly, he was), the character wasn’t even written correctly. Khan was NOT a genocidal lunatic out to kill everything that is inferior. He was exactly the opposite of that: a man out to conquer everyone, not kill all non-Augments. He wanted an empire to rule, not some kind of Aryan nightmare in which everyone else was dead. If he destroyed all who were genetically inferior to his people, then there’d have been no one left to rule. The writers of STID simply didn’t understand “Space Seed,” and that, for me, is a bigger problem with the movie than Cumberbatch’s skin color.

759. Barney Fife - September 4, 2013

@748 BatlethinTheGroin
I bow down to your superior intellect.

760. Alfredo Craveiro - September 4, 2013

Star Trek should have returned to TV shortly after the 2009 movie. Thus, the writers could relax and use the new stories for a given time, write a new feature film using all the baggage of the show. So estoria’d have one solid and not a stealth adventure. STID is not a bad movie, I liked it a lot, but it is not a Star Trek movie. It is a science fiction adventure that uses the guise of ST to work. Who knows, after this barrage of criticism and with 50 years of ST approaching, they come back to write a movie more cerebral and a little less action.

761. Lemingsworth Bint - September 4, 2013

In today’s television environment, a Star Trek series would be cancelled after a season and a half.

Then we would have to listen to all the fan excuses and “I never said that” backpeddling.

762. Hood1707 - September 4, 2013

Wow, great article and even more interesting comments. But let’s talk characters and that being my biggest problem with both movies.

The Crew of the Enterprise are supposed to be the best and the brights. The literal cream of the crop. And yet what do we find. Kirk comes accross as a dufus/player. Uhrua is googly eyed, live sick cadet for her teacher. Scotty is comic relief. And don’t get me start ed on Checkov. The only two that wowed me were Sulu and McCoy.

Simply put, make me want to care about these perople! When I find a villian to much more interesting (Kahn) or just as weak (Nero) as the main characters, something is seriously wrong. We watch the shows and movies for the people. If I don’t give a whoot-n-nanny about them, I go somewhere else. The situations don’t matter, what matters how they interact and react to outside forces. Thanks for your time.

763. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 4, 2013

738. boborci

Thanks, bob orci, FYI, I’ve extended B.O.D. for the foreseeable future.

I am afraid that this completes my story arc, though.

764. Broccoli - September 4, 2013

Oh lord. Another nerd thinking there is trouble with their sacred cow. Maybe STID wasn’t the greatest movie in the world. Maybe it was. But Trek is far from “broken” (whatever that means).

:eyeroll:

765. Steve Maines - September 4, 2013

Bob Orci, I’d love to sit and chat with you about Trek and your contributions to it.

I love the new movies, but there are things the “12 year old in me” thinks is missing.

I can’t imagine the pressure of being tasked with writing for Star Trek.

766. William - September 4, 2013

I have been saying that to my friends for years now, Star Trek is best on TV. No can accuse Star Trek of being a great movie franchise, anymore than we could accuse Star Wars of being a great TV franchise. Star Trek is at its core a TV series that takes time to explore different philosophy and way of thinking, things that just can’t be done on the big screen. I don’t agree with the mission statement thought, DS9 was by far the best series that explored more of humanity and its issues than any other series. What we need is a new Star Trek series with the Enterprise but written along the lines of an ongoing story from week to week rather than just stand alone episodes.

767. Eric Tan - September 4, 2013

STID worst Trek movie? I don’t think so. Three of the four TNG movies, Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis, were worse and barely made any money for Paramount.
No doubt there is a large number of STID haters, who also happen to be defenders of the TNG movies. All four TNG movies felt like extended TV episodes and boring ones at that. JJ Abrams is going in a different direction and he’s pissing off people as he and his writing team go along, but he’s also brought back action into Trek, and made sure his version is making money again. There’s probably only one more movie to be made under Abrams. Then, we will see what happens to Trek then. Will there be another reboot? Will they go in yet another completely different direction? How many years will pass before that happens. Enough for CBS to greenlight a new TV series? Like Enterprise? Hmm…
Anyone who thinks that new Trek movies with the TNG cast would had been successful doesn’t understand moviemaking and box office success.

768. Robman007 - September 4, 2013

One of the awesome things of this film was showing just how dangerous Khan could have been in the Prime Universe had he been given a years worth of Starfleet training/spec ops training as well as taken a role in technology development. I’m pretty sure that Prime Kirk and crew would have had a very difficult time defeating him….that’s what made him so dangerous in this reality, especially going against a crew with far less experience then their Prime reality counterparts when they met Khan. Actually, having Nimoy Spock give advice was very neccessary…..

Sad enough, this film showed that Prime Kirk should have stood ZERO chance at defeating Khan in hand to hand combat, even with the random plastic bar +5 against Genetic Supermen…..realistically, only Spock should have been able to go toe to toe against Khan.

Loved how you got some glimpses into similarities between Prime Kirk and this Kirk….both more often then not let obession and need for revenge to get the most out of them and cloud their judgement, and nice to see Spock and McCoy help in leveling that out.

Just bummed out that we have to wait another 3 years for another film.

I don’t care what anybody says…Star Trek was never the same without Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the NCC-1701. Just not the same….

769. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

Star Trek is not just about Kirk & his crew. I say that after the next movie, they should jump forward 400 years in the future & deal with new crew & new stories.

Enough with this backward story telling in the 23rd century.

770. Robman007 - September 4, 2013

@754….Kirk/Spock/McCoy bring name recongnition. Nobody will give three pints of piss about a Trek taking place that far into the future except a few select Trek fans…and for that to work, you have to hit up the TV show format and get REALLY lucky.

The only other route that Trek could really take, besides further exploring Kirk and crew (the way Trek was meant to be, but that’s my opinion as someone who didn’t care for any of the TNG era Trek, outside of DS9, which was the only one to really keep up with the theme and canon of TOS) would be to reboot the whole damn thing and start over from scratch…with NOTHING from the past having any canon attachment to what’s new..

771. Gregory - September 4, 2013

Pros:
JJ Trek looks great (even with lens flares). Also, terrific casting, wonderful production value, and an outstanding soundtrack.

Kahns:
The science is laughable and the scripts are crap! Just get some writers that know ‘Trek’ and it still could take off.

I do wonder if the obvious dialogue and event parallels to ‘Trek 2′ are not just laziness and may actually be some nod to some kind of “temporal balancing” act on a cosmic scale that is still unexplained.

772. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@749. BatlethInTheGroin,
“the character wasn’t even written correctly. Khan was NOT a genocidal lunatic out to kill everything that is inferior. He was exactly the opposite of that: a man out to conquer everyone, not kill all non-Augments. He wanted an empire to rule, not some kind of Aryan nightmare in which everyone else was dead. If he destroyed all who were genetically inferior to his people, then there’d have been no one left to rule. The writers of STID simply didn’t understand “Space Seed,”

Perfectly stated.

After building sympathy for Khan’s cause, they threw him under the train by equating him with Hitler in the end, presumably to justify his irrational TWOK turn at the end of the movie. It’s mystifying to me that they did that considering Orci wanted us to see the terrorist within ourselves, but that message too is completely lost by distorting the Khan we were introduced to in Space Seed into an unredeemable mass-genocidal madman. Perhaps it was not so much they didn’t understand Space Seed as they just didn’t care. Instead they have retconned Khan into what they wanted him to be — the Joker to Kirk’s Batman.

I wish I could have seen the story Orci claims he wanted to tell, before he allowed Khan to be shoe-horned into it — a pawn turned terrorist to save his family, by exposing the secret organization’s misguided effort to plunge his world into war. It’s completely meaningless now — Khan was a bad dude, who always did bad things, and will continue to do bad things no matter what. So much for the terrorist within us message Orci was trying to convey. Khan only serves to emphasize that just because a terrorist may look or act like one of us, they are really sociopaths that were always going to do terrible things no matter what and were just looking for an excuse. Oh well, so much for principals.

773. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@753. Robman007,
“Actually, having Nimoy Spock give advice was very neccessary…..”

Really? What practical advice do you suppose Nimoy gave Quinto he didn’t already know from first hand experience?

He’s not to be trusted? He will try to take over your ship? He will torture and kill those who don’t cooperate with him? He’s very smart? He’s very strong? Seriously, what was so necessary?

Your own argument suggests Nimoy knew even less than Quinto did about Khan’s abilities under the alternate universe circumstances.

————————–
“Sad enough, this film showed that Prime Kirk should have stood ZERO chance at defeating Khan in hand to hand combat”

You mean this film retconed that Kirk stood zero chance at defeating Khan in hand to hand combat. Clearly, up until this year, it was understood such a thing was possible.

774. Robman007 - September 4, 2013

757. Curious Cadet – September 4, 2013

“You mean this film retconed that Kirk stood zero chance at defeating Khan in hand to hand combat. Clearly, up until this year, it was understood such a thing was possible.”

Possible, yes, but Come on..lets not kid ourselves…in Space Seed, it was always silly that Kirk didn’t get beaten to a bloody pulp by Khan. It worked because it was part of TOS’s campy charm, but it was silly. This film just showed what Khan in the prime universe should have been capable of in terms of hand to hand combat. No “retconning” needed…a man with 5 times the strength of an ordinary man should have caved Kirk’s skull in with a punch, nor should a removable plastic beam of supermen slaying been able to help.

In regards to Prime Spock’s advice…well, he obviously held an off camera conversation with Spock about HOW to beat Khan. Seemed that, even with Khan’s improved 23rd century knowledge that he still was just as impatient (when it mattered) as the Khan in the Prime Universe was, and the key to getting to him was to do something unexpected. I’m pretty sure under a different situation that Kirk and Spock would have come up with the Torpedo deal, but when you have a ship that is defenseless and in an emergency situation, the obvious is not so obvious when those in that specific situation lack overrall experience.

Despite that…it went to show you that this version of the crew in no way should have encountered Khan this early into their careers, especially one that was as experienced in 23rd century starfleet as he was…

775. I, Aye - September 4, 2013

Fantastic article – mirrors my own thoughts on the new films (to date) perfectly. My biggest beef with them? There hasn’t been any imagination displayed in the stories! No wonder at exploration, and the possibilities. Trek is just another ‘sexy’ looking, fast cutting all action & explosions popcorn FX lowest denominator pleaser.

Trek should aspire to be far greater than this. And if people don’t like thoigh provoking sci-fi drama, then watch something else. Trek isn’t for you, and it shouldn’t be moulded into a mass audience crowd pleaser like this.

I agree with Mr Shatner. It worked best on the small(er) screen. Or perhas Trek is jot suited to todays ‘gritty & realistic’ TV audience? I’d love to see Trek kick-start an un-ashamedly optimistic forward looking series again. Go back to Mr Roddenberry’s CORE ideas.

Let’s get some REAL sci-fi writers on board. I’m sick to death of glorified fanboy writing in much of today’s cinema. The style & intelligence has been lost in favour of appealing to everyone. Sci-Fi writers provide the foundation. Other writers can punch up the character writing if need be. Then the FX and design and budget and all that. Let’s get things facing forwards again. Strange new worlds to explore…

Trek should go back to its ideals, live up to them, and tough shiyat if modern audiences find it boring…

776. Mad Mann - September 4, 2013

What I don’t get is why so many people are upset over each other’s opinions. If you don’t like STiD, fine! If you love it, fine! Everyone is entitled to their opinion and can post it here for all the world to see. What bothers me is when people are attacked for their concepts for what makes a perfect Star Trek movie. It’s one thing to argue, but not to call each other names and telling to eff off. Let’s be civil and respectful.

Anywho. I do think that Star Trek is broken. Just because it made more money than ever before does not mean it’s doing well. Sure, the execs at Paramount think that all that cash means that Trek is more successful than ever. But it’s NOT the same Star Trek as before in that it does not tell the same kinds of stories that MEAN something. Orci doesn’t get it. He just sees dollar signs. That is so unfortunate.

JJ once stated that Star Trek was, in previous versions, too “talky.” Well, I like opera in my space opera. I like drama, and observations on humanity, and space exporation. Expolosions are fine, but when the spectacle is more important than the story, then there is a problem.

This sums it up: When asked what his favoite scene in STiD was on Twitter, Bob Orci replied “when the Enterprise rose from the ocean.” There, he prioritizes spectacle over substance. And that’s sad.

I miss “talky” Star Trek.

777. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@759. Mad Mann

“This sums it up: When asked what his favoite scene in STiD was on Twitter, Bob Orci replied “when the Enterprise rose from the ocean.” There, he prioritizes spectacle over substance. And that’s sad.”

Because there was no substance whatsoever in STID. Just relentless action scenes.

778. dswynne - September 4, 2013

@760 (Ahmed): Kind of like your back-handed comment to boborci, when he specifically tried to engage in a conversation with you.

779. dswynne - September 4, 2013

@759 (Mad Mann): The problem with the article is that ignores the seven years of no ‘Trek, it ignores the reason why ‘Trek was put on “hiatus”, it fails to mention why the TOS characters were used (from a marketing standpoint), and it fails to mention the fact that the so-called “poll” was nothing more than a “push poll” designed for a specific outcome (called “manipulation” in my estimation). You can dislike STiD for several reasons, but to say that the film was worse than “Final Frontier”, while ignoring the metrics from professional critics (such as “Rotten Tomatoes”). Sorry, but this article was full of it.

780. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@761. dswynne

Well, I’m stating what I thought of the movie. It is obviously my subjective POV & you are more than welcome to disagree with me.

781. dswynne - September 4, 2013

@754 (Ahmed): We already had that. It’s called “The Next Generation”, “Deep Space Nine” and “Voyager”, and they weren’t considered “real ‘Trek” either. Problem is, neither did the general public (can anyone outside of fandom know who Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer are, from a pop-culture and marketing perspective?).

782. dswynne - September 4, 2013

@763 (Ahmed): And I’ve stated MINE. Move along…

783. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@764. dswynne

So, your solution then to stick to the past ? Star Trek is supposed to be about the future, we already seen the 23rd & 24th. They should go forward & not backward.

784. StarTrekGirl - September 4, 2013

I agree with you mostly.
I am a huge fan of TNG and VOY and am working my way to all the others but I did thoroughly enjoy STID. Personally I prefer TNG and VOY because of the allegorical messages of the show. I have really missed those in the new movies. They need to bring it back to that because that is the underlying point of Star Trek. These new movies have turned it into a stereotypical SyFy type movie, with explosions and tons of action. The start was fine and I can completely understand the importance of the scene with the Klingons, how it showed the absolute power Kahn had. I have an issue with the fact that its a rehash movie though, I refuse to believe that it would be so hard to create an original movie with an allegorical untertone to it. The very beggining on the planet I liked, it had a conflict and it had a new race with the potential for exploration, but having seen the trailer I knew that would not be what the movie was about.

785. MikeM - September 4, 2013

@Keachik

Yeah, okay, keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

A black Captain Kirk, how about a Bajoran Spock, or maybe even a Klingon Data?

786. K-7 - September 4, 2013

@749 “The writers of STID simply didn’t understand “Space Seed,” and that, for me, is a bigger problem with the movie than Cumberbatch’s skin color.”

But thank goodness you are always there to defend Bob Orci and company. You’ve got their back!

;-o

787. Jai - September 4, 2013

BatlethInTheGroin, re: #749:

Exactly right. I’ve made the same point many times.

Curious Cadet:

I’ve replied to your questions about Khan’s name on the other thread. Sorry for the delay — I didn’t have enough time to write detailed posts yesterday.

788. K-7 - September 4, 2013

“Because there was no substance whatsoever in STID. Just relentless action scenes.”

Ahmed, in my opinion, when you go way over the top with phrases like “no substance whatsoever,” it kind of hurts the credibility of the legitimate criticisms that you have brought up concerning the movie.

Stick to your points and please drop the nonsense of your grandiose statements about nothing in the movie being of value. Otherwise you risk sounding like that moron/sock-puppet, Not a NuTrek Sheep.

789. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@758. Robman007,
“in Space Seed, it was always silly that Kirk didn’t get beaten to a bloody pulp by Khan. It worked because it was part of TOS’s campy charm, but it was silly.”

Not necessarily. A lot of what I came away from Space Seed with is that much of Khan’s Achilles heel was arrogance, as alluded to in discussing the overthrow of the supermen in the 1990s. His bravado about his “superiority” was tiresome. And Kirk even stated: “they were hardly supermen”. So my impression of Khan was that he exaggerates, and Kirk seemed to confirm that. Was he really 5 times as strong? And if he was, it wouldn’t be the first time a weaker man beat his stronger opponent in hand to hand combat with superior, or surprise tactics and yes, luck. Kirk managed to take on Spock on numerous occasions when he shouldnt have been able to. Even Pine relied on blind luck and stupidity in ST09 against the superior Romulan on the Narada, who foolishly left his gun accessible to Kirk while he easily defeated him (arrogance again). The worst part of that scene in Space Seed is that no one went with Kirk to help him take down Khan.

Much has been made of that “plastic bar” (most likely balsa wood), and considering the period, must be screened with a hefty dose of suspension of disbelief. That bar is supposed to be metal, and if you’ve ever felt a nightstick, you’ll know the lethal power they wield. Even Khan with his superior strength should not be able to take repeated blows without succumbing, unless he also has a metal skeleton like Wolverine. Was the scene poorly shot? Yes. Was it silly? Yes. But it doesn’t mean it could not have been shot more convincingly. Hollywood does this kind of thing all the time and audiences buy it. If they didn’t the hero would never gain the upper hand against a superior villain. The real question is, did STID need to make Khan this superhuman creation not previously depicted? In the end, this version of Khan is an interpretation, not necessarily in line with what Roddenberry and the original producers intended. So this is indeed a retcon plain and simple. Khan was not necessarily always intended to be this powerful.

And contrary to Hollywood convention, Abrams chose to show Pine in a far more realistic manner than most action heros. He is neither skilled enough, nor smart enough to beat most of his foes, and that is the antithesis of Shatner’s Kirk who was typical Hollywood all the way. Recall even in WNMHGB, Kirk managed to beat Gary Mitchell as well when he really shouldn’t have, in many respects just as Kirk and Spock should not have been able to beat Nero by themselves, especially considering all that went wrong with their plan.

————————–
“In regards to Prime Spock’s advice…well, he obviously held an off camera conversation with Spock about HOW to beat Khan.”

Exactly, and what was that? Khan is arrogant? Impatient? try something unexpected? I’d say Quinto already knew this. And logical Spock was under so much pressure he could not apply his own knowledge of these things to defeat Khan, unlike his predecessor? Kirk basically played on Khan’s arrogance and pride to defeat him. These are both things Quinto already knew to exploit. And it’s not like Quinto didn’t know how important the 72 torpedoes were to Khan (“is there anything you wouldn’t do for your family”), nor that they could be used against him (they were real torpedoes!!).

Now, on the other hand, if Nimoy told them the main turning points in defeating Khan — McGivers betraying Khan, using the prefix codes of Khan’s ship to lower the shields, exaggerating the damage done to the Enterprise over an open channel monitored by Khan, and intentionally heading into a nebula effectively blinding the Enterprise thus leveling the playing field, and Quinto then used one of these methods to defeat Khan, then I would say the Nimoy scene was necessary. However, I would also say Quinto wasn’t very smart failing to see those options himself if they were available. In fact Scotty essentially had the codes for the vengeance and could have provided them to Spock earlier. Nimoy could have at least then reminded Spock he had them and how they could be used. Heck, how about a good old fashioned battle in a nearby Nebula before warping back to Earth?

So I’m sticking with the scene is unnecessary and merely a way to bless Cumberbatch as Khan by having Nimoy identify him on screen, and provide the new information about Khan being a mass-genocidal sociopath to ensure the audience was convinced his take down was justified (*cough* WMDs) after building up empathy for him during the first 2/3 of the film.

790. K-7 - September 4, 2013

“I didn’t have enough time to write detailed posts yesterday.”

Here’s hoping that you get busy again today. We get it — you are upset with Khan and the whole race issue. Been there, done that. No need for thousands of more words on that. We get it, OK!

“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for…move along.”

791. Not a Nutrek Sheep - September 4, 2013

It’s very encouraging to see Star Trek actually being discussed here instead of the rampant name calling. Oh yes, absolutely I own my part in it. I was part and parcel to the ugliness. I apologize for knowingly offending people here. And if I see and perceive the bullying I will probably go off again. You have to meet venom with venom.

I remember way back in the day there was a guy named Stanky McFibberich who posted here. He was curmudgeonly and argued incessantly with everyone about everything. But he never was insulting. He loathed the idea of a new Star Trek movie coming out that didn’t have the original actors, and even the idea that the bridge railings might not be red sent him over the top. But the banter was polite and good-natured. As a matter of fact arguments were never allowed to escalate as Anthony was always there to lay down the law. I’m not blaming Matt or Kayla for anything as they are doing this for free, but the idiotic foolishness has run unchecked for almost 4 years now. Anthony’s absence has meant that bullies from both sides have been given free reign to insult and degrade each other and be as uncivilized in their language as that which you would find on a site like AICN. Now some of the most intelligent of the old posters here rarely make an appearance and keep most of their contributions off-site or in places others ignore, which is too bad, really, as they are so smart in their observations and calm in their manner that this place is far less interesting in their absence.

So, for now, I am done. Again I apologize to Red Dead Ryan, MJ, Keachick, Jonboc, pock speared, DiscoSpock and anyone else I pi$$ed off. You can accept the apology or not, it doesn’t matter. But please try to temper your comments to those with opposing view points. And for those of us who disagree with each other let’s try and take a breath before we see how witty we can be in an insulting come-back.

792. star trackie - September 4, 2013

#766 “So, your solution then to stick to the past ? Star Trek is supposed to be about the future, we already seen the 23rd & 24th. They should go forward & not backward.”

First, your use of the term “solution” presents, falsely and without credible evidence, that there is a problem. A handful of disgruntled fans, does not a problem make. In fact, the only real evidence, that can be measured and that is free of opinion and speculation, would point to just the opposite. Trek, at the movies and in the court of opinion in the mainstream, has never been as successful as it is now. Never. Ever.

Secondly, Star Trek was not about the future. It was SET in the future. It was about, and is about, Kirk and Spock and the crew of the USS Enterprise and her adventures in the awe and perils of deep space. These adventures, and how they handle themselves in such adverse conditions, are what defines Star Trek. And yes they were ADVENTURES! Full of ACTION. They were FUN! THIS is their source material. NOT TNG. NOT Ds9. NOT VOYAGER. NOT Enterprise. NOT First Contact. NOT Nemesis. OK?? This movie is based on STAR TREK. 1966, roll in the dirt, rip your shirt, bleed in the corner of your mouth, fun, dramatic, funny and sexy Star Trek.

JJ and company honors that source material while at the same time, mixes things up. The alternate timeline liberates the franchise, enabling exciting storytelling where anything goes! Loved Vulcan’s demise. Loved the death of Amanda. Loved Cumby as Khan. These elements are fresh, unexpected and and delivers that punch that is usually lacking from Trek movies, because you know everything will be ok. Star Trek is fresher now and more engaging than it’s been in 20 years. No “solutions” are needed.

793. Rick - September 4, 2013

FYI
http://whatculture.com/film/5-reasons-star-trek-into-darkness-is-a-truly-great-star-trek-film.php

794. K-7 - September 4, 2013

@773,

Ah, wonderful,

Sentimental and thoughtful words from “the pretender troll”.

I am really quite touched. A tear is rolling down my face this very minute.

(Yes folks, I was a really big a-hole yesterday, but today I am a nice guy…trust me!)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

795. Disinvited - September 4, 2013

#762. dswynne – September 4, 2013

Sorry but your seven years of no Trek is just as full of it. ENTERPRISE’s last episode aired in May of 2004. It was a mere 5 years later in 2009 that the next movie aired.

The span of time between the end of the first series of Trek and its 1979 Motion Picture was over a decade. Significant event that the 2009 movie was, Trek fans should be mindful that it wasn’t THIS:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kooltvblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/enterprising-new-start-star-trek-motion.html

“However, its worth noting that, if this first movie, despite its flaws, hadn’t been so well made and successful enough to appeal to a wider celluloid watching audience, then none of the future films and spin-off series, nor the recent, even more successful re-imaging of STAR TREK by J.J. Abrams, would ever have taken place. Film and TV fans who like STAR TREK now owe it a debt of gratitude.

In 1979, despite years of pained frustration, Gene Roddenberry’s science fiction legacy was back- now a proud Phoenix happily resurrected from the flames.” – Scott Weller

796. DiscoSpock - September 4, 2013

#776

Yea K-7, he’s like Khan showing up suddeinly in an ice cream truck and handing out popsicles to kids. LOL

797. Disinvited - September 4, 2013

#751. Lemingsworth Bint – September 4, 2013

Your point would be far more credible if the first incarnation of STAR TREK, of which you spoke, weren’t airing on my local OTA channel in syndication. It is often said it built its success in syndication and apparently, still does contrary to your opinion.

798. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@775. Rick

FYI from the same site :)

5 Dumbest Things We Saw In The Worst Summer Movie Season Ever – 2013 Edition

2. Superhuman Spock Battles Khan In Star Trek Into Darkness:

“Star Trek Into Darkness is a bad film. Starting with a terrible title, the film features ham-fisted dramatics, clunky plot devices, lazy screenwriting, ill-fitting action scenes, and a pretty awful, scenery-chewing performance from Benedict Cumberbatch as Trek’s greatest villain.

Even with all of those flaws, the film’s most egregious mistake is stealing and inverting the ending to Star Trek’s best film, The Wrath of Khan. After almost nothing happens for 1.5 hours, the Enterprise finds itself falling into Earth’s atmosphere without any power. In a direct theft from Wrath of Khan, Kirk breaks into the reactor core and realigns it to restore power (it’s a pretty silly-looking sequence by itself) while sacrificing himself for the good of the crew (Spock did the exact same thing in Wrath of Khan, of course). What follows is an inverted imitation of the classic exchange from the 1982 film, with Kirk falling dead after saying goodbye to his friend Spock. Then Spock screams “KHAAAAAN!””

799. DiscoSpock - September 4, 2013

#777 “Sorry but your seven years of no Trek is just as full of it. ENTERPRISE’s last episode aired in May of 2004. It was a mere 5 years later in 2009 that the next movie aired.”

Sure, but many of us checked out of Enterprise well before Spring 2004.

And you are forgetting as well that TMP came out five years after TAS. It was not a full decade break.

800. DiscoSpock - September 4, 2013

#780.

First, I have never heard of this website.

Secondly, this website takes forever to load, which tells me that it is some amateur on a slow connection cheap server who is running things.

I.e., “Grandpa, can you get off the computer now so that I can update my web site.”

Not impressed, Ahmed.

801. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

Sorry, forget to add the link

http://whatculture.com/film/5-dumbest-things-we-saw-in-the-worst-summer-movie-season-ever-2013-edition.php/5

802. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@ 782. DiscoSpock – September 4, 2013

“First, I have never heard of this website.”

Dude, I was replying to Rick #775 when he posted a pro STID link from that site.

803. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@@ 782. DiscoSpock

“Grandpa, can you get off the computer now so that I can update my web site.”

lol, that was funny, I will give you that :)

804. T'Cal - September 4, 2013

This inane bickering just proves my point: It’s not the franchise that’s the problem – it’s the splintered fanbase that will never be satisfied even when their beloved Trek is successful. Pity.

805. Jim, London - September 4, 2013

Star Trek is not broken – the box office figures for Into Darkness show that.

The next film very much needs to be not so Earth centric in its plot – theres a whole federation out there aswell as uncharted space (in this timeline).

A key gripe for me is that The Enterprise is always the whipping boy in the reboot film series – will it ever find a ship it can hold its own against in combat?? We have never seen this ship have a proper evenly matched engagement where its the Crews guile and prowess which ensures victory (ala the battles in the Wrath of Khan or The undiscovered country)

I think an original story would be the way to go for the next film rather then the typical revenge scenarios we have seen of late – what about having a bad guy in the sense of the Klingons (Korr, Koloth, Kang etc)? One that isnt out to specifically destroy Earth etc.

Seeing as its the 50th Anniversary it would also be nice to bring back the Jerry Goldsmith theme in some form whilst keeping hold of the Alexander Courage one

806. Robman007 - September 4, 2013

781. DiscoSpock – September 4, 2013

“Sure, but many of us checked out of Enterprise well before Spring 2004.

And you are forgetting as well that TMP came out five years after TAS. It was not a full decade break.”

Very true. I lost patience with the direction of the franchise with Voyager. How can a race who couldn’t find their own water supply on a planet have Starships capable of providing a threat to a Federation ship….of the way the Borg were handled…or a crew member getting passed over for promotion while criminals were promoted over him…no, the franchise of Star Trek (the franchise borrows the name from the original show…STAR TREK is about Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the Enterprise, that’s it) was broke after the final season of DS9, the last great Trek production until the 2009 film (keep note, I don’t include STID…I like the film, I understand the film, it’s #6 on my list..but it had alot of problems)…

Well, technically, it was a decade….TAS is not considered real Trek, even by it’s creator.

807. Robman007 - September 4, 2013

786. T’Cal – September 4, 2013

Amen. Although you forget..the fan base will be angry at the franchise even when it’s not as good. Don’t let folks here fool ya, they HATED and COMPLAINED and crying foul on Gene’s memory with DS9 and it’s stories. Now it’s considered one of the best since TOS….

787. Jim, London – September 4, 2013

Not just the reboot franchise. The Enterprise became a whipping boy when TNG thought it would be awesome to copy TUC and have the Enterprise ALWAYS be a second away from being destroyed. Generations..ultimate whipping boy. Insurrection..why did Joan Rivers look-alike and the rest of her intergalactic gang of plastic surgeons have to have ships capable of kicking the @$$ of the Federations Flag Ship. At least the NCC-1701 kicked the @$$ of the Narada in the end, with only taking 1 torpedo hit all film long.

808. Toonloon - September 4, 2013

Mr Orci – it appears you have made a classic, sir. Polarised or mostly insanely negative comments are reminding me of films like Blues Brothers, The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China. No one got them at the time but everyone digs them now.

I genuinely don’t understand why people don’t see how great STID is. They complain that “it’s not Star Trek”, ridiculous! If course it is! The characters have never as full of depth in any of the classic movies and the commentary of pre-emptive strikes, drones and wanting to be above but we are and practice the freedoms we say we defend us EXACTLY the type of social commentary that categorised the best of gene roddenberrys Star Trek.

809. Toonloon - September 4, 2013

I’m going to get into trouble here but maybe you Americans just don’t like admitting that the supreme council nailed the social commentary. Maybe that’s why it did better in Europe. We see you for what you are not what you say you.

810. Disinvited - September 4, 2013

#781. DiscoSpock – September 4, 2013

Excellent response and you are right that I forgot. But you could have really shored up your ENTERPRISE retort by noting that I forgot the EMMY WINNING animated series that was also titled STAR TREK. However, I doubt TAS’ ratings, like ENTERPRISE’s, ever indicated anything as significant as the originating series’ continuing syndication.

I stick to my point that the 2009 movie was not the Phoenix rising from the ashes that TMP was and that fans of the current Trek try to reconstitute it into having been. One year later, in 2005, Gail Berman and Les Moonves were haggling over Trek. And in Les’ 2006 ultimatum to her, it seems clear he wanted another Trek movie’s cameras rolling with Paramount or without them. There was no waffling, wavering, or hemming and hawing (from a certain actor and the studio itself) about getting THAT Trek movie launched as it took to get to TMP.

811. Rodolfo Samayoa - September 4, 2013

JJ breaks my heart, actually i feel some gratitude for him and his team, because they could revive the franchise, but they could do it a lot better! how? simple telling and original story…in the other hand, this movie has terrible mistakes, that actually i called sins….here they are :
1. The prime directive: As it was established in TNG episodes Penpals and homeward, interfere with the annihilation of a civilization that is doom as a consecuence of a natural disaster is in direct violation of the prime directive, so Why is spock so grumble when Kirk save his life on Nibiru, after all he (Spock) is in direct violation of the Prime Directive too, in his effort to save the Nibirians…
2. The Enterprise under water: There’s absolutely no reason in hell whay the Enterprise had to be underwater On Nibiru, the ship’s place is always in orbit, if the whole idea was to prevent that the nibirians didn’t look the ship, why them took it down? why didn’t stay in orbit above the planet?????
3. Admiral Marcus. Peter Weller, played the xenofobus leader of Terra Prime Arthur Frederick Paxton in the Star Trek Enterprise episode called Demons, and now he reprises that role, with only minor differences….
coincidence??? don’t think so.
4.Teletransportation from Earth to Qo’nos…apparently invented by Scott, never mentiones before in the trek canon, except in the Star Trek Enterprise episode called Daedalus where Emory Erickson, developed the subquantum transporter, that was in the end a flawed technology. But if starfleet has developd such technology in the “alternate time line” why in hell they bothered to use spaceships?????
5. Khan, from indian to british, before waking him up Admiral Marcus should take a minute to read the Captain’s Archer report about his confrotantions with the augments in the XXII century…or is that maybe Admiral Marcus can’t read???
6. Spock and Uhura: Once Again!!!! c’mon….the SPOCK PRIME, will never ever have displayed any public demonstrations of ilogic and irrelevant romantic relantionship, specially when he is not in his Ponn farr, ridiculous!
7. Khan and Uhura: Ok Khan kick the ass of an entire klingon scuadron, and now is nearly killing Spock, why can’t we send someone with experience in personal combat?
Sulu perhaps?
better yet let’s send communications officer Lieutenant Uhura, who weighs (barely) just 100 pounds, and has only fired phasers at its training academy
let’s remember that she is Cataleya, the colombian! oopsss that’s another movie (my mistake)
and so on… hope you learn from your mistakes Mr Abrams!

812. Nony - September 4, 2013

@718 Phobos in City 45°N 73°W

Canada does have the double-header promo. Nova Scotia does, at least. It’s playing near me until tomorrow.

813. K-7 - September 4, 2013

“I’m going to get into trouble here but maybe you Americans just don’t like admitting that the supreme council nailed the social commentary. Maybe that’s why it did better in Europe. We see you for what you are not what you say you.”

You are correct. And vice-versa, when I see all the fights and Nazi flags at Football games in Europe, it points out the social commentary on the danger of having a system of governments that promote overly distinct classes in a society and keeping immigrants down at the bottom of the ladder.

814. Toonloon - September 4, 2013

You’re referring to Eastern European thugs and to my knowledge, STID isn’t about them.

As Soren said in Generations, “nice try”,

815. Toonloon - September 4, 2013

Oh, and thanks for proving my point K7 about not wishing to see the social commentary in STID. How ironic.

816. Jazu - September 4, 2013

Wow, Bob Orci, your rude responses suggest that you are defensive, and therefore, find this article’s opinion valid. :)

817. Disinvited - September 4, 2013

#788. Robman007 – September 4, 2013

Thanks for the back up, but I’m willing to concede that ENTERPRISE is regarded in the same light even though personally, I came to cherish what Manny was able to bring to fruition. For me, ENTERPRISE did what I frustratingly hoped Allen’s LOST IN SPACE would eventually have done, and oddly enough both showed glimmers in their third season. But ENTERPRISE turned it around in its fourth. I might have been ambivalent if it had been cancelled in seasons’ prior but Coto had me thirsting for more.

818. DiscoSpock - September 4, 2013

K-7 and Toonloon,

Rent, download or buy “The Land of Blood and Honey.” That movie will make you change the way you feel about Europe forever.

The fact that modem Europe stood by AGAIN (i.e. after Stalin and Hitler) and allowed mass race killings to take place on the continent is just plain unforgivable.

819. dmduncan - September 4, 2013

Maybe the title of this thread should be:

Star Trek is fixed—Here are ideas on how to break it.

820. Toonloon - September 4, 2013

Discospock – rent, download or buy Star Trek Into Darkness.

821. DiscoSpock - September 4, 2013

800. Yea, exactly, that’s the point.

822. Jazu - September 4, 2013

I can’t fucking even believe Bob Orci called himself out ‘loving parent’. That’s kind of messed up. We are children acting out? Because we have valid opinions and issues with the movie? Yup, total children. And yes you I guess are like a parent by exercising absolute authority of the fanbase by telling us our opinions mean nothing because we are too young, and that we should go to bed early without supper.

Stop thinking of Star Trek fans as misguided children, please. It’s sick and wrong. How about treating us as, I dunno, real human beings deserving respect. This article was very respectful, and full of good points, and you took offense.

823. Dennis C - September 4, 2013

Next Trek to Shoot Outside of L.A. (The Hollywood Reporter)

“Paramount also will look to save money on another Star Trek — a franchise, but not quite in the top tier. This summer’s $190 million production Star Trek Into Darkness has earned over $462 million worldwide; its international haul has exceeded expectations at $234 million, but domestically, its $228.5 million hasn’t matched the first film. Whereas the first two were shot in L.A., the next will be filmed in a more tax-friendly location. “We’re making it for what it should have been shot for last time if we had made it outside of L.A., which we would have done except that [director J.J. Abrams] didn’t want to,” says a studio source. “That was a $20 million issue.” (Abrams, busy with Star Wars, is unavailable for the third Trek.)”

LINK: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-box-office-bombs-studios-619389?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_breakingnews_confirmed&utm_campaign=THR%20Breaking%20News

824. NuFan - September 4, 2013

They can also knock another 20M off the budget if they skip the 3D

825. Toonloon - September 4, 2013

Might not have been as good without JJ though and it could have cost them more than 20 million in lost rentals. Typical studio mentality.

826. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@787. Jim, London,
“Star Trek is not broken – the box office figures for Into Darkness show that. The next film very much needs to be …”

Agreed. But …

and my apologies for making an example of your post, but it’s sorta perfect –

On the one hand fans point out correctly that Star Trek is not broken. On the other, they immediately begin offering advice for ‘fixing’ it.

I can’t help but laugh. No offense, I do it too …

If Star Trek is not broken, and the box office numbers are proof, why do the filmmakers need any input from anyone into making the next one?

Based on the poll numbers taken over the last four years on this very website, they did not listen to us for the last one about Khan and numerous other issues. Considering how well it did at the box office, do we really think they will listen next time, or that our input will really improve the box office numbers if they did?

Seems like if our justification for Trek’s success are the box office results, then we should all sit back and just wait to see what they do next, assured that Star Trek is not broken and we don’t need to fix what’s not broken.

827. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@802. Dennis C

Thanks for the link.

So it seem that because Abrams didn’t want to move to another place, they add $20 million to the budget!! Guess that why Disney overruled him when he wanted to stay in LA.

828. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@ 804. Toonloon – September 4, 2013

“Might not have been as good without JJ though and it could have cost them more than 20 million in lost rentals. Typical studio mentality.”

You are aware there are lot of good movie directors in Hollywood, right ?

829. NuFan - September 4, 2013

805
Seems like if our justification for Trek’s success are the box office results, then we should all sit back and just wait to see what they do next, assured that Star Trek is not broken and we don’t need to fix what’s not broken.

Now you get it. Finally.

830. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@804. Toonloon,
“Might not have been as good without JJ though and it could have cost them more than 20 million in lost rentals.”

JJ did STID and it cost them over 45 million domestically (adjusted). Looks like they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

831. Vultan - September 4, 2013

I liked the social commentary about the military industrial complex and members of Starfleet conspiring to make war with the Klingons… over 20 years ago with Star Trek VI.

The problem I have with STID is there wasn’t much new about it. Yeah, sure, Khan working for Crazy Admiral #782. Guess that was something, but Khan was essentially the same old jerk he’s always been. Still wrathful. Still arrogant. Just a little more skull crushy.

832. Phil - September 4, 2013

@802. Good link – I had commented elsewhere that one of the things delaying an announcement of Trek 3 could be the budget negotiations were still being hashed out.

– Agreed on the tax issue. It’s not just a question of a few bucks, the tax
situation is bad in CA, and stifling in Los Angeles County. While the
studios continue to stay here, most productions are shot elsewhere
these days.
– Dump 3D. Still a gimmick, and 3D sales are falling.
– Lighten up on the CGI. The volcano, Klingon chase, Vengeance crash,
and the Spock vs. Khan beatdown were all effects that were done
because there was money to spend, they contributed little to the story.

833. Toonloon - September 4, 2013

No Ahmed. JJ Abrahms is the only one I’ve ever heard of.

834. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@806. Ahmed,
“So it seem that because Abrams didn’t want to move to another place, they add $20 million to the budget!! Guess that why Disney overruled him when he wanted to stay in LA.”

And isn’t it interesting he was willing to do it for Star Wars and not Star Trek.

That’s why Disney knows they have Abrams. They know if he folded on the issue of filming outside of LA, then he likely wants to do Star Wars more than they want him to do it.

It’s a sad day for LA though. Star Trek was one of the few franchise films being produced in Los Angeles. The only major film shooting in LA this Summer was Captain America 2, and even that shot two of its four months in DC and Cleveland. A lot of people are going to lose their livelihood because of this trend.

835. Phil - September 4, 2013

@810. Nah, Picard had the crazy admiral back in Insurrection.

Sadly, there was enough visual clues on Kirks joyride in Klingon space to fetch Khan to suggest that the next outing will probably forward to some mashup of The Undiscovered Country. If O & K go that route odds are good that will also be a less then satisfying picture, too.

836. Fenrir767 - September 4, 2013

@764 TNG was arguably the Pinnacle of Trek especially on TV it was a rating juggernaut and attracted a lot of great, actors and guest starts.

Unfortunately TNG doesn’t have the same memorable one liners as TOS and there lacks that presence in pop culture that is held by TOS.

The reason why Trek died in the 90′s was Berman and Braga and the powers that be that ran it into the ground. TNG proved that moving forward could be a success when executed right however after 3 failed tries post TNG you can understand Paramount deciding to not try again and instead saw the success that Reboots were having and decided to go that route.

837. Disinvited - September 4, 2013

#806. Ahmed – September 4, 2013

But here’s the kicker: Abrams will be in another presumably more tax encouraging place to film STAR WARS which means he will be available to film STAR TREK there if Paramount really is determine to realize these new location savings. Personally, I don’t see how Paramount can cost effectively use the LA sets AND enjoy cost savings at a different location simultaneously. These means minimizing internal shots – maybe by resorting to extreme close ups. The bridge action is going to have to move to the auxiliary bridge which means the Enterprise gets pummeled again perhaps as Matt Decker’s ship was in THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE.

838. Spock's Bangs - September 4, 2013

#815 “@764 TNG was arguably the Pinnacle of Trek especially on TV”

I’d say dial that back about 10 years to the Trek fever of the 70′s. Trek was everywhere and was branded on everything !

839. Vultan - September 4, 2013

#814

Yeah, they showed what looked like Praxis having already exploded. So… it’s not mentioned in the story…? Kind of a big deal in TUC. Now it’s just a cute Easter egg…? Okay….

840. Toonloon - September 4, 2013

Not quite. It’s a subtle echo of the main plot and proof of Ad Marcus’ fears. The Klingons were gearing up for war and just like they did in STVI they have caused Praxis to explode. Nero’s arrival changed everything.

841. Aurore - September 4, 2013

@ 745. Basement Blogger – September 4, 2013

“….You have strange ways to amuse yourself….”
_______

Typical.

You are so judgemental. SOoOoOo… prejudiced!

“…Soon, we’ll have to take a break from all the fighting…..”

Wait…”all the fighting”? Where?

:)

“….Let’s do it sometime after post one thousand….”

Why wait?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Wg6k9cWhM

842. Neal - September 4, 2013

Into Darkness was a great movie. I would never put it at the same level as The Final Frontier or Nemesis. That being said, it wasn’t better than Wrath of Khan. It set the bar as far as I am concerned. It had character. It had story. I understand that writers in Hollywood have a lot of pressure on them but the team that has been in charge of writing the last two films need to grow some balls and start writing original stories and not trying to rehash old stories and villains. The biggest problem that I feel they have is that they are continually trying to please Trek fans and non Trek fans at the same time. I’m sure that is just as difficult as writing an original story but take the death scene from TWOK and flipping it around and putting in the movie isn’t going to make Trek fans happy. Every time I see that scene, it takes me out of the movie. The first time I saw it, my first thought was, “Really? You’re going there?” It didn’t have the same impact as that original scene. When Spock dies, it has some finality to it. You feel the loss that Kirk feels. In Into Darkness….I don’t know how to word it….but it just doesn’t feel right. Other than that I loved how they showed how the destruction of Vulcan affected things. I like how they brought in a paranoid Fleet Admiral who went looking for threats to the Federation, found Khan, and used him to “protect” the Federation. It had promise of originality but feel flat when they decided to throw in some past Star Trek lore for the helluva it. That’s how it felt to me.

For everyone clamoring for a movie about exploration and philosophy…it won’t work. You see, that’s the curse of TWOK. It’s considered the greats Trek movie of all time yet it has nothing to do with exploration. Star Trek has to come back to TV to get what we want. Shatner is completely and totally right. I hope it happens sooner than later.

I hope I didn’t ramble too much but the articles is right in some ways, Star Trek needs to find it’s footing. You either go balls to wall and shoot for originality or you try to make fans that have been around for 45 years happy. I hope they find the balance.

843. Toonloon - September 4, 2013

Nice one Neal. I agree with 85% of what you said. I think it IS ballsy to retread such hallowed ground. If I’m totally honest, the death scene is the least effective for me. It’s what a director I worked with once would call “a good idea” and he was always wary of “good ideas”.

844. Phil - September 4, 2013

@821. It felt contrived. Patronizing. Does that help?

845. Phil - September 4, 2013

@816. Toronto. New Zealand. Pretty much anywhere outside of CA. This isn’t a new phenomena, and Canada has been very active in poaching work that Sacramento and LA has pushed out the door.

http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/l-a-mayor-declares-state-of-emergency-as-movie-tv-production-flees-hollywood-1200589182/

846. Vultan - September 4, 2013

#821

I don’t know about philosophy, but Raiders of the Lost Ark had plenty of exploration along with everything else. So yes, it CAN work.

847. NuFan - September 4, 2013

816

Paramount shoots on its own lot for free.They are moving the location shooting only.

848. Christian2508 - September 4, 2013

CONTACT MANY COTO PLEASE!!!!
Dexter is over now and he has made one of the best Star Trek Seasons ever (ENT S: 4).

He could help to make a sophisticated movie, like he did it before on TV.

i wish, that someone of the producers or writers read this and will contact Mr. COTO for some inspiration, help or just involvement :.)

849. Phil - September 4, 2013

@825. Last Crusade fits the bill, too. RDJ’s Sherlock Holmes outings were not dumb movies, and had plenty of action and intrigue.

850. Vultan - September 4, 2013

#828

Agreed!

851. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

This news from Paramount on the next Trek movie confirms what I told so many of you back in June who were bitching and bemoaning about “why won’t the green-light and announce the sequel”…wah, wah, wah, wah. :-)

You should recall that I said then that the sequel was of course already a done deal, and that they were of course already planning the next one, and that an announcement wasn’t necessary.

And here we learn today that they are already budgeting the next movie and looking at primary filming locations…well, duh — EXACTLY AS I SAID BACK IN JUNE.

When are people going to learn here — just listen to me when I give these major pronouncements and predictions on these movies. I am seldom wrong on these. Why fight me? It’s not worth it. Just get with the program and accept what I tell you. :-)

852. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@799 “Maybe the title of this thread should be: Star Trek is fixed—Here are ideas on how to break it.”

Well said, DM.

853. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

Not a Nutrek Sheep,

I think I speak for a lot of us here, in that I will be happy to accept your apology and overlook your recent bad behavior, PROVIDED that you come clean on your identity. Moreover, I would recommend that you simply move back to your regular identity, because your new name basically says to many of us, “FU TO ANYONE WHO LIKES NUTREK” — this handle is a rude, “in your face”, asinine insult to people who just share a different opinion than you on nuTrek movies.

Do the right thing here, and then let’s move on with no hard hard feelings, and get back to more civil discussions, including having more fun here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
773. Not a Nutrek Sheep – September 4, 2013

So, for now, I am done. Again I apologize to Red Dead Ryan, MJ, Keachick, Jonboc, pock speared, DiscoSpock and anyone else I pi$$ed off. You can accept the apology or not, it doesn’t matter. But please try to temper your comments to those with opposing view points. And for those of us who disagree with each other let’s try and take a breath before we see how witty we can be in an insulting come-back.

854. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@MJ

The Hollywood Reporter doesn’t say anything regarding the shooting schedule or who is going to be the director. It is simply an article about the bad effect of this crappy summer movies on future movies budget.

Paramount is fast tracking WWZ 2 while taking its time with the next Trek movie. The problem is not if they are going to make a 3rd one but when they will start the production.

855. Disinvited - September 4, 2013

#826. NuFan – September 4, 2013

I agree but I doubt they can film there TAX free which is what the Paramount source seemed to be looking at.

856. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@826. NuFan,
“Paramount shoots on its own lot for free.They are moving the location shooting only.”

No they don’t. And where did you get that information?

First, what locations? It’s a scifi movie, mostly interiors and green screens. The few real locations they did do, won’t save them 20 million.

Second, they will have to find a new Bud-geneering which is a location in CA — which is why using a location as an established set piece is always a bad idea.

Third, Paramount rents its facilities to any production, including their own, at standard industry rates. It’s also a union lot, so they have to pay union rates. And they have to pay California taxes, so they have to charge CA taxes. And as I recall, STID shot at Sony anyway.

The whole point of shooting in another state or country in addition to the tax breaks, is also to save labor costs where unions do not have jurisdiction. From the grips to the extras, they save millions during a typical four month film shoot, even if they have to put key personnel up in hotels.

And often to qualify for those tax breaks a certain percentage of the movie must be shot there, along with a certain percentage of local hires.

Shipping the sets is negligible, especially when you consider Paramount must pay to store those sets between movies — that’s not free either. Better to ship them to Louisiana, and leave them there where storage is cheaper.

857. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@833.

Ahmed, just listen to me dude. The sequel is a done deal and they are already planning for it. You are way too hung up on these press release things.

Suit yourself though if you need that sort of artificial media stuff to be convinced.

858. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@835 “First, what locations? It’s a scifi movie, mostly interiors and green screens. The few real locations they did do, won’t save them 20 million.”

There you go again, just making shit up.

859. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

MJ,

I just love to have the press release in my hand to believe it, I’m an old fashioned guy when it come to that :)

I hope they will move the production to Toronto or Vancouver, closer to my place :)

860. Keachick - September 4, 2013

#588 – “They were never fans of Star Trek or that it was too intelligent for them so they purposely dumbed down the movies to make them more accessible or that they must assume some sort of “parental” role over the fans…”

No, that is what YOU (and others like you) are and have been saying. What Abrams said was that he “did not get it”. Star Trek was “too intelligent” for whom – Abrams or much of the public?

If you mean Abrams, Burke et al – you have got to be kidding – Abrams has a well above average intellect, as I suspect all those who work with him have as well. Of course, they “got it”, in terms of intellectually understanding any of the Star Trek episodes and movies that they watched. It is just that Abrams said that he didn’t “get” it…

Let me explain – I don’t “get” the TV series, The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire or Mad Men. My BH (my abbrev. for better half aka husband, Chris) does “get” much of Boardwalk Empire.

I have watched one or two episodes from each series and I understood the stories being told. I also noted how well the stories were told, especially in The Sopranos and Mad Men. I also noted how well acted they were and how good the production values were. I understood how it was quite possible for these two series, along with some of the actors, to receive Emmy nominations and even an Award or two.

However, I just don’t “get” how these programmes could be so popular and could have the kind of following they seem to have. I don’t like them or, at best, I am indifferent to them. I think that similar applies or applied to JJ Abrams and even more so to Bryan Burke and that is what JJ Abrams was relating and what’s more, it is a view shared by millions of other people. I don’t think that Chris Pine “got it” either and he is not stupid.

There is no need to “dumb down” or indeed, “elevate” anything. I am not sure just what is so very different in this movie series from what was shown in any of the TOS iterations, except for these two (Abrams) movies being done with the latest special effects etc that is available to movie makers in Hollywood and there being a bit more fast paced and often violent action sequences. Star Trek (TOS TV and movies) also had similar sequences and, especially with the movies, also used the latest special effects film making techniques available to them at the time – 25-30 years ago.

All sci-fi type action movies (as well as others not of the sci-fi genre) are faster paced and show more bloody punch ups, people being kicked and kicked and kicked (Khan kicking Kirk on the USS Vengeance), explosions, modes of transportation chases (cars and starships)… Same or similar is also occurring on the small screen, especially with the latest fad of showing autopsies being done with victims shown in all their genuine nakedness, gore and glory (and people stress over a woman in underwear). So, it seems that it is a sin to show skin, but not *someone’s innards…holy moly.

My point is – this is what “all the rage is” right now. Hopefully, the worst will pass because audiences and film makers get sick of seeing and doing this stuff. In the past, we had the oh-so cool masculine John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Marlin Brando types vocally drawling their way through dialogue and stinking up a set or a version of the US outback (or whatever) with the foul-smelling tobacco that any man, who wanted to hang on to his “mancard”, would smoke on and off set.

Hi, Chris Pine (ref. your interview with Out Magazine) – LOL
Still love ya, cain’t help myself!

Fads, people, fads.

Star Trek ain’t broke – just can’t help but be subject, to a greater or lesser degree, to the prevailing fads.

* or realistic representations of such.

861. Zanzibar - September 4, 2013

That is brilliant, Anthony and painfully honest. It was also reaffirming: I’m relieved I’m not the only “old-timer” , er, ahem, legacy aficionado, who was offended by the “fan service.” I didn’t even know the expression, “fan service.” But that’ what it felt like in STID, which is an unfortunate acronym. I thought it was not just poorly executed, but cynical and mean spirited.

I think they should stay with the ship and the crew from the 09 movie — which was a gas~ But do what you said, go exploring, get into trouble, get out of trouble, learn something, bond, be heroic in spite of grave doubt. There’s plenty of room in the final frontier for new ideas that new worlds and new civilizations inspire. And thanks for mentioning the Horta … one of the best stories.I’m gonna go watch that as soon as I finish this.

TOS did it with plywood sets and cheezy SFX on a shoestring. I think the write script and the write producer (sic) could pull it off with the senior officers we now have.

I hope Paramount goes for a 3rd movie after this disappointment. I just saw it advertised on iTunes for 19.99 and thought, they should put a bargain price on it and sell it as eye candy … because it is a gorgeous film. And a new TV series as well, why TF not?

862. Thomas - September 4, 2013

Star Trek is not broken. It is the Fans who are broken.

I’m not trying to be insulting or anything but it’s pretty clear that the Fans have been divided long before J.J. Abrams ever made a Star Trek movie. There are those Fans who think Star Trek Enterprise is complete garbage or Star Trek Voyager is a total joke and they have every right to because everyone has a right to an opinion. It’s just too bad it can’t remain as a simple opinion.

The problem here is that people take their opinion and treat it as absolute fact. If someone says they liked Star Trek Enterprise then chances are some other Fan will laugh and insult that person. The person who doesn’t like Enterprise will look down on the Fan who does and probably come to the conclusion that the Enterprise Fan isn’t a “real” Star Trek Fan and Star Trek Enterprise isn’t “real” Star Trek.

That is a complete load. You have the right to not like Enterprise, Voyager or any other spin off series that might come to life, but you don’t have to be an ass. I’m sick and tired of this inane superiority complex a lot of Fans are spewing as of late. Everyone interprets Star Trek differently and you shouldn’t criticize people for liking something that you personally don’t.

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations

All the Star Trek series and movies offer something different. Philosophy, Comedy, Action, etc. There is always something for someone. In some cases a series, episode or movie will focus on one theme more than the other and I personally think that’s ok. People say Into Darkness didn’t have enough “Trek” in Star Trek but what kind of “Trek” was in everybody’s favorite Wrath of Khan?

Star Trek The Motion Picture involved the crew of the Enterprise encountering a mysterious sentient super being and their attempt to learn where it came from and specifically what motivates it. Fans thought it was absolutely boring. So here comes Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. A nifty movie with a villain out for revenge which ends with a cool submarine style space battle. Looks like in this case action won out over “seek out new life”.

I suppose TWoK is more of a philosophical journey, specifically a man coping with the fact he is growing old and a new generation will soon replace him. It’s kind of ironic that that is considered the best Star Trek, yet the Fans don’t realize that the theme of that movie draws direct parallels with their own Fanbase. News flash: You’re Old. Again, I’m not trying to be insulting but the fact of the matter is Star Trek is some 47 years old. In order for it to remain relevant it needed a shot of adrenaline to attract the younger crowed or “Next Generation” of Fans.

New Fans have probably never seen TWoK so when they saw Into Darkness they were introduced to Khan for the first time. They also didn’t know the death scene was a recreation of the one from TWoK. That was probably the point of all of that. It was supposed to be an homage to the original, one that the old Fans would recognize and appreciate while simultaneously introducing the new Fans to the themes and emotions of the original. Why is that such a bad thing?

Personally I love ALL Star Trek. I can sit down and watch any of the movies and that includes Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. I can see why it’s not the best movie in the universe but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying it. I’m also currently in the process of re-watching Star Trek Enterprise and I’m absolutely loving it. Some hate the show with a passion but I don’t care. I like it and that doesn’t make me any less of a Star Trek fan than the haters. I also love Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness. They are, in my opinion, great movies.

Everyone’s opinion is different. The sooner some people learn that the better life will be. So you didn’t personally like this movie or TV show. Ok fine, but stop crying online and telling everyone that your interpretation of Star Trek is better than someone elses. Stop trying to say Star Trek is “broken” because it didn’t meet YOUR expectations. Star Trek has many things to offer and different movies and shows will appeal to many different people. Let the fans enjoy this series while it lasts. In a few years it will change into something else and maybe you’ll enjoy that. Maybe you won’t. That’s life and you’re just going to have to accept the fact that things change.

Sorry for the long rant.

863. Phil - September 4, 2013

Locations? Dodger Stadium, the Brewery, Cal State Northridge, the list goes on and on…and those sites cost money.

Speaking of which, how bout them Dodgers….

864. Keachick - September 4, 2013

#749 – “the character wasn’t even written correctly. Khan was NOT a genocidal lunatic out to kill everything that is inferior…”

BTW, I do not think that your writing is necessarily superior to anyone else’s.

I did not get from STID that this Harrison/Khan was a genocidal lunatic. All he said was that he was superior in every way. Those are not the same things. Harrison/Khan proved that he could be very cruel to those who used/abused him (Admiral Marcus) and to those he believed worked alongside or took orders from Marcus, like Kirk and the Enterprise crew. He stood on Carol’s leg and broke it, because not only was she an Enterprise crew member, she was also Admiral Marcus’s daughter…Khan was exacting revenge on Marcus and those directly under his command which is why he attempted (and almost succeeded) to destroy the Enterprise.

If he had achieved that destruction, I am not certain what he might have done next. Was he a person who saw himself as a great prince and ruler of an empire, a sort of benign dictator? – Yes. Was he or could he a genocidal lunatic? – Not sure – the “jury” is out on that one.

865. Red Dead Ryan - September 4, 2013

Yet another “classic” rambling rant from Keachick. :-)

MJ, you are so right about the the next film. You called it correctly!

As for Curious Cadet, he ought to work for the tabloids. He’s pretty good at taking a few facts, and making up a bogus story to fit around them. :-)

866. Basement Blogger - September 4, 2013

@ 820

Aurore,

Shirley Bassey was great at last year’s Oscars. And at twenty nine, she looked fabulous. :-)

Okay, how about some more dancing Khan? Here’s Ricardo Montalban with Cyd Charisse. I think it’s from “On an Island with You.” (1948) Seriously, I had no idea that Khan… er Ricardo Montalban can dance like this. I wish Khan, I mean Ricardo Montalban did more musicals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MphSSn5iFfQ

867. Keachick - September 4, 2013

#767 MikeM -

I realize that saying to someone that they continue drinking that kool-aid is a rebuff or even a bit of a veiled insult. I have never drunk kool-aid. In fact, I did not even know what kool-aid was until I read the word being used on this and other US sites some three or four years back.

I rarely drink sodas – kool-aid etc. We call them soft drinks here. They are just coloured fizzy sugar water which are either bad for diabetics to drink or likely give people diabetes, if consumed in large enough quantities over a period of time. I can’t stand most of them anyway, so, no thank you, I will not go on drinking the kool-aid because I never bothered to do so in the first place.

However, I believe that Curious Cadet got the point I was making but also reminded me that there is another way of looking at the issues involved, without resorting to smart-ass comments as to my (non-existant) kool-aid drinking. I am aware of the various issues and I do understand them. I am cognizant of Jai’s frustration in particular.

I do think it would have been better if Benedict Cumberbatch had simply been John Harrison – white English dude. I was quite happy with a guy whose name was John Harrison being the villain. What I found so *fascinating* (if that’s the right word) were all the various posts on IMDb Star Trek Sequel message board and here also, slamming the name John Harrison as not being a proper villain’s name. The total schlock bs that I have read…this would have to be one of the better ones, but it is a tough call to make, to be sure….LOL

Bob Orci – Please tell us you love all of us anyway…:)

868. Devon - September 4, 2013

Dumbest. Article. Ever.

TrekMOVIE is broken.

869. zeedox - September 4, 2013

I honestly think Viacom never understood Star Trek when they bought Paramount. I don’t think fans should have to be on the same effort as the companies attempt at mainstreaming for business. In this age of Phase II, and the other fan made things, if these greedy folks supported some of these efforts even a small bit they could have both.

870. Keachick - September 4, 2013

#865 – Why do you need to take that potshot at one of my posts? I assume you are referring to my post #860. Not constructive. Not nice.

Other people write posts as long, if not longer and the posters can be pretty adamant about what they are writing. To me, other posters often ramble and even rant as well sometimes.

871. boborci - September 4, 2013

867 KEachick

YOu know I love you all. Every one’s in a while, even Spock loses his cool;)

872. Phil - September 4, 2013

A proper villain’s name – I missed that conversation. Is there something wrong with Snidely Whiplash?

873. Keachick - September 4, 2013

Paramount/Bad Robot are not obliged to announce anything about if or when the next Star Trek movie will be made. It is their call, whether any of us like it or not.

However, what I can recall reading (I think it may have from Bob Orci himself on this site) that various schedules are being worked out so that the third movie can be brought to big screens everywhere, hopefully coinciding with Star Trek’s 50th Anniversary in 2016.

Once again – people…PATIENCE!

874. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@ 871. Phil – September 4, 2013

“A proper villain’s name – I missed that conversation. Is there something wrong with Snidely Whiplash?”

The hero & villain’s names MUST be a WASP name, according to Hollywood :)

875. Vultan - September 4, 2013

The villain’s name doesn’t have to be British, but the actor certainly does.

876. T'Cal - September 4, 2013

Amazing! Nearly 900 posts that will resolve nothing. Whine, whine, whine. Piss and moan. Bitch, bitch, bitch. The movie was successful. It worked to the tune of $462M before disc sales. Grow up. It wasn’t a perfect film but it was tighter than the vast majority of other Trek (and non-Trek hits) that are wrought with plot holes, flaws, and mistakes. This one was fun, funny, sad, action-packed, and tense, and it was a successful homage to the best Trek film ever – TWoK.

877. Phil - September 4, 2013

@872. Actually, they do. An annoying group of people called shareholders are not all that hot on uncertainty, and nothing screams uncertainty more then investors not knowing what is going on. When the budget and creative team get nailed down, then we will know. Until then, we wait.

878. Colin - September 4, 2013

Keachick,

In the film, Spock states that Khan was responsible for the genocide of non-Augments. For me, this is a retcon of the character who, in the original, didn’t massacre people.

Something I have come to dislike from fans who like this movie is the attitude expressed in this paragraph.

“I’m beginning to think a lot of the film’s critics, namely the die-hard Trekkie’s who voiced displeasure with the movie, completely let the allegorical message of this film go right over the top of their heads. I can only assume the intense action scenes, coupled with a fairly relentless pace is what caused some to miss the overall theme of Into Darkness.”

Read more at http://whatculture.com/film/5-reasons-star-trek-into-darkness-is-a-truly-great-star-trek-film.php#w6d6jKdgocw74ghs.99

So, because I don’t like this film, I am dense. Nice.

I feel that Bob Orci has poisoned the well more than it had to be. I feel that he should have stayed above the fray. Instead, he waded into the fray and declared that there were bad and good children. Yes, I am not letting this go. I am deeply offended by this man’s words. I don’t like being talked to in such a condenscending and patronizing fashion. Our money is an investment into the future of this franchise.

I am not someone who gets into a tizzy over technology. We have had long distance beamng since the first series (“Assignment: Earth”). My issues were with the character development and arcs and the story itself. I find myself at a loss to explain how or why a loving father would kill himself and tens of others to save his daughter. The nature of choices wasn’t explained. What would Khan do if he decided to turn against him? What would happen to his daughter if the hospital found out that he injected an exotic blood type into her to save her life? He said he was coerced. How was he coerced? Nothing was explained. Movies depict killing as an easy act. It’s not easy, and for a person who is mentally healthy is incredibly difficult to commit such an act. This was when I began to lose my interest in this story.

Later, in the story, we are told that Khan was revived because his savage nature would help Starfleet in the coming war with the Klingons. I am not going to discuss this inherent prejudice – that people who lived in the past were savages – that was constantly on display whenever an enlightened Starfleet officer spoke about the past. The issue I have was that a person who lived and fought on a planet 300 years ago would have value to someone who is living in a culture with starships and interstellar wars. I don’t buy it. Khan was a relic. If they wanted him to have relevance, why not make him a person who fought in Earth’s early space wars?

Finally, when I was watching the battle in Earth’s orbit, I was asking myself, where was the fleet? Where was the station? This station is positioned over the Northern Hemisphere, over the North American continent. It seems that when there is a major disturbance in the system – Narada entering the system and this battle – the station and ships mysteriously disappeared.

879. Keachick - September 4, 2013

#870 – I am not referring to your use of a few F words the other day. I realize that it is not your usual behaviour, as do most, if not all, should also understand. I am glad that you vented. Perhaps for that poster, he may have felt unfairly got at, but I understood your frustration. I, too, had felt frustrated by some of the comments that he (and others) have been continually making ever since STID was released. Many of the criticisms began even before people could see the movie in its entirety. Now that’s not fair – not to me.

Just while I think of it – please ignore what MJ and others have said about you and Alex planking or whatever it’s called. I think what you both were photographed doing was simply lying flat, face down and just letting go for 10 minutes or whatever time it was. It was a good, healthy practice to do and such a practice should be encouraged among workers and students in order to help relieve mental and physical tiredness and stress and all that can come from being overly tired and/or stressed – accidents, mistakes, sickness.

I want to see some “planking”.

Keep up the good work, Bob and co.
Good man!

Take “my captain”…to Menosia!

880. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@863. Phil,
“Locations? Dodger Stadium, the Brewery, Cal State Northridge, the list goes on and on…and those sites cost money.”

Really they shot at Dodger Stadium? What did they shoot there?

As I recall the brewery didn’t cost them anything, it was part of the product placement deal. And if they want that tax credit, they better find themselves another brewery in whatever state or country they’re shooting in. Oh yeah, and then there’s Lawrence Livermore … So much for taking the engineering set with them.

Even so, it’s hard to imagine those locations adding up to 20 million. I havent seen the budget, but generally my understanding is location fees are the least expensive aspect of any shooting day. A union crew in Los Angeles is going to be the most expensive part of any day, especially when they hit 12 hours … That’s what they save by going out of LA, along with those sizeable tax credits — they still have to pay location fees wherever they go, and more than likely, one professional baseball stadium is going to cost as much as another whether in LA or Atlanta.

But you’re right, they did shoot at a lot of locations, San Francisco, London, et al. My apologies for overstating the matter. Doesn’t mean they will shoot in as many locations in the next movie though. Of course they could also shoot in more. Bottom line is, that’s not why they are going out of LA.

881. philip - September 4, 2013

Well, I guess we can knock TMP then considering the Enterprise was the ONLY starship sent to intercept the intruder even though it was on a direct course for Starfleet command eh? This is the thing, there are plot holes in every Trek film… Why did the Borg only send one stinking cube in First Contact when had they sent 3-4 there’s no way the Federation could have handled that onslaught?

How was the Enterprise still allowed to reach genesis even after the Excelsior’s warp drive was sabotaged? Are we to believe the Excelsior was the only other ship Starfleet had to intercept a Captain breaking orders? Please…. But, it served to advance that story so we dealt with it…

Start nitpicking the hell out of all the other Trek films before you waste time nitpicking the latest one. It’s Science-Fiction, not Science fact… Also, don’t forget, there are budget limitations too which prevent all out epic space battles from occurring as well.

882. Harry Ballz - September 4, 2013

@870 “Every one’s in a while”

Even after a few drinks, Bob Orci’s spelling is better than THAT!

883. Ahmed - September 4, 2013

@ 878. Keachick – September 4, 2013

“#870 – I am not referring to your use of a few F words the other day. I realize that it is not your usual behaviour, as do most, if not all, should also understand. I am glad that you vented. Perhaps for that poster, he may have felt unfairly got at, but I understood your frustration. I, too, had felt frustrated by some of the comments that he (and others) have been continually making ever since STID was released. Many of the criticisms began even before people could see the movie in its entirety.”

lol, so you are assuming that the “haters” didn’t bother to see STID before they voiced their criticisms.

I don’t know about about you, maybe you like to do that with other movies, to criticize something before you see it, but I don’t do that. Simply because it is so stupid to make a judgement about a movie that you didn’t see with your own eyes.

btw, you may want to stop defending the establishment all the time. Bob & others can take care of themselves.

884. Curious Cadet - September 4, 2013

@880. philip,
“This is the thing, there are plot holes in every Trek film…”

That’s not a valid excuse. Just because Trek films of the past were poorly written doesn’t mean new ones shouldn’t strive to be better. That’s just being lazy.

———————
“Start nitpicking the hell out of all the other Trek films before you waste time nitpicking the latest one.”

I’m pretty sure that’s the definition of a Star Trek fan. Those films have long been nit picked to death, so I’m not sure who you are addressing here? STID is simply next on the list.

885. Red Dead Ryan - September 4, 2013

Actually, I do think Paramount needs to officially announce a release date for the next movie, but only after a director is hired. Certainly I hope that negotiations and planning are well underway…..otherwise the anniversary date will be missed.

I think the fans have every right to know…..especially after the delays last time.

Other studios release the dates for their movies, so why should it be any different for Paramount and Star Trek?

886. Who cares - September 4, 2013

@877 In Space Seed Khan figured out how to operate the entire ship well enough to temporarily take over in just a few days with the help of technical manuals, in STID Khan has had a year for his enhanced mind to assimilate to 24th century technology, he is most certainly no relic in either timeline. Khan also taught his people enough about that tech during their exile on Ceti Alpha 5 that they were able to effortlessly take over Reliant, again only with those few days of studying the manuals to give him what he taught them.

887. Dismayed - September 4, 2013

That’s funny, I was just picturing him on an airplane heading somewhere exotic, knocking back Cuba libre #3 as he types replies to us all. It made me smile.

888. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@878 “Just while I think of it – please ignore what MJ and others have said about you and Alex planking or whatever it’s called.”

Huh? It’s been like 3 fracking years since I posted about that. LOL. You make it sound like Bob is having post-tramatic stress over my planking criticism posts from 2010. THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!

889. Keachick - September 4, 2013

#877 – “In the film, Spock states that Khan was responsible for the genocide of non-Augments. For me, this is a retcon of the character who, in the original, didn’t massacre people.”

I cannot recall prime Spock stating that but I will take your word for it, because it has been more than three months since I saw the film.

I happen to agree with the article in the link you posted, including the paragraph you quoted. I can examples of what the article’s writer was referring to right here –

#798 -“Star Trek Into Darkness is a bad film. Starting with a terrible title, the film features ham-fisted dramatics, clunky plot devices, lazy screenwriting, ill-fitting action scenes, and a pretty awful, scenery-chewing performance from Benedict Cumberbatch as Trek’s greatest villain.”

Link to rest of the above quote at #801.

Then there is the entire post #811.

Not one of these posts mentions anything about allegorical significance or otherwise of this movie. The posts and quotes pick on what they see as being so important and yet are trivial in terms of what the overall story of this movie was trying to tell.

Once you seriously think about the actual main plot of the movie, as I had to in order to write my plot summation at post #430 on this thread, then certain elements that may relate to what has happened since 9/11/01 can become apparent. However, it also means that you have to put aside all the diversions and delightful distractions that the movie does take a person –
like the fantastic scene of the Enterprise rising out of an alien ocean, Bones being mildly flirtatious with an attractive woman, cat-ladies and seeing a vinyl record playing on a turntable, and blood with unusual and life-giving properties…

because all these and more help make up a great movie, but they are trivial in terms of the main story getting told.

Not being able to see and understand any possible allegory does not mean a person is dense – you said that of yourself btw – no one else. Most Star Trek operates on multiple levels and this latest movie is no exception. I think that is what many of its most vocal critics do not properly appreciate.

890. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@875 “Amazing! Nearly 900 posts that will resolve nothing. Whine, whine, whine. Piss and moan. Bitch, bitch, bitch. The movie was successful. It worked to the tune of $462M before disc sales. Grow up. It wasn’t a perfect film but it was tighter than the vast majority of other Trek (and non-Trek hits) that are wrought with plot holes, flaws, and mistakes. This one was fun, funny, sad, action-packed, and tense, and it was a successful homage to the best Trek film ever – TWoK.”

Well said!

891. Dismayed - September 4, 2013

I really liked STID, but holy crap have you guys seen Now You See Me? I loved that movie too. At the end I was surprised to see Orci and Kurtzman listed as producers, didn’t know they were doing that now. I still can’t get over the awesome intro that movie has, and the secretly sentimental part of me loved the ending. Everything in between was just awesome. I don’t have the words to describe.. it was just really balanced and wrapped up everything so perfectly. Please make more of those!

892. Keachick - September 4, 2013

MJ – Glad you enjoyed my post re planking. I aim to please…:)
I just wanted Bob to know that I will be quite happy if, during the making of the next ST film, I got to see another picture of him and his writing mate plank. I am fairly certain that Bob has long since gotten over any post-traumatic stress brought about by your criticism in 2010.

How are you, Bob? No lingering PTS?
I/we are here for you. Come share!

893. Mark Fernandez - September 4, 2013

Yes, Star Trek IS broken.

Why it is broken, though, is more than just about boldly going where no one has gone before. The new JJ Abrams movie is basically an update of the old episode. There’s nothing creative or original in the new film, and certainly nothing of what made Roddenberry’s Trek so endearing to fans. The first Abrams movie was not much more than ST:Undiscovered Country with Romulus blowing up rather than Kronos. Been there done that.

Trek lacks the optimistic vision of humans working together to better themselves.

Every episode of TOS and all the Roddenberry STNG episodes were, at the heart of the them, about human beings being able to work together to solve problems, save lives, and make a better place (world, galaxy, universe, whatever) for humans to live while shedding themselves of petty prejudice and greed and embracing the concept of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination).

This is what we want from our Trek. Yes, the occasional episode of Kirk losing his shirt in a fight with the bad guy satisfies the action/adventure requirement of the studio film these days, but for Abrams to truly take over the reigns of the Great Bird of the Sky, he will have to create something NEW, not rehash old plotlines and characters, that show our love, sacrifice, effort, and humanity. No Tribbles, no Borg, no rock creatures protecting its silicon eggs … Something New. Something Original. Yet, something familiar in a character story that reflects Roddenberry’s vision.

If Abrams wants to make movies with his vision, let him create his own world and not get lost in someone else’s.

894. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@758 / BatlethInTheGroin: “Khan was NOT a genocidal lunatic out to kill everything that is inferior. He was exactly the opposite of that: a man out to conquer everyone, not kill all non-Augments.”

Screenplay excerpts from WOK:

TERRELL
He tortured those people. None of
them would tell him anything. He
went wild, strung them up and slit
their throats. He wanted to tear
the place apart, but he was late:
he had to get back to Reliant in
time to blow you to bits.

TERRELL
Marooned on Ceti Alpha V. He’s
completely mad, Admiral. He blames
you for the death of his wife…

Well, so much for this bogus claim,

This is what really pisses me off here about some of the detractors of STID — they simply make up shit and say stuff that is just plain factually wrong.

At least check your facts first people before you crap all over STID. Some of you are really embarrassing yourselves here by not even showing basic good memory of Star Trek episodes and movies.

Shesh, this is so lame. This calls into question so much of what I am hearing here in terms of the incessant and over-the-top bitching about STID.

AT LEAST HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO CHECK YOUR FACTS FIRST AND NOT MAKE SHIT UP — PLEASE !!!!!

895. Alaska OIF and OEF veteran - September 4, 2013

After following this website for 4 years, I’m signing off, sick and tired of how stupid the negativity has become here. J.J. Abrams brought “Star Trek” back from the dead. To paraphrase “Entertainment Weekly,” he did more than just salvage it–he resurrected it. “Star Trek Into Darkness” was a wonderful film, giving us an epic “Trek” adventure brought to life by a remarkable cast, complete with a relevant social message (ie, criticism of the Obama Administration’s willingness to target American citizens with drone strikes without due process), great character dynamics, and plenty of stirring adventure. Yes, it had its flaws, but so did our beloved “Star Trek II,” and every other “Trek” film. $462 million total gross (more than any “Trek” film, adjusted for inflation) and 87% “Fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes (#4 overall, behind “Star Trek,” “First Contact,” and “Wrath of Khan”)…..and yet “Trek” fans aren’t happy. That Onion.com parody of Trekker hostility towards the 2009 film is spot-on. If you hated this film so much that you spend your entire life throwing mud and hatred on this forum because of petty nitpicking of “Into Darkness,” then to quote Bill Shatner….Get a life.

896. Red Dead Ryan - September 4, 2013

894. MJ (The Original). – September 4, 2013

“This is what really pisses me off here about some of the detractors of STID — they simply make up shit and say stuff that is just plain factually wrong.

At least check your facts first people before you crap all over STID. Some of you are really embarrassing yourselves here by not even showing basic good memory of Star Trek episodes and movies.

Shesh, this is so lame. This calls into question so much of what I am hearing here in terms of the incessant and over-the-top bitching about STID.

AT LEAST HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO CHECK YOUR FACTS FIRST AND NOT MAKE SHIT UP — PLEASE !!!!!”

Yes! Well said!

One could easily be mistaken into believing that Curious Cadet and BatlethintheGroin are the same person — they probably aren’t, but both individuals don’t seem to do their homework before they post their “facts” online. They must be watching too much FOX News. :-)

897. MC1 Doug - September 4, 2013

#398: Bob, I hope you never compare yourself to Dubya again (pretty please).

While I have your ear, at least I hope I do.

The good:

1) I liked the film a lot in spite of… [see the bad]
2) Loved the moment when Kirk found his mentor had died. Very moving!
3) Enjoyed seeing the relationship between Spock and Kirk starting to gel.
4) Loved the historical Easter eggs (the models of the ships behind Adm. Marcus’ desk).
5) Loved Karl Urban!
6) Pine is looking more and more captain-like.
7) Liked the way Kirk handled danger and the little twist on “Kahhhhn!”
8) Like that Spock is still “compromised” after the death of Vulcan.

the bad:

1) The Enterprise is NOTNOTNOTNOT a submarine. Please justify this. It was, to me, a dumb beyond dumb idea.
2) I want more of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy troika. Mind you, I like Zoe, but I want the troika, not a quad.
3) Scotty’s sidekick.does not belong. The time devoted to him should have been Sulu and Chekov’s time
4) It was VERY illogical for the Enterprise to go beneath the waves. If they wanted to remain undetected, why not stay in space OR the upper atmosphere where starships belong?
5) Why a transwarp transporter? If you have these, there is no need for starships.
6) Carol in her undies???? WTF!! This is not “Transformers!”

As to the premise of this article, I am on the fence about whether TREK is broken or not. I understand the need for the universe II, but I have to say I miss TREK prime and with you guys talent I think you could manage that.

My advice for the third: explore!! please! more of the ideas of involving relevant topics. I want to give you guys the benefit, but in some ways you really are putting that to the test.

Again, I enjoyed the film, but WITH reservations! Try to keep your cool when some of the strong-minded (bull-headed or assholes) try to goat you into an argument. That said, some of the comments I’ve read here could lead to fisticuffs, if you ask me.

Heck, most writers would give the fans the time of day to discuss this love of ours. Thank your for giving us yours.

898. MC1 Doug - September 4, 2013

AND I think I agree with the consensus. TREK belongs on the small screen, but I would prefer the universe prime for that.

899. Garak's Pride - September 4, 2013

@MJ

“…..AT LEAST HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO CHECK YOUR FACTS FIRST AND NOT MAKE SHIT UP — PLEASE !!!!!”

MJ, this is the best post of the week on this topic. Thanks You!

Your nailed it. While there are some valid issues with this movie, a number of people here are simply just piling on JJ and Bob out of a general disdain for both Trek 2009 and STID, and they don’t even care enough to make sure that what they are saying is accurate and fair.

900. Vultan - September 4, 2013

#894

Uh, I think he may have a point. That dialogue in TWOK suggests Khan went on a rampage and killed them because he wanted Genesis and was acting out over his hatred for Kirk. Nothing really there to paint him as a genocidal master race kind of space Nazi that STID was suggesting.

Also, earlier in TWOK Khan has a soliloquy about how he once “ruled” over millions. And in Space Seed he seemed more power hungry than anything else.

901. K-7 - September 4, 2013

MJ’s watershed post here makes one wonder if BatlethInTheGroin has even seen Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan again in the last decade? How could a person familiar with Star Trek not know that Khan went nuts in that film?

Then again, this is the same poster who keeps criticizing Bob Orci on multiple points, but yet claims that he is a staunch defender of Orci….yea folks, he really claims this! :-)

902. Vultan - September 4, 2013

Though that is open to interpretation.

903. Vultan - September 4, 2013

Ah, here we go. From Space Seed:

SCOTT: I must confess, gentlemen. I’ve always held a sneaking admiration for this one.

KIRK: He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous. They were supermen, in a sense. Stronger, braver, certainly more ambitious, more daring.

SPOCK: Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is

KIRK: Mister Spock, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless.

SCOTT: There were no massacres under his rule.

SPOCK: And as little freedom.

MCCOY: No wars until he was attacked.

SPOCK: Gentlemen.

KIRK: Mister Spock, you misunderstand us. We can be against him and admire him all at the same time.

SPOCK: Illogical.

904. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@898 He went on a rampage in both WOK and STID because Kirk and Marcus threatened/killed his family:

WOK: “He tortured those people. None of them would tell him anything. He went wild, strung them up and slit their throats. He wanted to tear the place apart…He’s completely mad, Admiral. He blames you for the death of his wife…”

STID: “He used my friends to control me. I tried to smuggle them to safety by concealing them in the very weapons I have designed. But I was discovered. I had no choice but to escape alone. And when I did, I had every reason to suspect that Marcus had killed every single one of the people I hold most dear. So I responded in kind. My crew is my family, Kirk. Is there anything you would not do for your family?…..Your commanders have committed a crime I cannot forgive. None of you are safe. Have I got your attention now?….Enjoy these final moments of peace. For I have returned to have my vengeance.”

Same deal. You fuk with his family, he goes nuts for revenge. No inconsistency whatsoever. If anything, he is slightly less nuts in STID.

905. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@901. Moot point — his “family” wasn’t threatened or killed in Space Seed.

Not applicable.

906. Vultan - September 4, 2013

Which brings us to this little nugget.

Khan: I’m going to make this very simple for you. Your crew for my crew.
Spock: You betrayed us.
Khan: Oh, you are smart, Mr. Spock.
Kirk: Spock, don’t-
Khan: [beats Kirk to the floor] Mr. Spock, give me my crew.
Spock: What will you do when you get them?
Khan: Continue the work we were doing before we were banished.
Spock: Which, as I would understand it, involves the mass genocide of any species you find to be inferior.

Hmm… doesn’t sound so much like the guy from Space Seed.

907. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 4, 2013

@871 the genius behind STID

As far as I’m concerned you can say whatever you want, you get a pass on everything in my book.

That being said (yes, a blatent quote rip off from Spock Prime lol), at the end of STID Kirk conveys a thought provoking message that we should not become the evil we are trying to fight against.

p.s. Bring Spock Prime for another cameo in ST3. Always a great moment when he appears. Makes you sit up straight in your theatre chair and listen to the one who started it all.

908. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 4, 2013

@904
Yeah Cumberbatch is just incredible in that scene you quoted.

Another great moment is when he tells Spock that he can’t even break a rule let alone bone; then notice for a second how Khan’s eyes look downward as to totally disdain/mock Spock. lol Every little moment was so well acted.

909. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 4, 2013

hey and what’s up with Abram and even Cumberbatch going over to Star Wars. I know they have to earn a living but I must saw it does irk me a little. Could’tn they find movie work in like ANY OTHER franchise or single movie? Anyway, whatever, Paramount will just need to bring in new blood for ST3.

910. Vultan - September 4, 2013

Just making the point, MJ, that before you go on another caps-lock tirade you may want to do some fact-checking yourself. The comment at #758 does have some validity.

911. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

“Hmm… doesn’t sound so much like the guy from Space Seed.”

You are confusing Spock’s opinions on Khan with what Khan might actually do. Remember, that is Spock talking. And Spock nearly said the same thing in Space Seed:

“SPOCK: Your Earth was on the verge of a dark ages. Whole populations were being bombed out of existence.”

…i.e. very much like what he said in STID: “Spock: Which, as I would understand it, involves the mass genocide of any species you find to be inferior.”

Spock is consistent in both conclusions here. No issue.

912. Vultan - September 4, 2013

“…might actually do.”

Might is a big word.

913. Vultan - September 4, 2013

Sorry, but my interpretation was Khan being akin to Naploeon (as mentioned in Space Seed), not Hitler. At least before… the last movie.

914. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@910. And you might want to at least let me respond first next time (i.e. see my post @911 above where I directly answered your question) before you gleefully type out your fait accompli self-congratulatory conclusion that turns out to be both premature and incorrect. ;-)

915. I am to Smurfy - September 4, 2013

Here is my personal issue with Spock Screaming KHHHHHAAAANNNN!
Is There is no reason for him to scream it.

1) Khan can’t hear Spock scream it, the whole reason that Kirk screams it in TWOK was to really to help kirk sell the idea to Khan that he along with the rest of the Away team were trapped deep within the planet. Kirk was playing a psychological game with Khan and screaming Khan out in faulse frustation was to let Khan think he had won.

2)Khan did not Kill Kirk,,
in fact it was Spocks decision to blow up the torpedoes on the Venegnce that resulted in Kirk having to sacrafice himself to get the warp core back into alignment. So having Spock scream out Khan’s name because of the rage he feels from Kirks “Death” is stupid

I welcome polite counter points to my two points I just made.

916. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@912 @913. Those are Spock’s exact words — his opinions — not Khan’s stated goals or threats. Spock consistently, in both Space Seed and STID, saw Khan and the Eugencics Superman as a threat relating to genocide of whole populations:

Space Seed: “Your Earth was on the verge of a dark ages. Whole populations were being bombed out of existence.”

STID: “Which, as I would understand it, involves the mass genocide of any species you find to be inferior.”

I will agree that the STID language is a tad stronger. But, nevertheless, bombing entire populations out of existence is definitely genocide — there is no getting around that.

917. Vultan - September 4, 2013

#916

You of all people should never level “self-congratulatory” at anyone.

And you’re making quite a big jump from Khan and the actions of the rest of the supermen. Even Spock admitted there were no massacres under his rule. Just not much freedom.

I understand your passion. But c’mon, realize there are other opinions. Valid ones not worthy of screaming.

918. Garak's Pride - September 4, 2013

@MJ @Vultan

Spock saying bombing to death entire populations versus mass genocide of inferior species sounds to me just like two different ways of Spock saying the same thing in terms of the history of the Eugenics Wars. Not much difference by my book.

919. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

“You of all people should never level “self-congratulatory” at anyone.”

Well, you are certainly right on this point! :-)

920. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@918 “Spock saying bombing to death entire populations versus mass genocide of inferior species sounds to me just like two different ways of Spock saying the same thing in terms of the history of the Eugenics Wars. Not much difference by my book.”

Yes — and you make this point more clear than I did. Thx

921. Vultan - September 4, 2013

As I said, it is open to interpretation. Just saying that #758 wasn’t alone in that impression. For some reason STID really drove home the point that Khan was dangerous not just to Kirk and crew but to EVERYONE, and was some master race sort of guy. Probably because they feel the need to crank everything up to 11.

922. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

“Even Spock admitted there were no massacres under his rule.”

I agree. And Spock never said anything in STID about Khan specifically having been responsible for conducting historical massacres on Earth.

Spock, in both cases, is talking about the general philosophy of the 72 Superman and the Eugenics Warriors.

Again, I will agree that the STID language is stronger. But it certainly does not rise to a departure from Space Seed or WOK.

Come on! My passions aside, we can both see exactly what he said here.

And again, MY MAIN POINT, which you basically chose to ignore and instead focus on this smaller point, was that in both WOK and STID, Khan is motivated by revenge for people either threatening or killing his family — please explain how I am wrong on this account???

923. Vultan - September 4, 2013

#922

Well, no argument over Khan and his “family” and revenge. That part was spot on. I guess because the language is stronger over the genocide aspect, it seemed to me it changed his character somewhat. Like I said, more Hitler than Napoleon this time around. That’s the point I was trying to make… or getting hung up on. ;-)

Been fun chatting/arguing with you, MJ. And I do mean that.
Have a good night. I’m off to the land of nod.

924. MJ (The Original). - September 4, 2013

@923. Yea, I don’t think we are really that far apart, Vultan.

Always fun with you — thanks !!!

(and I will try to tone down the ALL CAPS) :-))

925. Who cares - September 5, 2013

@877 About the savagery part, Augments, like Khan, have been noted since Space Seed of having heightened agression, therefore they are more “savage”, it has nothing to do with being from the past, and everything to do with being genetically engineered. This increased agression also means Khan would do things like design, build, and use, outlawed weapons like “Biogenic” or Subspace weapons, which Federation citizens, even Section 31 operatives, would not. Give Khan a week and an up to date database on any given field of weaponry and I would think he could come up with incredibly dangerous and savage weapons. Remeber the speech from Space Seed about the difference between improving technology and improving people, “Improve a mechanical device and you may increase production, improve Man and you multiply potential exponentially” *quote paraphrased, not perfectly accurate*

926. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@925

Yep! Exactly!

927. The Keeper - September 5, 2013

@915. I am to Smurfy

Actually by your thinking, Spock should have yelled out “MARCUS!!!!!!!!”

928. dan - September 5, 2013

Honestly, I really liked Into Darkness,

I have some issues with the plotholes of Star Trek 2009. With the reboot, filmmakers lost some true Trekkies forever and they won some new ones.

For STID they listened to the fan voices, that begged for Kahn and they finally questioned Kirks early promotion as a Captain.
What else do you want?

I personally want an original story, and please don’t let the crew have to save the Earth again and again!

929. crashx7 - September 5, 2013

I enjoyed Star Trek, because of the stories and they way they made you think about issues that were otherwise uncomfortable to think about. The episodes made a statement about the world we live in today while -usually – not taking a stand on one side of the issue, but instead encouraged a conversation about the topic.

If we’re just going to re-hash the old stories, what’s the point? Even the new Trek shows had new topics or new views on old issues. They didn’t just re-tell the 1960′s stories. If they did, TNG would have died after 3 seasons.

Let’s see some new original stories and while good & great actors can bring a lot to bear on making an ok script better, when the script gives you rotten lemons, even a great actor can’t make lemonade out of them.

930. drum-van - September 5, 2013

Next Trek to Shoot Outside of L.A. (The Hollywood Reporter)
_______________________________________________

boborci, bring the trek shooting to michigan! good tax incentives, beautiful weather (at least for 3 of the 4 seasons) and i’ll buy you a drink, maybe two if i get to be an extra :)

931. Barney Fife - September 5, 2013

STID DVD/BR commercials are popping up all over the place. Gets me pumped up to see it again…and again…and again!

932. Unbel1ever - September 5, 2013

Even though I like the new movies, I completely understand the sentiment of the article. Personally, I’ve come to see the new movies as sth. different from the original Trek, which finished its run with Enterprise and continues only in the (in my opinion) great series from Pocket Books.
I enjoy the new movies as a fun ride much the same way as sth. like “Die Hard”. They have to make a lot more money than the old stuff and therefore have to appeal to a lot more people. The simplest way to achieve this is to be flashy and have a not too overly complicated plot. That works well in the cinema, unfortunately, when you bring it home, it does not work as well on a TV. That to me was the strength of the TV shows and the reason why Star Trek did so well in reruns, DVD, and BluRay sales. The creation of a believable, optimistic future world, coherent use of in-universe technology, culture and settings, thought-provoking and sometimes awe-inspiring stories and pictures as well as characters really is a hallmark of the Trek TV – but it worked only for some. Many people did not get into it, because it is too “nerdy”. The old characters often seemed larger than life, competent and reliable. The new Kirk is the complete opposite. Unreliable, unintelligent, incompetent and brash to make him more of an everyman more people can relate to in this “nerdy” domain of Star Trek. To me, that is a little sad, but not for the people who want to earn money with it, which is also understandable. It doesn’t matter. There is so much there to watch and rewatch. Maybe they’ll get back to the old spirit of the final frontier in a new tv show someday, but until then let JJ & Co. be successful with their movies, it may even get some people to watch the old shows and if that doesn’t happen: It will live as long as the last generation of fans is alive and we can trust that a younger generation can find a new source for positive, optimistic inspiration.

933. Dom - September 5, 2013

I really wish we could get more books set in the new universe and maybe a cartoon. Licensed products such as books and toys keep the franchise in the public eye, cartoons keep the kids hungry for more. The comics are helping, but they sit in comic book stores or on the web and have to be looked for, while books are on the shelves of shops and pushed by Amazon for Kindle (just picked up the first Fringe prequel.)

I actually can comfortably see this new Trek universe as being the future of the alt-universe from Fringe . . . ;)

934. Russell Meyers - September 5, 2013

I have to agree that the ‘Khan’ in name only presented in STID was really just that. Didn’t resemble the original in appearance or personality for me.

I think it was the wrong choice (and the writers were on the fence on this as well) to make the character Khan.

Also, while boborci might be very proud of his 9/11 allegory, i felt it was a bit too ‘dated’ if anything. It is over 10 years since 9/11, and I don’t see the conspiracy theories really taking traction, nor should they.

I know boborci might think the US government specifically engineered the devastation on that day, but i would wager that JJ, nor any of the cast would go on record as saying that they agree with that sentiment. I’m actually disappointed that they would make such a film a Trek film.

Not only did they make a US engineered 9/11 Trek movie, but they lifted complete lines and dramatic beats from another Trek movie. I feel they rehashed and reworked instead of reinvent, like they did with 2009.

935. Robman007 - September 5, 2013

“I actually can comfortably see this new Trek universe as being the future of the alt-universe from Fringe . . . ;)”

Dom, I’ve often looked at this universe in those terms. I see the Red Matter opening, essentially, a giant Walter portal to the alternate reality. The Prime reality didn’t have it’s past changed, the alternate did. That would explain away why technology is different, why Khan was british, etc

Doesn’t work for all, but that’s the lovely thing about a FICTIONAL UNIVERSE. You can create whatever backstory you want.

Regarding the article….folks seem to forget. Trek films are a different type of “show” then Trek TV. Boldy Going…works GREAT on a TV format. Not so great on a film format. We have examples to back that up with Treks 5 and 9. Trek film is about action over exploring. It can have ideas, but they usually are not as fleshed out as TV Trek.

You want what this article talks about, then hope that this film series end up being successful. THEN you might see Trek TV. The behavior of Trek fans with this film has probably struck a blow to the chances of Trek coming back on TV. I know CBS/Paramount sure have not helped any.

Trek TV is not the same as Trek films.

936. Ironhyde - September 5, 2013

#893 -

This is an important point. Good of you to make it. When I was young, I looked up to Kirk. I often related to Data at times when I felt out of place. I thought of Picard as a teacher and a father, someone who addressed questions about life, morality, and character weekly for me.

The new Trek.. there isn’t a single person I look up to or hope to follow. :( A generation will lose it’s heros — lose that gem which was believing the world could be better.

937. Robman007 - September 5, 2013

“The old characters often seemed larger than life, competent and reliable.”

Again, old reality characters have had a different life then new characters. Plus, Shatner Kirk was the way he was because of 1960′s TV. Pine Kirk can and probably will come out looking very much like Shatner Kirk, but he’ll always rely more on Spock and McCoy, as it should be. These films are making more out of the idea that the ultimate team is when Kirk and Spock work together. Apart, they are, at least at this point in their early career, not as effective.

I do like Pine Kirk. He’s not Shatner Kirk, but he’s ok. He’s getting there. Shatner Kirk went through some pretty horrific events that molded him into the man he became.

938. Robman007 - September 5, 2013

“A generation will lose it’s heros — lose that gem which was believing the world could be better.”

Not true. Different characters they may be, they will ALWAYS be associated with their original series counterparts. That’s the beauty of it. Plus, give it two or three or four (hopefully) more films before jumping to that conclusion. 1 year into these characters careers together….

These are great portal films. Gets new fans into the show, they go watch the old show, discover these characters in greater detail. The films have done an amazing job at getting new fans. I work with several folks who didn’t give a crap about Trek until these films, now they want to borrow my DVD sets of each of the series. They wanted to know more about Khan, so I gave them Space Seed and Wrath….they love seeing the “origin” of Captain Kirk and Mr Spock and like the relationship.

At this point, they may not be as “larger then life” or preachy as heroes of old, but give it time. 2 films out of a possible 3-4 is not enough to condemn the heroes.

939. Robman007 - September 5, 2013

931. Dom..

oh, and thank CBS/Paramount for that mess up. We were going to get books, games, TV shows, mini-cartoon shorts…everything that Bad Robot and Disney are going to do for the new Wars films (and to an extent, what Disney is doing for Avengers), but CBS couldn’t get it’s sh!t together and wanted to do a pissing contest with Abrams. So, this new universe will only consist of the comics and films. Nothing more. THAT is sad. You kind of get the idea that STID was written with the idea that the universe and lead in situations would have been a bit more fleshed out with official lead-ins other then the countdown comic.

940. I am to Smurfy - September 5, 2013

927) You kind of miss the point of why I don’t like the Khan yell in ITD but its cute the way you can’t come up with a valid counter point.

941. Istvan Kolnhofer - September 5, 2013

The perception is that JJ Abrams broke Star Trek, and while I agree Into Darkness was an awful and insulting Star Trek movie, and also a rather unoriginal and very mediocre summer action movie, I don’t see Trek as broken. There are too many fans who still hold on to the ideals, themes and philosophies of what real authentic Star Trek stands for. The 90210 Twilightization of Trek is very transparent and seems to be universally rejected. This is a good sign. Should Paramount/CBS bring back a TV series that is not produced by Bad Reboot, I think a true rejuvenation from the cancellation of Enterprise would occur. The JJ movies would be fast forgotten, as they already are by most people who saw – Into Darkness was indeed forgettable in the way Transformers 4 was. Its not broken because the fix is easy – make REAL Star Trek, not fluff for casual moviegoers with disposable income.

942. Unbel1ever - September 5, 2013

@934. Robman007

Yeah, you can argue it away with the “they’re different and younger” argument. That is all good and well, but not necessarily I’d expect to see in Star Trek. There are enough screw ups in reality. Star Trek to me is about things we can aspire to – not behaving like an idiot. The lesson you learn from the new Trek is that you can achieve anything by behaving badly, cheating and knowing the right people. That may in fact be true, but not a message I’d have imagined coming from Star Trek, or any ficition about a positive, idealistic future. If the new universe were anything like the old, Kirk would have been kicked out of Starfleet and very slowly earned his way back through hard work and merit. Since this kind of character development is not possible in a single movie, it would have been great to see as a story arc for the trilogy. Not unlike Luke’s journey in the original Star Wars. Kirk would not have had to be the captain all the time – Pike would have been great for 1-2 movies. You’d also not have needed all of the old characters from the start, e.g. introduce Chekov later. All would have enabled the same action, even the same story arcs, but have felt so much more natural.

943. Not an Internet Sheep - September 5, 2013

Can all parties please try to refrain from being insulting to each other? Is it not possible for grown people, on just one website, to act civil to one another without acting like we’re on a playground?

My two cents on the nature of Khan and his motivations are that during the Eugenics Wars Khan was indeed a ruthless leader and did commit atrocities in the name of establishing the genetically augmented and enhanced as the rulers of the world.

But he was not a maniac bent on revenge.

That came after he was left on Ceti Alpha V and the catastrophic event that occurred. His wife was dead and he blamed Kirk for it,perceiving that he was marooned there intentionally. This would explain the “W” in TWOK. He tortured the people on Regula 1 to obtain information on Kirk so that he could extract his revenge.

But if you go back to the end of Space Seed, Khan would appear to be a man at peace, with a world to tame and his woman at his side. And he appears to bear no malice towards Kirk and the crew even though they outwitted him and foiled his plans. This would seem to reveal his nature; Khan wants to rule, not murder everyone in sight.

This is what makes him a tragic figure in the Wrath of Khan and makes audiences sympathize with him. This should also be the same nature in Cumberbath’s Khan. If he had his crew and his means of escaping to an isolated planet where he could start his own civilization why would he need to be plotting terrorist attacks in order to extract revenge on Adm. Marcus? He pretty much was free to move about and could use his superior intellect to guarantee his people’s freedom and passage away from earth ( they have a magic transporter, after all.

To me, that is why this iteration of Khan does not ring true and does not make the character believable. I don’t understand his motivations. They aren’t as clearly stated as they are in TWOK. He appears to be different in both appearance and in motivation and character. The producers ask us to forget what we already know and ignore what has come before. Perhaps I lack the ability to disregard 45 years of previous story.

944. Dennis Sisterson - September 5, 2013

Not living up to the opening monologue mission statement has been a problem at least since TNG. In how many episodes of that did they go exploring? Hardly any. They even have an episode where, as if to rub the crew’s noses in their own neglect, the ship doctor’s own son turns into an alien life form, but they barely bat an eyelid, they just go off and ferry another ambassador. We’ve always heard a lot about how Trek is ‘really’ about modern-day issues, or whatever, but to me, if you drop or sideline the mission statement and the exploring it loses its magic.

945. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@ 936. Robman007 – September 5, 2013

“So, this new universe will only consist of the comics and films. Nothing more.”

The problem with the comics that they are not offering anything new. So far, they just redoing old stories. I really don’t understand the wisdom of that decision, how hard is it to come up with new stories for the new timeline ?

I stopped buying the comics after the STID countdown issues. There was no sense in wasting money on them anymore, unless they manage to do new & interesting stories.

946. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@ 939. Dennis Sisterson – September 5, 2013

“Not living up to the opening monologue mission statement has been a problem at least since TNG. In how many episodes of that did they go exploring? Hardly any. ”

I disagree. Exploring doesn’t just mean going to discover new planets or new phenomenons, which was done plenty on TNG & other Trek series. It also means exploring the human condition, what it is mean to be human when you are in a unique & strange situation. TNG & DS9 explored these issues during their 7 years runs.

Granted, there were some filler episodes, specially in the early seasons of these two shows. But they took off & gave us some of the best Trek stories since TOS.

947. Geoff Paterson - September 5, 2013

I agree more with Karl Urban’s take than I do with William Shatner’s. The temptation to plaster the screen with explosions, action sequences and CGI is too easy to succumb to in this day and age. However, it does nothing to make this Star Trek franchise into anything unique and exciting. I really thought this was where they were going with the alternate time line from the first film, however what we ended up with was another “Wrath of Khan” with a higher budget and more technology (yet absolutely no pathos) to play with. Stripped down to its core, this was an absolutely soulless entry into the Trek pantheon. Star Trek does not need to go back on television, as Shatner suggests. We have already been there and done it several times over, and that ship has sailed, in my humble opinion. The only way I could see it working, would be for them to go the same route as “Red Dwarf”, minus the slapstick humor. It could be a limited series running over the course of several years, which would make the core fans crave more. Using this model would perhaps allow for new crews to assume command and control of the Enterprise, thereby making the show more about the ship and the purpose of its journey through space. Perhaps one or two main characters would stay aboard as special advisers, helping the new crew get established and acquainted with the missions ahead of them.

948. Dom - September 5, 2013

932. Robman007 ‘I’ve often looked at this universe in those terms. I see the Red Matter opening, essentially, a giant Walter portal to the alternate reality’

Yep. From the outset, I considered this to be a parallel universe that was broadly like the original, but with variations. That’s why I would want any characters like Archer to be played by different actors, in the unlikely event they appear. Clint Eastwood as Archer, perhaps . . . and Tom Hardy as Picard! ;)

933. Ironhyde: ‘The new Trek.. there isn’t a single person I look up to or hope to follow. :( A generation will lose it’s heros — lose that gem which was believing the world could be better.’

Again, I don’t go for this ‘Church of Roddenberry’ thing that Trek is some sort of quasi-religion that should change the world. For every bit of philosophy in the original, there were ten excuses to get Jim into a fistfight or to pull a pretty girl! Star Trek, before Roddenberry’s 80s revisionism, was primarily an adventure series with action and romance at the forefront with the philosophical musings blended in to give it some depth. All the other stuff is self-righteous baggage accumulated down the years, which is why I never really regarded TNG (and its contemporaries) as a ‘proper’ sequel to the original Star Trek. Rather, it was a completely different show that dressed itself in Star Trek clothes.

937. I am to Smurfy

I tend to think the ‘KHAAAAAAN!!!’ was mistimed. Spock should have shouted it at Khan as soon as he beamed down to San Fran and pulled a gun on him. That would have avoided the unintentional humour!

949. PaulB - September 5, 2013

Everyone stop bickering and watch this important video about neutron cream on the set of STID. :)

http://youtu.be/VlMbFkKczOM

950. 1st time poster - September 5, 2013

Hey Bob Orci. :-) Pay no attention to the Berman era butthurters, they just don’t get TOS. Looking forward to the 50th anniversary!

951. Buzz Cagney - September 5, 2013

If the definition of broken is that I picked up the newly released Into Darkness DVD in the shop this morning then placed it, shuddering at the memory, back on the shelf, then broke it be.

That said I did like the cover which had ALL of the crew on it. Not just the big 3 of Kirk, Spock and *cough* nUhura.

952. Red Dead Ryan - September 5, 2013

Actually, no, TNG didn’t really do a whole lot of exploration. It stayed in the same neighbourhood, visiting cultures that weren’t all that different from our own, interspersed with the odd time-travel or holodeck malfuction episode.

DS9 was set on a space station, so the whole “exploring new worlds” concept didn’t really apply. The show explored the moral strengths and weakness of the Federation during times of war, and how humans in the 24th century maintain — and sometimes break away from — their values and sense of decency when the sh*t hits the fan.

“Voyager” started off exploring new worlds and new civilizations, featuring interesting races like the Vidiians. Unfortunately, the Kazon were a poor-man’s Klingons, the show overused the Borg and declawed them in the process, and for obvious lack of creativity and a growing sense of laziness, the holodeck became a staple at least as much as TNG.

“Enterprise”, early on at least, was rehashing TNG and “Voyager”. Season three finally saw the show set its own course with the Xindi war arc, and we got to see some non-humanoid, non-gaseous characters. Season four was finally covering various TOS topics, such as the ridgeless Klingons, the creation of the Federation, the Mirror Universe, genetic engineering, and humans and Vulcans forging an alliance.

TOS featured more exploration than the others, though in many cases, the Enterprise was either answering distress calls, and/or showing up someplace where another crew had been decades earlier.

The movies, apart from TMP and *cough* TFF, didn’t feature much exploration. Heck, we’ve had four movies in a row that featured mad men seeking revenge and causing mass death and destruction.

So really, the whole “exploring strange new worlds” concept hasn’t truly been realized to its full potential, and is one main reason, IMHO, that “Star Trek” has a lot of room for improvement.

953. lauren - September 5, 2013

I just wish it had more women, such as Christine Chapel. It really bummed me out that they blew her off in one line.

954. Jim, London - September 5, 2013

@826 – Gets a bit tiring typing on a phone to make a substantial post on here!!!

I guess what im saying is liked the films in principle however i think the whole bad guy hell bent on destroying earth theme has the danger of making fans feel they are retreading the same ground if it is included in the third film and that will also jade cinema goers in general.
I would also like to say i enjoyed the scenes on Nibiru – excellent depiction of a strange new planet which we havent really seen in a trek film at all up until now (i will abstain from The Enterprise under water argument though)

The optimist inside of me would like to see some of the vast galaxy that is out there so that it lives up to Treks motto of ‘space, the final frontier’.

I think its valid to ask questions of where subsequent movies go in terms of plot following Into Darkness – i suppose the biggest should be with Kirk, The Enterprise and its crew heading out on its first 5 year mission has the adventure finally begun (not only for them but for us as fans/movie goers too). The reason i ask that is down to the fact that Into Darkness has encouraged more people than ever to sit in a Cinema and watch a Trek film – how do you get them to come back and see another?

Bob Orci i hand it over to you if you have calmed down enough to reply!! ;-)

955. WNMHGB - September 5, 2013

I actually really enjoyed STID, I even liked the way the juxtaposed the Kirk Kaaaaaannnnn moment with that of Spock. I think more than the story, more than the sets, explosions and redrawing of classic archetypes, what I like about these new films is the cast. I love the way Pine and Quinto work together, they have a much different chemistry than Shatner and Nimoy and that’s okay because it’s a different universe. The whole cast, with the exception of Cho, who I feel has been criminally underutilized, got a little more room to grow in STID and I’m liking what they are growing in to.

Oh and yeah I do agree that doing Khan was a mistake, but Cumberbatch really knocked the bad ass baddie out of the park, the name and the back-story were pretty secondary to his performance and that’s why the concept failed but the movie still held.

I agree that there is a whole lot of cannon that can be expounded upon and because it is a different universe, used as backdrop for some interesting original storylines and I feel that’s the way they should go. I would especially love to see what they do with the Klingons.

956. Cody - September 5, 2013

It’s about ignoring the ‘fans’ and their incessant whining, and just doing a good movie, which is what Star Trek Into Darkness is. The ‘hardcore’ fans of any franchise are always doing this kind of thing and it’s impossible to please them. anyone who thinks STID is the worst of all the films has mental issues. Their just jumping on the hate bandwagon because that’s becoming the ‘in’ thing to do for fanbases of everything. Nobody understands the simple delight of setting back and just enjoying something for what it is anymore. It’s all about being cynical and and finding fault with everything, which is really just a way for people to feel smart when they’re really not.

957. toiletklingon - September 5, 2013

The only problems with “New Trek”…

1. Simon Peggs Scotty is terrible and too OTT I cringe every time!
2. Chekhov is terrible and annoying too.. I cringe every time again!
3. Spock/Uhura Relationship does not work.

Oh and get rid of Scotty’s stupid sidekick FFS man

958. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 5, 2013

It sure would be nice to have Star Trek’s 13th movie start off that 5 years mission with a truly wonderous story, and then immediately premiere a tv series later that same year. You guys a CBS and the Bot should get together and make some real sacrifices to get it done.

It would be so nice to come home from trek at the movies and watch the 1st episode of a new Trek series (still based on TOS characters, alt or not) that continues from where the movie left off. Think of it like watching the 1st episode of Agents of Shield a year ago.

959. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@ 948. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 5, 2013

“It sure would be nice to have Star Trek’s 13th movie start off that 5 years mission with a truly wonderous story, and then immediately premiere a tv series later that same year. You guys a CBS and the Bot should get together and make some real sacrifices to get it done.”

I like this idea, I really hope they will do something like that. And the TV series doesn’t have to be about the same crew, in fact, it would be a lot better if it was about new crew in the far future.

960. Khan 2.0 - September 5, 2013

@867 when BC revealed himself (as Khan) i was then kind of expecting one of two things to happen later on in the film:

1) we’d find out hed been genetically or surgically altered like the villain in Die Another Day (and at some point wed see Montalbans face on a computer screen as Spock researches him – like the briefing room scene in Space Seed) – or even a line of dialogue from BC saying hed had his face changed

2) there would be an end twist of him not being Khan but one of his followers (Joachim – BC looks abit like Judson Scott) as Marcus would know Khan would be too dangerous to awaken (or that Joachim had somehow taken Khans ID to protect Khan), and that all along hed been trying to find Khan who was still in a freeze pod in some secret Section 31 base (or on Enterprise if hed been protecting Khan ID) – leading to Joachim finally locating his master and awakening him (like the engineer in Prometheus) leading to a CG 1967 MontalKhan ramage for the finale like Arnie in T4

i was still kind of expecting something like that right at the end when we see Cumberbatch in the cryo pod – the camera would pan across and wed see 1967 Montalban (an in joke for the fans…non fans would just think BC was Khan)…then wed see the Botany Bay in the background

961. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

@923. Vultan,
“I guess because the language is stronger over the genocide aspect, it seemed to me it changed his character somewhat. Like I said, more Hitler than Napoleon this time around.”

Interesting. Do you think that Kirk having lived through Kodos the Executioner, who did murder thousands of people in the name of eugenics, would have let Khan and his 72 supermen just go populate Ceti Alpha V if they were guilty of mass-genocide; indeed if their entire philosophy resolves around the goal of eradicating all who were inferior?

The language is not just stronger, it implies something completely different and infinitely more horrific, as you distinguish by your Hitler vs. Napoleon comparison. They exiled Napoleon. Twice! Would Hitler have gotten off so lightly?

These are fictional characters. The WRITERS are telling us what we need to know about these characters, and it is never explicitly stated nor implied in Space Seed that Khan, or any of the “supermen” were ever seeking to eradicate inferior species, which would include everyone else on Earth. It is stated numerous times they sought to control and to rule, under the assumption they were superior leaders. Killing their subjects would have given them no one to rule. The fact the writers specifically tell us “superior ability breeds superior ambition” tells us all we need to know about the supermen’s goals and suggests nothing about eradicating those of inferior genetics.

Khan was certainly not above killing to achieve his goals, nor clearly were the rest of the supermen. They “bombed entire populations out of existence” who did not submit. Just like every member of Kirk’s crew would follow into the decompression chamber unless they submitted to his rule. just like Khan killed everyone on Regular One who would not submit. Just like the Allies bombed entire populations out of existence in German cities like Dresden. Just like the US bombed the entire populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima out of existence. Was it genocide? Hardly. In Enterprise, Archer tells the story of his great-grandfather who during a battle with the augments during the Eugenics wars convinced them to cease fire to evacuate a schoolhouse full of children. Odd behavior for a group bent on the eventual genocide of those same kids. And isn’t it interesting that while Khan was willing to kill the entire crew of the Enterprise to gain their allegiance, and everyone aboard Regula One to get Genesis, he safely transported the crew of the Reliant down to Ceti Alpha V? Why not just put them into the shuttle bay and jettison them into space. Sure would have saved time for an inferior species, which he didnt need, and upon whom the supermen were otherwise engaged in mass-genocide.

Then there’s this explicit statement from Spock: “Would you reveal to war-weary populations that some eighty Napoleons might still be alive?” If Spock thought the supermen were in fact bent on mass-genocide (which he would not without explicit evidence), wouldn’t he have said “some eighty Hitler’s” rather than “Napoleons”? Kirk likewise calls them Alexander’s and Napoleans. Not Hitler’s.

More specific examples to follow …

962. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

@951 re: 923 Vultan MORE^^^^

Then there’s this little exchange:
Spock — “There was the war to end tyranny.”
khan — “Tyranny, sir? Or an attempt to unify humanity?”
Spock — “Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?”
Khan — “One man would have ruled eventually. As Rome under Caesar.”
Kirk — “But you left at the very instant that man needed courage.”
Khan — “We offered the world order!”
Khan is speaking for all the supermen, and it sure sounds like they were only interested in ruling. Hard to unify humanity and offer it order when your goal is to kill everyone. Spock further calls the Eugenics wars “the war to end tyranny”. Interesting euphemism, if the stated goal as Spock understands it was to commit mass-genocide on an inferior species.

Khan to the 72 supermen — “this time it’s not a world we win. It’s a universe.” So the supermen are going to kill everyone in the universe? Khan to Kirk — “My vessel was useless. I need you and yours to select a colony planet, one with a population willing to be led by us.” Khan tells Chekov in TWOK — “On Earth, …two hundred years ago, …I was a prince, …with power over millions.”

In Enterprise, there’s this exchange between Tucker and Soong:
Tucker — “Well if I remember my history these Augments you love so much had plenty of slaves.”
Soong — “They were more like subjects.”
Tucker — “Ah… they were just treated like slaves.”
So where’s the rhetoric about their genocidal ambitions?

While a case can be made for a single ambiguous line of dialogue taken out of context from Space Seed, that the supermen as a group were committing mass-genocide of inferior species, there’s not a lot of evidence supporting that conclusion. It’s pretty clear by the preponderance of explicit dialogue, that the intent of the writers and producers has always been to paint Khan and the so-called “supermen” as conquerors and leaders, not bent on genocide as the ultimate goal. So, this is a retcon plain and simple.

963. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@962 “Khan is speaking for all the supermen, and it sure sounds like they were only interested in ruling.”

So that’s why they bombed entire populations out of existence then.

Whoops! :-)

964. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@943 ” I don’t understand his motivations.”

Again….

STID: “He used my friends to control me. I tried to smuggle them to safety by concealing them in the very weapons I have designed. But I was discovered. I had no choice but to escape alone. And when I did, I had every reason to suspect that Marcus had killed every single one of the people I hold most dear. So I responded in kind. My crew is my family, Kirk. Is there anything you would not do for your family?…..Your commanders have committed a crime I cannot forgive. None of you are safe. Have I got your attention now?….Enjoy these final moments of peace. For I have returned to have my vengeance.”

How more clear can his motivations be? Like I said before, what we learned in both WOK and STID is that you don’t mess with Khan’s family.

And we know that Khan went mad in WOK — Terrell told us so. So Khan, taken as an experiment and controlled and manipulated by Marcus for 2 years — yes, now he is really, really nuts.

What’s not to understand about his motivation? And how is his motivation not completely consistent with WOK?

965. Jim, London - September 5, 2013

Another point – the briefing room needs to make a comeback, in any disciplined organisation the squabbling that happens on the bridge would mot be considered professional…. The whole reason TOS and TNG had a briefing room….

966. Keachick - September 5, 2013

“Also, earlier in TWOK Khan has a soliloquy about how he once “ruled” over millions.”

Hitler and Pol Pot also ruled over millions but that did not stop them from waging a genocidal war…just saying

Whether either of the Star Trek Khans were genocidal lunatics – I am not sure, but ruling over millions would not negate any possibility that they might commit genocide as well.

967. Garak's Pride - September 5, 2013

@MJ @Vultan @Curious Cadet @Sheep

People are forgetting that in Space Seed (note: I just watched the entire episode this morning before posting here), Prime Spock has the luxury of conducting hours and hours of his own research on the Eugenics Wars and Khan.

This is not the case in STID. In STID, nuSpock does not have the luxury of time to perform detailed research on the Eugenics Wars, Khan and the 19990′s. So, when nuSpock in STID says, “which, as I would understand it, involves the mass genocide of any species you find to be inferior,” this is just his very high-level opinion of the philosophy of the Eugenics Wars that was not informed by all the additional research that Prime Spock was able to perform in Space Seed.

Second related point: when nuSpock says, “which, as I would understand it, involves the mass genocide of any species you find to be inferior,” Khan neither confirms or denies this. In fact, the script wording specifically has the phrase here, ” as I would understand it.”? What does this tell us? Well, I think it tells us that we are to consider this as nuSpock’s opinion only, and that Spock is admitting here that he has not had the time yet to fully understand this (i.e. time to research this) — which pretty much confirms my point above.

968. Keachick - September 5, 2013

#965 – It does seem that you have not seen much of TOS. Most of the great troika, the neat Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic that people so love and miss, occurred on the bridge of the TOS Enterprise, where Spock and McCoy were openly arguing/squabbling (if you will) with their captain sitting in his chair between the two men, acting as referee a lot of the time.

Yes, both series had briefing or conference rooms but that did not stop Spock and McCoy from doing their verbal hoopla on the bridge.

Actually, I think that this alt. universe main characters have tended to behave more professionally on the bridge that their prime universe counterparts did.

969. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@ 965. Jim, London – September 5, 2013

“Another point – the briefing room needs to make a comeback, in any disciplined organisation the squabbling that happens on the bridge would mot be considered professional…. The whole reason TOS and TNG had a briefing room….”

Good point, although it does seem that this new Starfleet is not that concerned about professional conduct of its staff.

970. Keachick - September 5, 2013

#967 – Exactly. As I have already said twice on this issue – the Jury is out.

What I do recall from the STID film was something about there not being much of the original records surviving and/or nuSpock not gaining access to such as might have survived. I would surmise that Ad. Marcus would have had a hand in this absence of information available.

971. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@968. Keachick

“Actually, I think that this alt. universe main characters have tended to behave more professionally on the bridge that their prime universe counterparts did.”

lol, I’m beginning to think that we are living in two different realities here :)

972. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

Garak’s Pride,

Yea, with the “as I understand it” disclaimer by Spock on his genocide comment, and also considering that Khan doesn’t even choose to dignify Spock’s genocide comment with a response — this pretty conclusively shows that Spock is just reciting what he may have learned back and the Academy in reading a couple paragraphs in a history book of the Eugenics Wars. He obviously did not do the extensive research that the original Spock had time to do in Space Seed. And that’s why he needs old Spock to fill him in on Khan — now, that scene is making a lot more sense to me as to why it was needed (i.e. because young Spock wouldn’t have time to do the research in this movie).

Great points. I think you have cleared this up for all of us. Thanks!

973. Phil - September 5, 2013

Well, this floated over on FB…..

http://www.defeatkhan.com/

Looks like Khan isn’t going away anytime soon.

974. Keachick - September 5, 2013

Where was it stated that Harrison/Khan wanted to destroy earth?

The only message I got was that he wanted to destroy Starfleet Headquarters and Ad. Marcus’s *secret* Section 31 base of operations.

975. Red Shirt Diaries - September 5, 2013

MJ, the phrase, “as I understand it,” is the ultimate disclaimer that some of us would use in college debate class. We would use this phrase when we had limited information on something, but in which we felt we had just enough information to put forward a credible opinion during the debate.

976. Jim, London - September 5, 2013

Keachick dont patronise me – i have seen plenty of TOS and most of their heated debates took place in the briefing room, during a battle or perilous situation you cant really leave the bridge to have briefing – hence those troika moments you speak of.

977. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

@951 re: 923 Vultan MORE^^^^

Oh here’s one more important point about that unsubstantiated, ambiguous, out-of-context line spoken by Spock in Space Seed:

“Whole populations were being bombed out of existence.”

Spock doesn’t say WHO was bombing whole populations out of existence.

Considering the United States’ history in WWII, Vietnam, and their current drone policy, which indiscriminately targets areas resulting in large numbers of casualties, sometimes without even killing their intended target, including instances of friendly fire. It’s not hard to imagine a country bombing entire occupied cities of innocent civilians, just as the US did in Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, to bring the leaders of these opposition forces to justice. Of course the US probably didn’t intend to kill all of those innocent people (they just got in the way of the larger objective). And it’s not hard to imagine the supermen retaliating by taking out the military capabilities of their enemies in similar mass strikes on populated areas. Of course Hitler wanted to rule England, but that did not stop him from attempting to bomb London, into oblivion.

Therefore, most likely meaning of this statement is that each side escalated the attacks on the others, and as usual, many innocent people died, regardless of the stated intent or goals of either side. Just like in the real world.

978. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@975 “MJ, the phrase, “as I understand it,” is the ultimate disclaimer that some of us would use in college debate class. We would use this phrase when we had limited information on something, but in which we felt we had just enough information to put forward a credible opinion during the debate.”

Right! And again, this also explains while we needed Old Spock to make and appearance, as young Spock never had the significant research time in this movie that Old Spock had in Space Seed.

And Khan not even choosing to dignify Spock’s genocide comment with a response pretty much seals the deal here for me.

979. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@977. So that’s, basically, “as you understand it?”

;-)

980. Keachick - September 5, 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional

In terms of ethics, which are mentioned in the above link, those would be defined by the society/culture.

Did the conduct of any of those main characters actually negatively affect outcomes? People constantly criticize the shuttlecraft scene (discussion between Kirk, Spock and Uhura) as being unprofessional, however the conversation did not affect their competency to deal with whatever came at them later.

Another aspect to remember is that this is a film. Film tends to show more of the personal side of characters than would be known to people in general in a real (work) situation. For example, we have been shown behaviour in the privacy of a turbolift in both movies. If we were another member of the crew, we would have no idea what occurred inside the lifts but as viewers, we do know. The same applies to what conversation took place on the shuttlecraft. We were privy to a private conversation held between three people in the privacy of a shuttlecraft.

I’d have thought this would be blatantly obvious to people, but clearly it is not…oh dear…:(

981. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

@970. Keachick,
“What I do recall from the STID film was something about there not being much of the original records surviving and/or nuSpock not gaining access to such as might have survived.”

I have never known Spock to speculate on something without having complete information. He even goes to great pains in Space Seed not to render an opinion to Kirk — “Even a theory requires some facts, Captain. So far I have none. ” Likewise in Devil In The Dark — KIRK: “Speculate.”
SPOCK: “I’d prefer to cogitate the possibilities for a time.”

As for what information Spock knows when he confronts Khan — well he didn’t get that from his Academy days, since even after Khan tells them who he is, Spock still has to call Prime Spock to get answers.

And there’s your answer, an off-screen conversation about Khan takes place with Prime Spock in which all the information Spock needs to know about Khan is imparted. It does not matter if Quinto-Spock has the time to do the research himself, everything he learns about Khan is told to him by the guy who did the exhaustive research — the most trustworthy guy he knows: himself.

So when Spock accuses Khan by saying “As I understand it”, he may as well have said, “As I understand it from Prime Spock”.

But ultimately, you can jump through all the speculative hoops you want. Spock isn’t real. Everything Spock says was specifically put into his mouth by the writers, and the WRITERS wanted us to KNOW that Khan was guilty of mass-genocide of any race they found inferior.

Retcon complete.

982. Colin - September 5, 2013

Admiral Marcus, IIRC, stated that Khan was tried as a war criminal and found guilty.

As for Spock not having the time to do a search, let’s try a test. How long does it take for you to do a search on the computer? Spock knew three things about Khan: he was born about 300 years, he was cyrogenically frozen, and he knew his name. I did a search using Hitler and sixty years ago and I got results quickly on Google. We know that starships were connected to a central database (Star Trek V) which can be accessed. And we assume that their computers have the advantage of 300 years of technological progress supporting them, which makes them faster and “smarter”.

As for bombing whole populatoins out of existence, the Allies, who weren’t for genocide, did this on a regular routine in WWII. They bombed heavily cities, resulting in high collateral damage. The purpose of this was to demoralize the enemy, destroy the infrastructure needed for war, and force the enemy to the negotiating table. Hell, we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war sooner than later and to save lives.

As for Khan’s status as a relic, yes, he acquired a limited amoount of knowledge on how starships work. However, he ran into barriers. In the first story, he found that he couldn’t operate the ship without the cooperation of the crew. In the second story, his inexperience with space combat led to his defeat.

I may read a technical manual on a piece of technology. I may be able to do a few tasks. Yet, I won’t have that experience and knowledge of people who have become habituated to it. We see this in Star Trek where a character will describe something as off because the normal process is not present. (The engines should be feeling like this, but are not. What is happening?) This is the understanding that Khan lacks. (Imagine transporting a general from three centuries ago into our century, and ask them to develop new technologies that wil be used to fight an enemy. This general was not being asked to given information on tactics and strategy, where their footing was more sure.)

Star Trek writers, in the camoflage of the characters, have often characterized the 20th century as a savage century. The most egregious case would be “The Neutral Zone”.

983. Phil - September 5, 2013

Wow, such passion. If I may, Khan, of Space Seed fame, was clearly established as a ruler of dictatorial nature, and a tactician of sort. Most leaders of this sort don’t actually do the killing, or wish to rule the dead, as they derive their wealth and power from the ruled. Like it or not, canon does not provide details of the nature of his rule, just some oversight. For all the back and forth that’s going on, it’s over details us as individuals are filling in, and that, boys and girls, is subject to interpretation.

WOK’s Khan had clearly snapped. Be it the death of his wife, or years of bare subsistence in brutal living conditions Khan became the individual who wanted nothing more then to squeeze the life out of Kirk with his own bare hands, to inflict pain and death on the individual he blamed for his own misery.

STID’s Khan comes across in a similar fashion, but a bit more mercenary. The movie attempts to generate some sympathy for him as a victim of extortion, but that’s out the window as the story progresses and he turns into Space Rambo. Ultimately, the story is vague on Khans details as well, as a result I really can’t get worked up over the character one way or the other. He’s not sympathetic as an anti-hero, and all Trek villains die eventually, so, who cares. Leaving him frozen, a la Khan Solo really isn’t that much of a tease, either. Just unplug the b**tard and save the galaxy a whole lot of trouble.

984. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

@983. Phil,
“The movie attempts to generate some sympathy for him as a victim of extortion, but that’s out the window as the story progresses and he turns into Space Rambo.”

Ironically this depiction undermines Orci’s intent that Khan be “one of us”. Instead Khan comes off as a sociopath bent on the mass-genocide of inferior species, not the pawn turned terrorist to save his “family” and expose the true criminal in Marcus.

And if Harrison never said his name was Khan, I don’t believe anything else about the way this character is portrayed would be recognizable as Khan.

985. K-7 - September 5, 2013

#981

Curious Cadet,

It seems kind of silly that you always “pretend” that your responses to MJ are to another person; like Keachick in this case.

Why the facade?

986. K-7 - September 5, 2013

#982. “As for bombing whole populations out of existence, the Allies, who weren’t for genocide, did this on a regular routine in WWII.”

This is utterly false.

When, in the history of allied bombing in WWII, was the the population of an entire country bombed “out of existence?”

Nothing even close to this ever happened. WTF?

But’s let say, hypothetically, that the Allies got together and decided to implement a mufti-year bombing plan in 45, that would eventually kill every single German in Germany by say 48. That, in fact, would have been “genocide.”

987. Keachick - September 5, 2013

What? Google can only supply people with the information available and that would apply in any century. If someone, like Admiral Marcus, does not make information available, then no computer can supply information that does not exist – that is – not been made part of its data banks. What’s more – people only have access to information that authorities allow them to have.

It is only recently that many records pertinent to the WW2 have become available to the general populace under the Official Secrets Act, which most nations have in some form. I have no doubt that Starfleet and UFP would have a similar set-up.

We are seeing an older prime Spock here, a Spock who has on occasions being known to speculate, to guess – ref. Star Trek IV – Dr McCoy – on Spock guessing – (paraphrasing) “Spock, Jim has more confidence in your guesses than he has in most other people’s facts”.

Please – know your Spocks.

988. Jim, London - September 5, 2013

@986 – Not a whole country but fire bombing of Dresden in WW2 as part of Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris’ doctrine of taking the war to the enemy prior to the Normandy invasion

989. Vultan - September 5, 2013

#984

Well, looks like this discussion is still going.

So, first let me say thanks for the additional research. I’d forgotten some of that. And yeah, the Khan of STID does come off as more of a looney, villainous, mustache twirler (the more we get to know him) than the Montalban version.

But you know, they changed the guy’s race, so I guess… hey, why not go the extra mile and make him a space Nazi? Patterns of Farce. ;-)

990. Keachick - September 5, 2013

#985 – K7
Because Curious Cadet was responding to something that I, Keachick, had written…

991. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

@987. Keachick
“What’s more – people only have access to information that authorities allow them to have.”

So Marcus erased all references to Khan throughout the known galaxy?

In any even, it’s not needed since young Spock gets all the information he needs from Prime Spock.

———————–
“We are seeing an older prime Spock here, a Spock who has on occasions being known to speculate,”

Well there’s no need for Prime Spock to speculate now is there? He already knows everything there is to know about Khan. We’re talking about young Quinto Spock, and his confident assertion that Khan and his supermen committed mass-genocide.

So he’s just accusing Khan of mass-genocide without any facts to support it? Doubtful.

992. Keachick - September 5, 2013

Re my post #987 – “…under the Official Secrets Act…”

I meant to write “the Official Information Act”. I believe, that in the UK, what is deemed to be secret can be made available to people after a period of 60 years, which means that a lot of information became available about British and allied forces tactics/strategies etc in about 2005, 60 years after the war ended.

993. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

@973. Phil,
“Looks like Khan isn’t going away anytime soon.”

I just looked at this …

“A SUPERHUMAN VILLAIN NAMED KHAN HAS ATTACKED OUR FEDERATION. HIS SUPERIOR GENETICS MAKE HIM THE MOST TERRIFYING THREAT WE HAVE EVER FACED.”

Ever!?

Nero and his advanced technology and planet destroying red matter was better?

All I can say is, oh brother … guess they managed to find their “Joker” … or is it their “Zod”?

994. Commander K - September 5, 2013

I really hate some star trek fans who whinge about the movie…BE GRATEFUL YOU ACTUALLY GOT A FILM!

In the words of Shatner…

GET
A
LIFE!

995. BatlethInTheGroin - September 5, 2013

#994: You are seriously unhinged. Take medication.

996. Keachick - September 5, 2013

Why does it bother people that retconning seems to have occurred in describing the past activities of this Khan? In fact, some retconning was necessary to include what prime Spock must have known a little something about, but not necessarily a lot (ref. Enterprise series).

As I remember it, the Augments (as they were named) were not discussed until Enterprise series. Apart from Space Seed, where the 1990′s Eugenics War was supposed to have taken place, the only other time that genetic manipulation of ova/semen and/or embryos was discussed was in relation to what Dr Bashir’s parents did to avoid their son from inheriting a disease (ref. DS9 episode). What the parents did had become by this era (24th century) illegal.

What is also pertinent is that, in Space Seed, it was clearly stated that the records were INCOMPLETE as they were shown to be in STID.

It really is a pity that the writers did not create brand new alt. universe Star Trek canon because then we would not be having this discussion. We would be having a different discussion. I do have to wonder, though, if there would still be the same amount of bitching and argumentativeness as now. Something tells me – Yes, in all probability…:)

997. BatlethInTheGroin - September 5, 2013

#706: Did you really just say Star Trek fans need to get laid? You actually thought such an incredibly overused cliche would be an effective insult? Really? I pity you.

998. K-7 - September 5, 2013

988. But Jim, Spock stated, “bombing whole populations out of existence.” That standard was not even close to being met in WWII Allied bombing.

Let’s take your example of Dresden. Dresden has a population of 750,000 people, and death toll estimates from the WWII bombing typically fall between 35,000 and 100,000 people. So at even 100,000 people dead, that would only be 13% of the population killed.

While these stats are horrific and sad, 13% doesn’t even begin to approach Spock’s statement of “bombing whole populations out of existence.”

999. rogerachong - September 5, 2013

STID was a very good movie and not a great one. The delay in producing the film cost paramount and the fans like me who were anxious to see the follow-up. Tomorrow is yesterday and I have positive aspirations that come 2016 I can sit and enjoy a much improved, thought provoking, exciting and mostly original Star Trek movie and a TV show!! It is great to be still alive.

1000. K-7 - September 5, 2013

@994 @706

Hey Commander K and VJR,

Don’t worry about BattleintheGroins criticism of you both. Trust me, he always comes to your defense in public; in fact, he’s one of your strongest backers.

;-)

1001. Red Shirt Diaries - September 5, 2013

Bombing 100% of a countries population and killing all of them is genocide.

1002. Dom - September 5, 2013

Interestingly, when I discussed the film with some friends who saw it, we all agreed that we saw Marcus as the film’s bad guy, not Khan. In STID he’s like Marcus’s pit bull, who breaks off his leash and goes wild. The end of the film was less beating the bad guy and more getting the mad dog back under control.

Like any genius who knows himself to be superior to everyone round him, you should know better than to pee him off!

Actually, I no longer see Khan as a villain in any incarnation: he’s an antagonist with a different moral code. I hope we see him again at some stage.

1003. Who cares - September 5, 2013

@998. Will Riker stated that WW III had a death toll of 600 million in First Contact, in Space Seed it is implied that WW III and the Eugenics War are the same conflict, remember in Space Seed, Spock “the last of your so called world wars” McCoy “The Eugenics War”.

Riker stated that WW II was 10 years prior to their arrival and there were no world wars after First Contact, so clearly this was the last world war, also known as the Eugenics War, and 600 million dead worldwide could indeed include the entire populations of several nations.

1004. Red Shirt Diaries - September 5, 2013

Re: Curious Cadet

Come on lady, attacking this based on marketing materials is just nonsensical.

Hell, take a look at the poster for WOK, where the poster says: “At the end of the universe lies the beginning of vengeance.” How were they at the end of the universe? Plus, the poster shows the Enterprise firing on the Regula I space station, what the hell is up with that?

Oh, but it would be inconvenient for you to apply your critiques here to WOK’s marketing materials, right?

1005. Who cares - September 5, 2013

Dang typos

“Riker stated in First Contact that WW III was 10 years prior to their arrival, and there were no world wars after First Contact”

1006. Red Shirt Diaries - September 5, 2013

Re: Who Cares

But unfortunately, Space Seed references the 1990′s, and this is essentially confirmed in STID when they make a comment that Khan was born 300 years ago.

I would prefer your scenario where they are the same war in the 2050′s, but unfortunately, canon – for the most part – contradicts that.

1007. Who cares - September 5, 2013

@Red Shirt. How do we know the war didn’t start in the 90s and continue for decades, after all the mid 21st century post atomic horror seen in the first episode of TNG has to be from the years shortly before First Contact, so perhaps the 24th century’s history considers the final end of the conflict as being in the 2050s, I think it is possible that the whole era, from the beginning of the Eugenics War to the years of Chocrane’s life could be rolled together as WW III for the historians of the future, especially given the often cited fragmentary records of the era.

1008. K-7 - September 5, 2013

OMG,

Curious Cadet,

You are seriously using marketing materials to try to score negative points against Star Trek into Darkness?

Really, Curious Cadet ? Really ?

LOL

1009. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

@996. Keachick,
“What is also pertinent is that, in Space Seed, it was clearly stated that the records were INCOMPLETE as they were shown to be in STID.”

Space Seed is fiction. So are the “incomplete” records. All this DETAIL came from the writers. Not the characters, and not actual events. I KNOW you know this, but it seems like it needs to be restated.

Here’s the thing, anybody can take an arbitrary piece of dialogue out of context and say it means anything they want it to, in order to fit their claims. But the reality is that the WRITERS had a reason for putting it there and assembling the words around it the way they did. When the writers have Spock say the records are “incomplete”, they don’t mean so everything else they have the characters reveal can be questioned. They tell us that so that Kirk and Spock will have a mystery to unravel and hopefully draw the audience in with them, so they don’t immediately know who Khan is, and are forced to get their information elsewhere like Prime Spock.

The bottom line is, there is nothing in Space Seed that supports the idea that Khan or the supermen were guilty of mass genocide. And everything the writers do tell us about Khan supports that he should be thought of as a Napoleon, not a Hitler. And that’s the last word we have. TWOK does nothing to change that story either. STID, however, decides in very carefully chosen words to tell us Khan was guilty of mass genocide.

Now what’s wrong with a little harmless retconing you ask? Because it subverts the intent of those who originally created the character. As many have pointed out, TWOK made Khan an unhinged, psychotic lunatic, completely distorting the elegance of the character that was Khan. And now STID makes him into an unhinged sociopath. Both of these choices are completely out of character as originally conceived, and and turn a well written, multi-faceted, and provocatively interesting character into a two-dimensional, stereotypical punching bag for Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise. And that’s a loss for the fans.

How would you feel if the popular perception that Kirk is a ‘womanizer’ were cemented in canon in the next film, justified by some vague dialogue from “Wolf in the Fold” in order to justify some plot line the producers want to include? My guess is you wouldn’t like it very much.

Yes, all things considered, the producers should have just bit the reboot bullet, which after watching STID is almost assuredly what they did despite statements to the contrary.

1010. K-7 - September 5, 2013

@1009

Ah yes, the next response from Curious Cadet to MJ…err…whoops, I mean, Keachick, of course. Yea, that’s right! Sure!

;-)

1011. RAMA - September 5, 2013

On what planet did this story come from??? STID…87% fresh. STID $463 million dollar at the BO WW. It was the best reviewed blockbuster of the year, surpassing Iron Man 3. ST is doing just fine tyvm.

1012. Noname Given - September 5, 2013

This article a a load of crap, pure and simple. If the Star trek franchise is ‘broken’ – it was broken LONG before Star Trek 2009, or Star Trek Into Darkness. It started to fracture when TAS hit the airwaves in 1973 and was further fractured when ST:TMP hit the screen in 1979.

Further, I think you’ll find truly ‘old school’ TOS fans who saw TOS first run on NBC (like myself) really LIKE the film. It’s the later TNG era fans that can’t wrap their heads around the fact that neither ST09 nor STID were concerned with political correctness, and had no issues ‘sexing’ things up by having females characters in states of undress or skimpy form fitting uniforms (VERY much like TOS back in the 1960ies where this new film series takes its inspiration from.)

Personally, I think Star Trek lost A LOT when GR retconned nearly everything ‘Trek’ in TNG (and that’s just what he did. the 23rd era was NEVCER stated to be utopian, just ‘better and somewhat more evolved’ – yet supposedly, by TNG’s time, Earth is a utopian paradise.
^^^
That (IMO) is what really ‘broke’ the Star Trek franchise.

1013. tman - September 5, 2013

As a life long fan, I have to say I agree with your sentiment and critique.

What I found funny is the reveals of Khan as the villain left all my friends who hadn’t seen Space Seed or TWOK confused what the villains problem was while those of us who have seen those many times were left with a bad taste from most of the things they “threw in for the fans.”

A few items I disagree with you on, though not in a dismissive way:
1. Movie franchises these days are easy to reboot and behave MORE like TV shows. Star Trek did it with Wrath of Khan. All you need is a story that challenges the actors and everything else is already in place– except no more Leonard Nimoy. I love his acting and him as a person, but seeing him will remind of Khan and the phone-a-friend scene. –Get good writers and you are set.
2. Going to a new ship, new crew is not needed and I worry if the fan base will have enough interest to follow. If you do a TV show, then I would be 100% with you but on movies, that approach will inevitably fail.

1014. Bill Peters - September 5, 2013

862. Thomas I agree with you Statement .

Interesting how this one has people talking about everything from History to TOS Episodes.

1015. Disinvited - September 5, 2013

#994. Commander K – September 5, 2013

Those words are the words of the SNL writer Robert Smigel of Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog fame. When you attempt to use that sentence and mistakenly give Shatner, a performer in Smigel’s comic fiction, credit for it, you undermine your whole point that those others that you seek to disparage, because they are so different from yourself, can’t tell the difference between a fictional performance and reality.

1016. Vincent - September 5, 2013

I am honestly seriously getting sick of old school star trek fans. I never seen a bunch of winers to the Nth degree.

Honestly if you can’t let go of past Star Trek, then just shut up at this point. I have watched Star Trek into Darkness, too many times off of ITUNES since it was released on the web, and I can’t get enough of it. It is my favorite movie now.

I don’t’ understand what is with old trekkies, you can’t let go of the past, you can’t even look to the future. Isn’t that what trek is about, looking to the future, and not the past, stop looking at your ass!

Honestly this is getting extremely annoying, that people can’t let go of shit. This was an awesome movie, very well done and you can tell JJ abrams put a lot of heart into it.

No matter what he does it seems that Trekkies are still complaining.

Seriously what do you want? Corny actors, actors who are full of themselves? Cardboard sets? Honestly, what is wrong with you?

Star Trek is NOT broken. This article is ridiculous, and another fanboys attempt to just not be able to let go of the past and it’s ridiculous “messages”.

As things grow older, they mature and evolve and change. Obviously some old trekkie fans just can’t get over anything, or accept any new change.

This is starting to get on my nerves. Without JJ Abrams Star TRek would be DEAD right now. It was already DEAD before JJ revived it.

People need to get off their high horse and accept the fact that Star Trek is changing and I think for the good. No sorry, I KNOW for the good.

I can’t even stand to watch the original series anymore, due to it’s cornyness and stupid melodramatic and horrible acting, affects, ridiculous storylines and just plainly bad writing.

I grew up with the original series, TNG, DS9, Voyager and every movie.

LET GO.

Ugh I wanted to punch the screen reading this article. I don’t even blame Orci for going off the handle, because no matter what they do, what they write, “fans” are never satisfied.

Yeah I know I am “whining like the whiners”, but I don’t care. This shit has to end, and stop NOW. I never started to be ASHAMED to be a trekkie, I am starting too, because of this BS from the “fans” and their ideas of what “Star Trek SHOULD be.”

GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE, LET GO. Old trek is NEVER coming back. Old trek is what it is OLD, atrophied, and diminished. BECAUSE of the new Star Trek, a friend I know who is jut turning 21, got into Star Trek, and started watching the oroginal series, when he thought Star Trek as a whole was stupid. BECAUSE of JJ it got him INTO Star Trek. He loved both WRATH OF KHAN, and INTO DARKNESS. He COULD NOT STOP TALKING ABOUT BOTH MOVIES.

This is the EFFECT that JJ ABRAMS has caused, a 21 year old, who was born way after most movies and when Star Trek was NOT in it’s prime, to get into Star Trek. He has watched all three seasons of the original already, and see almost all movies.

THIS is what JJ abrams has caused, a group of a younger generation to not only appreciate OLD trek, but the NEW trek.

1017. Marja - September 5, 2013

1014, Disinvited, Bang! on the nose : ) … best reply I’ve ever seen IRT this supposed “Shat” comment.
————————————-

Spock/Khan conversation: As for Spock saying “…as I understand it” perhaps he is being literal? He has just gotten the information on Khan from Elder Spock and thus, per his words to Khan, understands it.

Then again, it’s a really cool introductory phrase.
————————————-

On the unneeded “Khan” when John Harrisahn would have dahn:

Personally I’d love to know how many takes it took for Quinto to be able to do the “Khannnn!” scream, and did he keep cracking up?
: )

1018. AlienDNA - September 5, 2013

A Box Office hit has to make a substantial PROFIT. 462mil on a 250mil budge is NOT A HIT. It made LESS domestically than ST09. DO THE MATH.

Secondly, Orci is just an asinine person, who seems to be easily affected by posting of the internet…OR…he knows he “fudged” up and participated in creating a shitty story. Two actually, as the first one was just as bad if not worse. Both these movies do not make SENSE. It is loud, shiny and sparkly, and the short attention span of today’s society seem to like that. Well, not that much, since it did not make much money against it’s budget. Another short attention span mistake.

For a writer to say that he gets to write movies for a reason, is just ludicrous. First, all the transformers movies are AWFUL, the shininess is why people watch them and made them hits, the EFFECTS, not the story, another example of short attention span. This is why Orci is popular, because he is apart of the short attention span movement.

1019. the fans are broken - September 5, 2013

Star Trek was broken before Enterprise premiered. DS9 and Voyager were leading to viewer loss and combined with Insurrection and Nemesis then the poor performance of Enterprise.

Sorry guys…Gene would be ashamed the way the fan community is acting. Like a bunch of babies who need a diaper change.

1020. the fans are broken - September 5, 2013

Star Trek isn’t broken….the fans are stuck in the late 80s early 90s good old days.

1021. Keachick - September 5, 2013

God – I AM SICK OF KHAN – BOTH KHANS.

Bob Orci and co. – WHY, OH WHY? Please let the torment of having to deal with any Khan, Bloody Khan end here. Both Nicholas Meyer and now, you guys, have managed to bring a dickheaded nobody back twice and give him way more attention that he ever deserved or should have received.

Quinto almost sounded as if his voice would break for an instant when he screamed “Khan!”. He should have screamed “Noooo!”. It would have been easier to scream and would not have caused the bitchy controversy that it has.

Hindsight being the glorious thing that it is…:)

1022. AlanMck - September 5, 2013

I haven’t read all comments so apologies if what I say has already been posted and for sake of full disclosure I hated Into Darkness.

The argument for me isn’t based on as pseudo irrational hatred for anything messing with Star Trek, but simply bad writing, poor characterisation and neglecting everything just for bigger explosions. Yes the movie made $450+ million, but honestly if they could have made more profit by altering both pointless special effect laden opening and finale on Earth.

The opening set up a pointless plot point, but if they wanted to keep it could have been done better as a quieter character moment rather than SFX overload. Same thing for the Spock/Khan chase and crash on Earth, was it really necessary to do any of that? It would have worked equally well if chase happened on the other ship – even if the magic blood bad writing/not proper continuity thing was pointless due to Enterprise having other genetically altered soldier out of cryotube they put Kirk in.

Yes continuity is important part of the films and posters can slate classic trek fans for moaning about changes, but they forget the important parts. The new timeline occurs post Khan going into cryo (his race shouldn’t have changed) and even Enterprise the TV series had already happened. Either go reboot completely or follow established lore, it isn’t difficult. Blending the two only angers the old fans and confuses the new. Case in point, would someone who saw Wrath of Khan for first time after watching new trek believe it was same character?

Even the role reversal WOK death scene is weakened because the relationship between new Kirk and Spock hasn’t had chance to fully develop, nor do they have the long history together that old Kirk and Spock had. I doubt a better writer could have fixed this because the history bringing those two characters to that moment in WOK is difficult to replicate.

My only trekkie related peeve was the swearing. Why was it necessary as it was actually a jokey part of continuity that they didn’t. I’m Scottish and was born swearing so it doesn’t offered me it just doesn’t fit within that time or universe that was already established. I found it quite jarring.

1023. Li'l Shat - September 5, 2013

I’ve been judging the Kirk death scene in STID as though it were intended to have the same significance as Spock’s death scene in TWOK. In retrospect, I believe I have been in error.

The scene in STID does not have to be earned via decades of friendship–like the scene in TWOK–because it is not intended to serve the same purpose. The Spock death scene in the TWOK works because it acknowledges the deep and abiding friendship that Kirk and Spock have had over the years.

However, the Kirk death scene in STID works just as well when you stop trying to view it in the same light. In STID, Kirk’s death makes Spock realize how much of a friend Kirk has been to him in the short time they’ve known each other, and that in fact Kirk is the best, and maybe only real, friend he’s ever had.

The death scene and its attendant emotion doesn’t have to be earned, as it’s not about that. It’s about Spock’s realization of just who Kirk is to him. It’s not a bittersweet culmination of a decades long friendship, but rather an intense and emotional realization that Kirk really is Spock’s best friend.

1024. Chris Barrick - September 5, 2013

Mr. Orci,
With all due respect, you are not a “parent” to fans. STID is disliked because it is unoriginal, about as subtle as being hit by a boulder, and painfully, disrespectfully derivative of a far, far better work.

TruTrek will always be better than JJ NuTrek because is was always sincere.

1025. JakartaTrek - September 5, 2013

Bob Orci, I support you.

You made one of amazing Star Trek stories I’ve ever seen…
You repaired something that is already broken.
Thanks for doing so.

[Why do Star Wars fans *always* love their own movies? I’m not surprised if Star wars films generate more dollars on box office than Star Trek films do]

I hope Star Trek franchise will not be broken because a few stupid people do not like it.

1026. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

Ah great,

Just when I thought I had seen it all from Curious Cadet, he now starts criticizing STID based on some meaningless marketing materials that hardly anyone is even aware of. Shameful!

….and the CC adventure of grasping at straws is just beginning.

1027. Jonboc - September 5, 2013

#1018 Exactly, Li’l Shat!

We have a winner!

1028. Shatterhand - September 5, 2013

#1015: Vincent, you are now my favorite person in all of Trek fandom. I am thankful there are a few of us out there who aren’t suffering from terminal cases of tunnel vision.

I think that the writer of the article and all of the people pissing on J.J. Abrams and his version of Star Trek deserved every single word of Bob Orci’s angry responses. He’s absolutely right. The haters have been vicious, nasty, and completely inflexible to anything that doesn’t support their visions of what Star Trek should be. Sadly, the haters are so thick-headed they aren’t getting it and are just using his comebacks as some kind of proof to back up their points, which only makes them look and sound more foolish than they already are.

1029. Anthony Goodwin - September 5, 2013

To boborci, Mr. Orci, I respect your writing of the Trek movies you and J.J. did. I really appreciate you guys making these two movies possible. I mean, I love old and new Trek altogether. Don’t pay attention to the fans who hated the reboot. They’re just illogically crazy.

1030. Dr. H Jack Schidtmann - September 5, 2013

I’d be down for a new Star Trek tv series on HBO with the commonalities of most HBO series. It would be a hit

1031. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

I’m just wondering why the STID fans ALWAYS consider anyone who doesn’t like STID a hater ? Seriously, it is like kids in KG-2 or something.

1032. Red Dead Ryan - September 5, 2013

1017. Keachick – September 5, 2013

“God – I AM SICK OF KHAN – BOTH KHANS.

Bob Orci and co. – WHY, OH WHY? Please let the torment of having to deal with any Khan, Bloody Khan end here. Both Nicholas Meyer and now, you guys, have managed to bring a dickheaded nobody back twice and give him way more attention that he ever deserved or should have received.

Quinto almost sounded as if his voice would break for an instant when he screamed “Khan!”. He should have screamed “Noooo!”. It would have been easier to scream and would not have caused the bitchy controversy that it has.

Hindsight being the glorious thing that it is…:)”

Wait…..after continually denying that the Khan in STID is the same Khan from TWOK and “Space Seed”, you’re now admitting he’s the same guy?

Also, for someone who continually claims to be sick and tired of Khan, you sure do not hesitate to insert yourself into any conversation about the man.

There are some mixed signals here.

1033. Red Dead Ryan - September 5, 2013

1020. MJ (The Original). – September 5, 2013

“Ah great,

Just when I thought I had seen it all from Curious Cadet, he now starts criticizing STID based on some meaningless marketing materials that hardly anyone is even aware of. Shameful!

….and the CC adventure of grasping at straws is just beginning.”

Yes, I agree. I think CC has trouble grasping the facts, and does anything he can to avoid accepting the truth. Either that, or his dislike for STID is such that he has to make up crap to justify his hate for the movie.

Curious Cadet,

You obviously post stuff online that just doesn’t hold anywater. You also ignore the facts regarding STID.

“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!”

:-)

1034. Phil - September 5, 2013

@1024. Conversely, if someone popped a gasket over the wondrous story ’50 Shades of Kirk” we would al be getting told to get a life, and to respect everyone opinion….

1035. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

Amazon shows STID BluRay and 3D as the top 1 and 2 bestsellers respectively. It’s rated at #3 on the iTunes best-sellers chart (beat out by IM3 and Orci’s movie “Now You See Me” in at 1). And according to TorrentFreak, a torrent of STID is already the second-most downloaded movie of last week.

Looks like the boycott is over before it started. STID is going to make a fortune in home video sales.

1036. Keachick - September 5, 2013

#1019 That is always how I have understood the death scene. It was never about what had been, but about what Spock realized he would be losing…
*************************************************************************************
Until a few months back, my kids found a videotape copy of TWOK recorded off the TV. It had been years since I watched the film. Even though the rest of the family watched the videotape, I didn’t bother to sit down and actually watch and pay attention. I heard a lot of the dialogue though.

Since coming onto the internet around August 2009 and reading about the latest Star Trek films and discussions about them, I have been turned OFF the Wrath of Khan film. The continued unabated obsession with the Khan character and the TOS and movie dealing with this character has spoiled it somewhat. In fact, sadly, much of Star Trek in its various iterations has been spoiled for me a bit…

Being considered someone who leaves their brain at the door if they like a particular movie or enjoying a series that Rick Berman and others were involved in making, when people are pouring so much vitriol and scorn over these people and the work they did on Star Trek has had the effect, at times, of undermining my confidence in my own opinions and preferences and in particular, my enjoyment of these series.

The ideal is that nobody should really care what another thinks about a television series, movie, book, cartoon series or whatever but the actions and opinions of others often can and do affect another person’s perception and mood in subtle and not so subtle ways.

These two Abrams movies have had people who clearly dislike the latest Star Trek iterations hang around for more than four years now. Some are very vocal and adamant about their dislike. Some people even make comments that accuse people like me of “brown nosing” Bob Orci. Someone made a rude and offensive phrase used specifically against me that was similar in meaning to “brown nosing” just an hour ago on STID IMDb message board simply because I explained the context in which Bob Orci swore at a poster a day or so back on this thread.

IMDb Administration has deleted that entire thread from STID message board.

I am tired of these kinds of people. If they really don’t like Star Trek in its present form, why can’t they just go away and find something they do like? Is it really too much to ask?

1037. Vultan - September 5, 2013

Another unnecessary remake: Robocop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INmtQXUXez8

1038. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@1027. Curious Cadet

Links ?

I usually check Nielsen VideoScan First Alert chart as it is reported on The Hollywood Reporter website.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/great-gatsby-tops-home-entertainment-620983

1039. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@1029. Vultan – September 5, 2013

You can add Stargate to the list as well, they are going to reboot the original movie & begin from scratch!!

1040. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@1028. Keachick

“I am tired of these kinds of people. If they really don’t like Star Trek in its present form, why can’t they just go away and find something they do like? Is it really too much to ask?”

You are very welcome to “go away” anytime, no one is stopping you.

Say hi to Joseph Goebbels on your way out, I’m sure he will love to have a conversation with someone who can’t stand any oppositions to their own view.

1041. Keachick - September 5, 2013

Re my post #1028 re: Kirk’s death scene and Spock – I was agreeing with L’il Shat’s assessment at #1018.

No, RDR, that is not what I am saying – there are two movies, each with a man calling himself Khan. One (TWOK) he is clearly Khan Noonien Singh. The second (STID) he is simply known as Khan. Ambiguity does exist.

Whether or not they do happen to be the same Khan Noonien Singh is of no real consequence to me, because I am sick to death of the name Khan, in all the damned Star Trek TV series/movie iterations.

Yes, maybe I do talk as much as anybody else, but that is because that name is currently under discussion. A man calling himself Khan was one of the main villains of STID.

If Bob Orci or any of his writing/producing buddies wants to bring up that name again or any of that crew or vessel, then I’ll know that Bob Orci really does not love me/us after all. That would make very sad…

Are you getting this, Bob Orci?

I am “people”. People want/need love…

1042. K-7 - September 5, 2013

#1027 “Looks like the boycott is over before it started. STID is going to make a fortune in home video sales.”

Ah, this post was directed at Keachick, right? Another one of your ongoing conversations with her, right?

;-) LOL

1043. Keachick - September 5, 2013

Ahmed – You never fail to disappoint with your rudeness. Why do you come to a site about a movie that you seem to have nothing but enmity about?

No, it is you who is welcome to go away!

1044. Vultan - September 5, 2013

#1031

Oh dear. I liked the original movie. Never got into the series, but then I don’t think my local channels ever showed it. Heard it’s good though.

A remake… well, I guess it could be good. Have serious doubts though. Robocop looks very average. All action, no satire.

“Wouldn’t buy that for a dollar.”

1045. Curious Cadet - September 5, 2013

@1030. Ahmed,
“Links ?”

Here’s the Amazon link. It ranks #2 overall which I think is an aggregate of the DVD (#1), BluRay (#1&2), and Digital downloads (#14)

http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-movies-TV-DVD-Blu-ray/zgbs/movies-tv/ref=zg_bs_nav_0

For iTunes, just open iTunes and look at the movies bestsellers. Don’t know how to access it on the web.

I don’t know if the filter will let me post the link to torrentfreak, so just google it.

The Hollywood Reporter is pretty good, but it probably only tracks released videos, not pre-sales or digital downloads from what I can tell.

1046. Keachick - September 5, 2013

Matt Wright – Can we start a new thread please? My scrolling finger is getting tired…:) Thank you muchly.

1047. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@ 1036. Vultan – September 5, 2013

“Oh dear. I liked the original movie. Never got into the series, but then I don’t think my local channels ever showed it. Heard it’s good though.

A remake… well, I guess it could be good. Have serious doubts though. Robocop looks very average. All action, no satire.”

I liked the original movie as well, Kurt Russell was & still one of my favorite actors. But I’m not sure about the reboot, true that the same director will be doing the remake; but Roland Emmerich doesn’t inspire confidence these days.

And I was shocked last year when I read that he was planning to do a movie based on Asimov’s Foundation series. Thankfully, nothing came out of that stupid plan.

1048. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@1037. Curious Cadet

Thanks for the link, it does seem that STID will do well.

1049. Colin - September 5, 2013

The issue with Khan is that we are told repeatedly that the alternate timeline began in 2233. Yet, when we have a Khan that is as different from his previous incarnation as we do, it raises the question, did the timeline change even earlier? Say, in the 20th century.

I have a question about San Francisco. What happen to this city? The city of “Enterprise” is not the same city we see in the movies. In about a century, the skyline of the city changed radically. The only thing I know of that could explain the change would be if the city suffered a major catastrophe. Yet, there is no mention of Earth being attacked after the 2150s or there being a major earthquake that toppled the city.

Vincent,

What I know about Star Trek comes from watching the older films and shows. When I speak about these films, I use informatoin from those sources. For me, there are no other sources. My problem with the film is not the use of material, but the depiction of the characters and the storyline.

I would like to know if you know of someone who would enter into a blood rage after knowing someone as a work companion for less than a year, and then would attempt to kill the murderer. I don’t know of anyone. My experience and from what I have heard and read is that when this happens, when a work companion is killed, the people closest to him or her sometimes, not all the time, express regret that they didn’t know the person better, then they move on with their lives.

If you, Vincent, or someone else, knows a person who acted like Spock did, please tell me and the others that story.

1050. K-7 - September 5, 2013

@1014

Perhaps both universes are completely fictional. I mean, do you recall the Eugenics Wars in the 1990′s? I can’t seem to remember those wars, with all of the bombings and war-weary populations.

1051. rfk - September 5, 2013

@ 934. Russell Meyers – September 5, 2013

“I know boborci might think the US government specifically engineered the devastation on that day”

Wait, what?

1052. Phil - September 5, 2013

@1038. Rose, tap the ‘end’ button on your keyboard and it should bring you to the bottom of the thread.

1053. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@ 1044. Phil – September 5, 2013

“@1038. Rose, tap the ‘end’ button on your keyboard and it should bring you to the bottom of the thread.”

You forget to say that the ‘End’ button is on the RIGHT side of the keyboard :)

1054. Phil - September 5, 2013

Hey, just trying to be user – friendly here. Maybe keyboards are set up a bit differently in NZ….

:-)

1055. pock speared - September 5, 2013

I’m down with Orci on this one: Describe the plot of STID without names, and compare it to WoK the same way. Remake? Are you kidding?

1056. CaptainJon - September 5, 2013

@boborci,

Please feel free to take a look at my own response to this article:

http://insideajon.blogspot.com/2013/09/star-trek-is-brokenis-it.html

I hope you find it insightful and also encouraging.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but some people are just impossible to please.

1057. K-7 - September 5, 2013

@1043 “Wait, what?”

Yea.

Orci = “very good” at scifi movies and tv

Orci – “wack-job” on politics and consipriacies

1058. StarFuryG7 - September 5, 2013

“As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.” ~Roberto Orci

Yes, there is indeed a reason you get to write movies and a lot of other people don’t, and it’s called nepotism. You are where you are because your pal J.J. Abrams was born into the business, having a father that worked in TV, and you were his friend in school, so when doors opened for him, he took you with him, simple as that. It’s not that you’re some great talent or great writer–it’s because you LUCKED THE FUCK OUT, pure and simple. You hit the lottery –goody for you, but you work in an industry that doesn’t necessarily operate on merit or talent at all, and which in point of fact simply doesn’t the vast majority of the time. So thank your lucky stars that you lucked out pal, but where the hell would you be if you hadn’t? Just what would you be doing to earn a living?

I’d wager you’d have a pretty average job like most people, and clearly you could use a good lesson or two on what it means to be humble.

1059. Bill Lutz - September 5, 2013

So,
Bob Orci tells the fans to F-Off if you don’t like the JJ movies.
Nice.
Now I see why the Trek Franchise is broken.
Smart move, Mr. Orci, real smart…….

1060. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@ 1049. K-7 – September 5, 2013

“@1043 “Wait, what?”

Yea.

Orci = “very good” at scifi movies and tv

Orci – “wack-job” on politics and consipriacies”

I don’t think he will go around & tell people that he is one of the 9/11 truthers, right ?

1061. boborci - September 5, 2013

Bill Lutz.

not “the” fans. Some fans. Particularly the one I was talking to.

1062. Charmer - September 5, 2013

@boborci

Well first off, I actually liked STID! It’s my favorite movie of the year, and imho the best Star Trek movie since First Contact (yes…even better than ST2009).

But I don’t see the point of you shitting all over the audience that watches your work. They’ll always be haters on the net. Have some professionalism and chill: geez!

While I loved STID alot, there were still alot of problems though. I still haven’t seen you address some of the main issues the readers brought up. Do you regret retreading STII:TWOK after the feedback from the fans? And please…tell me that Khan WON’T be appearing again in part III. I know Lindelof was pushing for a return (as he pushed to have him in this movie), but I’m hoping otherwise.

Btw…I didn’t mind so much that Khan was in this movie as a villian. I just wish you had done something new with the character (the “Kirk” death scene was such a retread)!.

Sure…in the Batman movies, they’ve used the Joker more than once. But comparing Dark Knight to Tim Burton’s Batman is like comparing apples to oranges…

1063. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

Bob, keep your chin up, my friend. You are doing a great job with the franchise.

1064. John Lawton - September 5, 2013

@BobOrci, I’m the biggest Trek fan that ever lived (just ask my friends). For what it’s worth I loved both films. I have my little “nits” to pick as everyone does on any film. Overall though I think you and Alex are great and I’m looking forward to the next one.

1065. pock speared - September 5, 2013

@1050 lumnutz
he said that, sort of, to one asshole who was over-the-top rude. he is allowed.
get a life.

1066. Riker001 - September 5, 2013

@ 1048. CaptainJon

Loved your review…I think you hit the nail on the head…link is worth posting again…

http://insideajon.blogspot.com/2013/09/star-trek-is-brokenis-it.html

1067. Keachick - September 5, 2013

Thanks, guys, for your advice. I do press the End button on the right side of the keyboard but my wee finger gets tired having to scroll up or down when I want to refer back to a previous post that might be halfway up.

Bob Orci has never said “F-Off” to me. Then again, why would he? I’s the naughty, cheeky, lovable kea chick…:) who is not in the habit of “shitting where she wishes to eat” – you know, that sort of thing. Not that I have ever had reason to or need to.

1068. pock speared - September 5, 2013

@Orci
one thing that keeps hitting the win button, is when spock used the “pike death meld misery” on khan. that was inspired, and linked the film together for me. i can’t recall anything like it before in trek. your idea?

1069. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@1058. Keachcik, you sound almost disappointed the Bob hasn’t used the F-work on you? :-)

1070. Keachick - September 5, 2013

#1047 – I have already done so, to the best of my memory and ability at post #430 on this thread. The storyline or plot is not like the movie Wrath of Khan at all. The similarities are minor.

1071. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

Bob, no need to hold a grudge against one fan, me, we know that everybody loves Bob around here :)

1072. Keachick - September 5, 2013

No, MJ. I think I would be mortified if Bob used the “F” word on me. He may find me bothersome at times, especially when I start urging him to use my Menosia story (I hope not). I guess what is learned here is that anyone’s patience can be tried only so much, even the patience of someone like Bob Orci who has been respectful and knows that he needs to be even more so, given his known position.

Funny how people, who are not beyond being overly critical and rude themselves, will (vehemently) complain about a writer who “loses it” with a person who has been consistently criticizing a writer’s story with comments that lack much in the way of validity and is dismissive about the writer’s desire for discussion. Sad indeed.

1073. Mike - September 5, 2013

Why are we all surprised? The guys that are writing Star Trek now have written some of the biggest popcorn movies in recent memory. You can’t go to Burger King and expect filet mignon. I enjoyed STID but it isn’t even close to the best of trek….box office receipts not withstanding. Most of us fell in love with this show for a reason and vengeance driven storylines peppered with lots of crap blowing up and cliche death scenes wasn’t it.

1074. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@1063

Yea. I agree completely! Well said, Keachick.

It’s really so weird to see this vocal but small group of people here who are constantly bitching and trolling with their negative STID posts, all of a sudden, acting so shocked and “holier-than-thou” when a Bob Orci or a Simon Pegg just has one little bad day and decides to respond in kind.

“Hypocrites” are creating a lot of unnecessary dissonance here. And again, SHAME ON JOE DICKERSON for fanning the flames.

1075. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

Somehow, our little discussion here with Bob was picked up by reddit & some other sites !!

——————————-
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ writer: If you don’t like it, pitch a better movie

” Forget the so-called fourth wall of fandom: It no longer exists. Actors, writers and directors are only a tweet away, and people working on major geek-culture franchises are actively encouraged to engage with fans.

Sometimes, fandom strikes gold with a genuinely nerdy celebrity who really knows how to use social media, like George Takei, Kristen Bell or Nathan Fillion. But most of the time we’re content with a few publicity appearances on Reddit, or a sporadically entertaining Twitter presence. It doesn’t take much.

Either way, it seems like a no-brainer to suggest that when engaging with your fans online, you probably shouldn’t actively insult them. For example, don’t log on to a popular fansite and start posting comments describing other readers as “shitty fans” and telling them to “f*ck off”.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what Star Trek writer Bob Orci just did. ”

http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/star-trek-into-darkness-writer-rude-fans/

——————————

Star Trek’s Bob Orci gives the fans a piece of his mind

“When anyone gives an opinion on a movie or television show, we don’t expect to hear from anyone who actually worked on it. So there we are, freely expressing our feelings and then suddenly– an actor steps in, a director steps in, or in this case, a writer.

After TrekMovie.com wrote an article on how to fix a broken STAR TREK franchise, Orci came in to share his feelings on the article as well as the fans who had given rather strong opinions on STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS and where the franchise was going.”

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/star-treks-bob-orci-gives-the-fans-of-piece-of-his-mind

1076. Neo - September 5, 2013

My favorite part of this was watching @BobOrci destroy @Ahmed! Great stuff, I think Ahmed has written a book in here he’s so butt hurt and stuck in the past. So enjoy trolling from your mom’s basement for, well, forever. And thanks for showing Orci the worst of Trek fandom… Ass Hole…

1077. Gary Neumann - September 5, 2013

Boborci,

No les prestes atencion, algunos son mas pendejos de lo que creen.

Sigue adelante y cuenta con nuestro apoyo!

Best regards,

Gary

1078. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@1065

TheDailydot.com ???

Never heard of it?

Ahmed, no offense dude, but you seem to have this continued theme of yours where you get overly impressed with stuff on the internet that is from sites that 99.9% of us have never heard of?

1079. Ahmed - September 5, 2013

@ 1067. MJ (The Original). – September 5, 2013

“TheDailydot.com ???

Never heard of it?

Ahmed, no offense dude, but you seem to have this continued theme of yours where you get overly impressed with stuff on the internet that is from sites that 99.9% of us have never heard of?”

lol, I actually got the link from trekweb.

http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=5229190827388

1080. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 5, 2013

I just got back from the very last STID projection in Montreal. There are no more movie chains or theatres showing STID as of right now.

I waited for the credits to finish, the projector turned off and I was the very last customer to leave the building.

Here is a picture of my ticket:
http://imageshack.us/a/img32/6359/34rw.jpg

STID might eventually start playing at dollar theatres but I own the very last normal full price ticket and am the last person in Montreal to see STID.

Oh I wish I could get my ticket autographed by boborci.

I have never enjoyed a movie so much in my life. Went SO many times and it never got dull. Even tonight I thoroughly enjoyed it. It touched many chords.

What a fantastic movie and a what a great summer it has been with Star Trek Into Darkness on the big screen.

Now, I have to buy a frame for my movie ticket. I am so proud I was the very last person in the entire city to see the movie. :-D

1081. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 5, 2013

@1046. Phil – September 5, 2013

Hey – that’s amazing. I did not know that the key took one to the bottom of a web page; or that took one to the top.

I’m used to taking me to the end of a line in an email or Word document, and never considered it would function differently on a web page.

They say ‘you learn something new every day’ – that was my ‘something new’ for today.

Thank you. You’ve saved yet another person from occupational overuse of the right index finger.

1082. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@1079

But Trekweb is just quoting this obscure website. So what does that prove?

And the other site you provided has storys like who is the hottest pop star in Canada “who makes your maple leak”

I mean, I don’t want to rain on your parade, dude, of your sudden “internet fame” for making Bob blow his top, but I am wholly unimpressed with these obscure sites that are the origins of these supposed news reports.

I am UNDERWHELMED. lol

1083. boborci - September 5, 2013

1080 phobos

saved a picture of your ticket picture on my computer. thanks for that.

1084. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W - September 5, 2013

@1083 boborci

:-D
You’re the best.
Thanks for your post, means so much to me. :-)

1085. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 5, 2013

@1080. Phobos in City 45°N 73°W – September 5, 2013

I think I know how you must feel. I’m Aussie so saw it a few (*cough*) times here in Australia. I was in San Francisco towards the end of June, and made sure I got to see STID again while I was there. How could I not – the only reason SF was on the itinerary in the first place was because of its importance to the Star Trek universe.

A lot of brochures and receipts collected from the month in Canada and the US have been binned now, but I still have the movie ticket ;-)

1086. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@1083 @1084

Of course cool stuff like this interaction with Bob and a fan would never be talked about on those mega-sites we all frequent, like Dailydot.com and Joblo.com.

;-)))

1087. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 5, 2013

@1046. Phil – September 5, 2013

Argh – editting…

the key = the end key…
or that = or that home…

I tried to be ‘smart’ and put the words end and home in between less than and greater than symbols and only succeeded in outsmarting myself.

1088. Reign1701A - September 5, 2013

“Just as the original series broke from convention to tell adult stories, Star Trek needs to once again break from the past and stop being about the Enterprise and crew.”

You lost me right there, bro. Star Trek is just as much about the characters as it is about stories, concepts, and allegories. This article and its sensationalist headline have no place on this website. A poll of convention fans means the movie is a failure? Rottentomatoes, IMDB, and CinemaScore all seem to disagree. Somehow I don’t think convention fans are representative of all Trek fandom, and certainly not of the general public.

Anthony, I don’t know where you went, but you need to come back and control the inmates. This belongs on a WordPress blog, not on a major website.Star Trek isn’t broken, Star Trek has changed. If you don’t like it these movies, then don’t ruin it for those of us that did.

1089. Dave H. - September 5, 2013

MJ,

I have never even heard of those web sites.

And I plan to keep it that way.

1090. Dave H. - September 5, 2013

1088:

“Anthony, I don’t know where you went, but you need to come back and control the inmates. This belongs on a WordPress blog, not on a major website.Star Trek isn’t broken, Star Trek has changed. If you don’t like it these movies, then don’t ruin it for those of us that did.”

Reign1701A,

You nailed it. Thank You !

1091. JRT! - September 5, 2013

No more movie theaters showing STID?! Apart from the one week double bill with WWZ you mean? It’s still showing,SOMEwhere,lol!

J-R!

1092. The Transformed Man - September 5, 2013

Preach it Mr. Orci!

As a life long Trekkie/Trekker (heck I don’t even know what to call fandom anymore), I’m embarrassed by this article. If Trek goes down the path the writer is suggest it will be an irrelevant franchise within 5-10 years catering to an increasingly diminishing fanbase which is growing older.

I’m sorry but the reality is Trek had been dying on the vine for at least a decade before Abrams and company brought new life into the franchise. Since season 4 of TNG, ratings for all of the TV series began to decline steadily. The TNG movies (with the exception of First Contact) were all box office disappointments or disasters.

The problem is general audiences had moved on. They had seen a steady diet of “exploring strange new worlds” and “seeking out new civilizations” and frankly they were bored and the brand was becoming stale. And without renewed interest from general audiences Trek would be little more than a niche as far as Paramount is concerned… a once proud franchise with a small but vocal fanbase still willing to shell out money for toys, books and games, but not really worth the investment of putting a show back on the air or releasing theatrical films.

To survive Trek needed to look beyond fandom and appeal to the same people that made Trek II and IV so popular and gave executives hope that they could catch lightning in a bottle twice with TNG… the general audience. That’s what Abrams and company did… while still staying true to Trek’s roots.

Star Trek isn’t broken, fandom is.

1093. Csere Mihaly (@cseremisi) - September 5, 2013

@boborci the basic idea what we are crying for is that we want Star Trek in TV as it is a much better medium for our beloved series, where we could get better stories, in a way that it has more meaning to the mythology and more social messages. I can understand this Star Trek blockbusters, they have a part in the Trek universe but we want our TV series too. That is where Star Trek was born, that should be the main medium for it, not a movie every 3-4 years, a movie which should appeal to Trek fans and not fans alike which I think is a nightmare from a writers point of view …

1094. boborci - September 5, 2013

1092

but do you really think STID had no social message? I was afraid we were hitting people over the head with social messages. honestly asking.

1095. MJ (The Original). - September 5, 2013

@1092

You are not speaking for me.

1096. dswynne - September 5, 2013

People (like Ahmed) who do not like Bad Robot’s interpretation of ‘Trek should just go away for a while. The production company is contracted to do three films. So, until that contract has been fulfilled, Orci and company will be around to script this iteration of ‘Trek. Come back after 2016, so you can do your ‘Happy Dance’ then. Better yet, why don’t you pressure CBS if you want ‘Trek back on television, since it is they that have the rights to do so.

1097. Dave H. - September 5, 2013

Bob Orci,

Star Trek Into Darkness had the most relevant social message of any Star Trek movie since Star Trek IV.

Thank you for and outstanding film, sir. I have seen it seven times, and will have the Blu-Ray next week.

1098. Garak's Pride - September 5, 2013

Ref: 1095

I agree. This Ahmed guy has seemingly caused a big public uproar now by his goading Mr. Orci into an over-response that both he and Bob now probably regret. At the very least, he owes Mr. Orci an apology.

1099. Kevin Marshall - September 5, 2013

@1093

I can only speak for myself – I actually liked the movie overall, and liked what was there of the message. I think it was strong and clear in the beginning – hell, Scotty quit on moral grounds. However, I think the issues with the ethics of bombing Qo’noS to catch one man, ignoring Klingon sovereignty and potentially igniting a war (which was Marcus’ goal), as well as the implications of Section 31′s existence and their construction of a warship, a peaceful vs militarized Starfleet, and the value of the Prime Directive all fell too much by the wayside with the words “My name…….is Khan.”

I felt like the movie became completely about whether or not to trust Khan, and then how to defeat him, with only a brief revisiting of the above ideas as Marcus catches up with the Enterprise. This was short-lived, though, as Khan quickly dispatched Marcus, and our focus shifted back to him.

In my mind, the idea of a rogue Section 31 agent, and Marcus trying to start a war with the Klingons would have been a strong enough story, very relevant to the recent political climate, and in keeping with Star Trek’s signature analyzing of those issues – all without having to bring in Khan, whose mere inclusion invites controversy that distracts from the film and it’s message.

I think John Harrison should have really just been John Harrison.

But hey – I work in Camera Dept, not Production. I’m below the line, so what do I know?

1100. Kevin Marshall - September 5, 2013

Sorry for the double-post, but I do want to reiterate that I don’t intend to sound overly critical. This film is probably in my top three Star Trek films, and I think it grew from the last one a lot. No film is perfect, though, and these are just my opinions where I think the film could have been stronger and more focused, as well as a few reasons why there has been some backlash.

1101. David - September 5, 2013

Bob Orci,
When was the point in the process where you decided to use Khan? I heard reports that is was Damon Lindelof that insisted you write him in to the story. Is that true?
Also, was it a timeline split in ST09 or just a completely separate universe? I ask because if it was a timeline split that was caused when Nero entered, wouldn’t Khan have been on the Botany Bay before Nero entered?
If it’s a new universe altogether however, then that question is moot.
Thanks in advance. :-)

1102. Captain Slow - September 5, 2013

I honestly cannot see why the fans are getting so upset about Into Darkness. It may not be the best movie ever made, but it was still very entertaining, actually had something to say unlike most other action movies, and had lots of emotion. I can’t even think of any other Star Trek movies that had all of that except maybe TWOK.

The one thing I would say though, is that the next movie needs to do something completely different. Look at the TOS movies, they tried to do something different each time, even though it didn’t always work quite right. The TNG movies on the other hand were always about Picard and Data.

One idea I had for those who don’t want the next movie to be about the Klingon war, why not make that the opening of the movie? And then the teaser ends with the Federation winning and the Enterprise going exploring again where they find whatever the story is actually about. This way the war story is dealt with but doesn’t take the focus off exploration.

1103. Colin - September 6, 2013

Any art work will recieve its fair share of detractors. The detractors would express their displeasure, in either through an editorial or through pressure to have the work removed from public view. The Internet has increased the ability of people to express their view.

As for Bob Orci’s comment about the social messages, I need to respond to that. I feel the current trend is toward over-saturation, with the message being buried in the process. Moments of quiet and reflection are treated like cut scenes in a video game – they are brief sequences of dialog that carry the plot forward.

ST: ID is a focus-driven, action romp that succeeded at its task – it made a beachhead on the foreign market. However, for it to make that beachhead, the franchise had to become less of what it was and more of what others wanted it to be.

No one has arisen to meet my challenge. The challenge was this: The film asks us to believe that Spock, a work companion of Kirk for about a year, would go into a blood rage because Kirk was dead and take his rage out on the person suspected of killing him. I asked for a story from real life of someone doing this.

I am thinking that because no one has done so, that this hasn’t happen. Even a film as fantastical as Star Trek has to be true to the human experience. When it deviates from this truth, it becomes unbelieavable. There were for me far too many moments of untruthfulness in this film

1104. MJ (The Original). - September 6, 2013

@1100. Huh? There are hundreds example of that happening in real life. Here is one of a guy who was screaming when his female friend died on their first date — again, their FIRST date, with not even a murder being involved:

‘My friend! She fell off the building!’ Neighbors reveal horrified cries of man whose date plunged 17 floors to her death on their first date. Jennifer Rosoff, 35, was on a first date when she fell to her death. She placed leg on balcony but it gave way and sent her plummeting 140 feet. Neighbors heard horrifying screams of her date Stephen Close, 35.”

1105. MJ (The Original). - September 6, 2013

@1097 “This Ahmed guy has seemingly caused a big public uproar now by his goading Mr. Orci into an over-response that both he and Bob now probably regret. At the very least, he owes Mr. Orci an apology.”

Ahmed’s usually a really good guy here — I like him! That being said, he seems to be “off his game” lately in regards to his unnecessarily incessant negative posts on STID, which I believe he said he only saw one time. I think he went overboard in inciting Bob, and yes, I think it would be a positive for all if he apologized to Bob. But, at the very least, I certainly don’t want to see further internet links from him that kind of celebrate and publicize his now infamous altercation with Bob.

1106. Kevin Marshall - September 6, 2013

I’m not sure why, but my first post was deleted. Let me try again:

@1093 boborci

I can only speak for myself, but I think the message was strong in the beginning – Scotty even quit his job on moral grounds. The idea of bombing Qo’noS, ignoring Klingon sovereignty, and risking a war to retaliate against one man; the existence of Section 31, as well as their secret construction of these new torpedoes and warship; the struggle between visions for a peaceful vs militarized Starfleet; and even the questioning of Kirk’s competency with his recklessness and arrogance, which allows him to be manipulated by more sinister men.

These are all (in my mind) great concepts – keeping with Star Trek’s history of social commentary, and some DS9-esque (or TUCish) re-examining of the utopia that is Earth and the Federation. It all, however, seems to fall by the wayside with the words “My name……..is Khan.”

To me, all of the moral questions, as well as the imminent war, are set on the back burner while the Enterprise crew deals with whether to trust Khan, and then how to defeat him. Admiral Marcus does drop by to remind us of his plans, but only for a moment. Khan quickly dispatches him, and the focus shifts back to him – never revisiting the Klingons, never coming back to security vs liberty.

In my mind, I think the concepts and commentary introduced in the beginning of the film would have been better served with just a rogue Section 31 agent, and Admiral Marcus’ calculated warmongering. I feel that Khan, while interesting, was misplaced in this film, muddling the focus. I think John Harrison should have really just been John Harrison.

But hey – I’m an AC, not a writer or director or producer or executive.

1107. Charmer - September 6, 2013

@Phobos in City 45°N 73°W (#1080)

Hey Phobos,

Gotta say your post brought a smile to my face. I’m a Montrealer too (HABS!), and went through a miserable breakup this summer. My cure was hitting up the cinema and watching STID over and over. I’ve seen it 10+ times, and I never get sick of it.

1108. Kevin Marshall - September 6, 2013

@1102 MJ

I guess my argument would be that a Vulcan (even a half-Vulcan) who is a Starfleet Commander should be above the kind of reaction you mentioned.

1109. Cmd. Bremmon - September 6, 2013

Bob, I loved ST 2009, loved your alternate time line and enjoyed STID. I’d agree you put in a social message but I found it to be simplistic and to the detriment of the movie. In my humble opinion the most exciting social dilemmas are those we don’t have an answer for, are so unexplored and difficult no one would know what we would do in those circumstances and really make people think. I know Hollywood wants to sell simple rainbows and fairy tales and reward who can try to sell a simple progressive message in the least boring fashion… but quite frankly Hollywood has to work hard to do so because it is boring and simplistic. I get you had to do one but can we move past it and get back to fun and thought provoking. Compare STID with say “Balance of Terror”. Did Kirk really want to decide to cross the neutral zone? Was Spock right that not attacking would lead to a greater war? Was McCoy right that violence is wrong and people would die? Hard to say, hard choice, not cut and dry. Are the Romulans going to end up victorious against their historical enemies? And amazing how one ship on ship battle could change the course of history. Apply the simplistic social message of STID to Balance of Terror and.. Kirk would have stopped at the neutral zone and the Romulans just would have done nothing and all would have great? And compare “drones are bad” to say a real morale dilemma – if the Federation gives Kirk a pass on violating the Prime Directive what ethical right does it have to force other races, nations, etc to bide by the Prime Directive and not interfere with other cultures, especially say the Klingons if they are dilithium poor with starving people. Kahn is genetically superior, does that give him the right to form a technocracy to take care of all the poor regular humans in the Federation (and could he be stopped if he tried)? Should Kirk act to defend a small primative culture even if doing so would risk a war with the Klingons and the death of billions? With urgency and sophisticatioaction oral dilemma equals action (preferably with battles between equally matched opponents more “Master and commander” than 2 minute Power Ranger duals). Just some thoughts… counting on you to make 3 awesome!

1110. MJ (The Original). - September 6, 2013

@1105. Remember, for all practical purposes, Spock killed Kirk in Amok Time while in a blind rage.

In STID, within the past year, his mother was killed, planet destroyed, and then Kirk killed. So yea, I can see him going into a physical rage not dissimilar from the Pon farr rage in Amok Time.

Remember, deep down, Vulcans are more violent and emotional than humans.

1111. Adam C - September 6, 2013

I hated ID with a passion, watched it in horrible blurry 3d imax which ruined my experience so i watched it again in 2d, which I now regret as it didnt deserve my money and I will never again buy their products.

They seemed to have not learned from the mistakes of the first movie and made 10 times more in a failure cascade of being terrible.

Stick to Star Wars! and Leave Trek the hell alone.

Bring trek back on tv and dont give us that enterprise nonsense people who think it was getting better in season 4 are silly just look at the vulcan story lines. Augment story wasnt that bad though.

1112. Jake2K - September 6, 2013

Sorry, but If you believe Star Trek Into Darkness is the worst movie in the franchise, than you have to be the most ignorant, disillusioned fan (if you deserve to be called a fan) out there… and perhaps your the problem. Star trek insurection is by far the worst.. and yeah it has a good few moments but that movie killed the movie franchise. The new star trek movies at least give us something fun and new (even if it borrows pages of past star trek). We should be happy that we still get Star Trek despite the fact it was considered dead after Enterprise ended. Be Greatfull People!! Stop being so cynical! ..now set a course. Engage!

1113. Nick - September 6, 2013

1108 … et all …

“If you believe this … therefore you are this …”

How enlightened … everyone’s opinions are valid, not just yours.

1114. Jake2K - September 6, 2013

1109.
No doubt everyones opinion is valid, but lets try looking through a lens of common sense! Rather than disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing. I love this franchise and love every movie and show ! any reasonable person will tell you not all are winners but most have a great messege and some are legendary. However Star Trek: Into Darkness is not the worst in the franchise… Its almost insane to make such a statement. but to each their own. now enough of this cynicism… First star to the right, and straight on till morning.

1115. Jay Ley (UK Trekkie) - September 6, 2013

Hi Bob,

I just wanted to give my opinion.

I loved Into Darkness… but I hated the use of Khan.

This would have been one of the best movies of the franchise if Cumberbatch was either:

a) An augment called John Harrison/Joaquin
b Pretending to be Khan to protect the other capsules
c) A rogue Section 31 agent trying to prevent Marcus from warmongering.

Throughout the movie, I was expecting the real Khan to be revealed, frozen, in one of the cryo pods using a clever piece of CGI.

Very disappointed in what we got, but I thank you for making the attempt. It was ambitious.

1116. Captain John C Baron - September 6, 2013

.487. Yep, you’re spot on!:

“Yep, JJ broke ST with 2009 and STID. Bad, bad Robot. Shame on you.

Before that, many think Rick Berman broke all the ST series by running those into a rut.

Some say Gene himself broke ST with his second generation, that it was too egalitarian, too perfect, no crew conflict, a veritable Love Boat in space.

Heck, even the third season of TOS was broken, the network gave up support and the great Bird in the Sky flew the coup for other series.

And the networks broke the original concept because it was too cerebral, forcing Gene into pedestrian writing.”

1117. Aurore - September 6, 2013

“…. For example, don’t log on to a popular fansite and start posting comments describing other readers as ‘shitty fans’ and telling them to ‘f*ck off’.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what Star Trek writer Bob Orci just did…”
__________

Yes, indeed.

For the first time since its inception, someone said “f*ck off” on the Internet. This is outrageous.

So he said it. Simon Pegg said it, a few days ago.
Simon Pegg said it to some people…. working in the media some time ago as well, actually (that is how I saw it, anyway)* .

I did notice what happened upthread.
Still, the whole “Writer Says : ‘Sh*tty fans’ and ‘F*ck off’ “articles linked to earlier, are…”strange”…. to say the least ; these kinds of heated exchanges happened before, on this site.

Where were the cameras then? More importantly, where were they when Mr. Orci was saying things such as :

“204. boborci – March 4, 2011
203. As a fan, i feel the same way, truly. no need to apologoze for rants. Its our job to rant!”

http://trekmovie.com/2011/03/02/rick-berman-talks-marlon-brando-in-star-trek-the-future-of-trek-on-tv-more/

…Some might say that it occurs too rarely to be noticed, however, when people are being civil to each other, on this site….where are the cameras, for Christ’s sake.???

:)
_________
*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9285164/How-Simon-Pegg-became-a-big-fish.html

1118. Captain John C Baron - September 6, 2013

1094: @BobOrci

I sometimes wonder whether people actually watch the films in question, and ironic when they criticise them for being dumb or lacking character moments.

I genuinely liked STID, it wasn’t perfect but then again no film ever is (including TWOK). I got the messages in it. I found the scene where Kirk addresses the crowds both thought-provoking and moving. I’d be pushed to find similar summer blockbusters

Some people criticised ST09 for lack of character development – for me Kirk and Spock have seldom had so much defined character development in any previous Trek movie! I found both their arcs intriguing and well formed.

Guess you can’t please everybody!

1119. Captain John C Baron - September 6, 2013

I remember back in the 90s in my home city of Leeds UK going to Leeds Starfleet, a local fan club which has long since disbanded sadly.

I used to go there to watch the latest episodes from the US and meet other fans.

I always loved Star Trek for its morality, its characters and its powerful storytelling.

What always surprised me at Leeds Starfleet was the diversity of people there – and how they loved Star Trek not necessarily for the same reasons I did.

Some sat at the back of the room playing Trek roleplaying games. Others sat pouring over Starship schematics. Some were only really interested if you had Wolf 359-scale battles. None of that ever interested me, but what I learned was that Star Trek means very different things to different people.

And that that’s something, as a fan from the 70s, I always try to remember. Everyone has THEIR Trek. It might not fit my specific vision, but I respect that it might float other people’s boats.

You’re seldom going to get a product that everyone universally loves.

STID clearly has it’s supporters and detractors, but I respect people’s rights to have opinions. For the record, I enjoyed the film. I enjoy all the films and series, just some more than others (TFF and Nem are my least favourites).

IDIC. Respect for other people’s opinions/visions/cultures etc. At the heart of Trek, no? Let’s make sure fandom’s not broken first.

1120. NoSeth - September 6, 2013

Wow. I read some of Orci’s earlier posts, and I started to doubt it was really him. I’ve been reading many of boborci’s posts before, and he never used foul language.

If any fan posted like he did, dropping f bombs, he would be banned from this board.

I know it’s easy to fake a name here, but I also know boborci really posts here.

So for the real one…

Do you really think that STID is beyond criticism? I’ll start by saying I liked the movie. I agree with you when you say that you guys listen to Trek fans.

STID was pretty clear there.

ST09 was clearly a better movie than the TNG movies. But there were a TON of mistakes there and you took a lot of heat from it.

The biggest positive I noticed from STID is that you took a lot of the criticisms and complaints from ST09, and addressed them head on.

The biggest improvement in my opinion was Scotty, who was far better written, even if I do feel that Pegg is miscast in the role. Terrific actor, but not right for Scotty in my opinion.

Despite that though, the writing for Scotty was clearly better.

I wrote a long review right after the movie, and the positives clearly outweighed the negatives.

But I would hope that the writers aren’t so arrogant that they would think that their movie was perfect.

I’ve read many criticisms of this film. Some were valid, some were not.

If someone argues that this movie fell short of expectations financially, then I would say that the studio was dumb to think it would do better than it did.

If the financial expectations fell short, then I would blame it on marketing.

Not all their decisions were genius. Using Khan at all in this movie was a bad decision. There’s a reason so many fans didn’t want to see Khan. It showed a misunderstanding of the character to compare him to The Joker. He is not the Joker.

Yet that said, the most unoriginal and predictable villain you could choose was Khan.

But, Khan is also the most well known villain to the mainstream public because the best Trek movie ever made featured him.

The idea of using that villain, which everyone knew was coming, then hiding it to make it the most predictable surprise ever, was a mistake.

I’ll even add that I don’t feel Khan’s presence in the movie added anything. I don’t think it would have been too hard for this writing staff to rewrite this movie to not include Khan.

Bet they could have come up with a nice Spock Prime cameo anyway.

Had Cumberbatch simply been John Harrison, the movie loses nothing.

STID is a good movie, but not one beyond criticism. To compare this article to a child lashing out is insulting at best, arrogant at worst.

It’s disappointing if that was really boborci doing the lashing. I think he’s better than that.

1121. Dom - September 6, 2013

1023. Li’l Shat: ‘the Kirk death scene in STID works just as well when you stop trying to view it in the same light. In STID, Kirk’s death makes Spock realize how much of a friend Kirk has been to him in the short time they’ve known each other, and that in fact Kirk is the best, and maybe only real, friend he’s ever had.’

Also, Spock Prime has told Spock of the great friendship he and Jim are meant to have and presumably just explained how Spock Prime died fighting Khan. So Spock finds Jim dying the way Spock was originally meant to, leaving him wracked with guilt plus knowing that great friendship will never happen . . .

1122. Johnh - September 6, 2013

Just FYI, the author of this link bait piece is not a journalist of any merit, but an IT professional. His literary claim to fame is a self published book that nobody bought on Amazon about the show The Prisoner that’s conveniently out of print. It got a single one star review exposing the book as a piece fanboy worship for the series’ lead actor, and nothing close to resembling actual journalism.

As for the ‘article’, it operates under the delusion that Star Trek Into Darkness somehow represents the franchise being broken – yet objective reality is quite the opposite, seeing that Star Trek Into Darkness is:

- The most successful Star Trek movie in history (approaching $1/2 billion at the box office)
- The highest rated blockbuster of 2013 (87% RT rating)
- Rated a coveted “A” by Cinemascore
- Rated as a top 5 Star Trek movie by thousands of Trek fans poled on this vey site.

This fraud of a ‘journalist’ actually belongs to a vocal minority of fringe fundamentalist Trek losers that have had their 15 minutes of fame when about a hundred of them voted STID as the worst Trek film at a recent Vegas trek con. That anomaly was quickly rendered irrelevant by a far larger number of Trek fans who voted STID the #6 Trek film just a week later.

So I wouldn’t pay much attention to this goateed IT nerd. I’d also suggest to stop visiting this site, which has degraded from a genuine source of Trek info with a direct connection to the makers of the films, to a rabid fundamentalist loser-fest that ‘The Onion’ so perfectly mocked in its Trek ’09 skit. I’ll now be leaving this site as well. It’s become a joke.

1123. Yanks - September 6, 2013

477. martin – September 3, 2013

Lastly, I have no issue with the way they did Carol Marcus. Where was the deep backstory for the Bibi Besch Marcus? She and Kirk had a kid, she is a scientist. She was in one movie for only a few minutes total. Nothing wrong with what they did here – she was more hero here than she was in Trek 2.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Great point, one missed by those that chose to jump on the “gratuitous” bandwagon and key on visuals rather than story.

Hell, she probably WANTED Kirk to catch a glimpse… (and thanks for that glimpse boborci!)

1124. Eric Cheung - September 6, 2013

Roberto Orci: I truly do appreciate the degree to which you read these posts and comments and know that you do listen. Of course the ultimate decisions on what to do aren’t the fans but the people that happen to be in control.

Once at a convention you said that the limitations imposed on a production need not be budgetary, but I would argue the opposite problem has arisen.

Warren Buffett has said that ideally one should have “enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.”

“Once you spend more than $100 million on a movie, you have to save the world,” explains Lindelof. “And when you start there, and basically say, I have to construct a MacGuffin based on if they shut off this, or they close this portal, or they deactivate this bomb, or they come up with this cure, it will save the world—you are very limited in terms of how you execute that. And in many ways, you can become a slave to it and, again, I make no excuses, I’m just saying you kind of have to start there. In the old days, it was just as satisfying that all Superman has to do was basically save Lois from this earthquake in California. The stakes in that movie are that the San Andreas Fault line opens up and half of California is going to fall in the ocean. That felt big enough, but there is a sense of bigger, better, faster, seen it before, done that.”

“It sounds sort of hacky and defensive to say, [but it’s] almost inescapable,” he continues. “It’s almost impossible to, for example, not have a final set piece where the fate of the free world is at stake. You basically work your way backward and say, ‘Well, the Avengers aren’t going to save Guam, they’ve got to save the world.’ Did Star Trek Into Darkness need to have a gigantic starship crashing into San ­Francisco? I’ll never know. But it sure felt like it did.”

That’s sort of a problem of the other extreme. Your past two Treks may have been the biggest of all time, but that only increased the pressure to do the type of thing Lindelof lamented above: (Source: http://www.vulture.com/2013/08/script-doctor-damon-lindelof-on-blockbuster-screenwriting.html).

For what it was, Star Trek Into Darkness was probably a very good version of that type of story, save for the whitewashed casting and the inorganic gratuitousness of the sex and destruction. I thought the dialogue was actually an improvment on the dialogue of the previous film. Though I prefer the more formal, timeless style of Trek before 2009, I thought the dialogue for Spock was a forced attempt to sound smart (“May I ask a personal query?” being a particularly cringeworthy example of incorrectly used grammar attempting to sound smart). I even defended the use of dialogue from previous films. My thoughts were that it wasn’t stealing so much as a suggestion to the fans that knew the dialogue word for word that you might really kill Kirk (so perhaps it was manipulation instead of stealing, for better or worse). The only reason I knew you wouldn’t kill him was because it didn’t make sense in terms of the arc. Of course there was social commentary, and I appreciated the attempt.

But Star Trek could be something different from these other blockbusters. Two of the biggest blockbusters of all time were Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T., and I think the two films that probably got the tone of Star Trek down the best of all were probably Contact for its wonder and ideology, and Master and Commander for its episodic nature, its missions that involved making compromises and helping people out, and the relationship between Aubrey and Maturin. While I wish Star Trek would return to TV, where there is a much broader canvas onto which to paint with nuance, I think those films could serve as models for an adaptation of Trek to the screen rather than what is literally the third revenge picture in a row (and depending upon your point of view, the ninth or tenth Trek film with a villain).

It’s not just tired in Trek, but tired in cinema in general. I miss the awe of the 80s and 90s. I don’t know how to get that back, but maybe asking for a smaller budget would make the scale smaller.

1125. Yanks - September 6, 2013

@ 982. Colin – September 5, 2013
Admiral Marcus, IIRC, stated that Khan was tried as a war criminal and found guilty.

As for Spock not having the time to do a search, let’s try a test. How long does it take for you to do a search on the computer? Spock knew three things about Khan: he was born about 300 years, he was cyrogenically frozen, and he knew his name. I did a search using Hitler and sixty years ago and I got results quickly on Google. We know that starships were connected to a central database (Star Trek V) which can be accessed. And we assume that their computers have the advantage of 300 years of technological progress supporting them, which makes them faster and “smarter”.

As for bombing whole populatoins out of existence, the Allies, who weren’t for genocide, did this on a regular routine in WWII. They bombed heavily cities, resulting in high collateral damage. The purpose of this was to demoralize the enemy, destroy the infrastructure needed for war, and force the enemy to the negotiating table. Hell, we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war sooner than later and to save lives.

As for Khan’s status as a relic, yes, he acquired a limited amoount of knowledge on how starships work. However, he ran into barriers. In the first story, he found that he couldn’t operate the ship without the cooperation of the crew. In the second story, his inexperience with space combat led to his defeat.

I may read a technical manual on a piece of technology. I may be able to do a few tasks. Yet, I won’t have that experience and knowledge of people who have become habituated to it. We see this in Star Trek where a character will describe something as off because the normal process is not present. (The engines should be feeling like this, but are not. What is happening?) This is the understanding that Khan lacks. (Imagine transporting a general from three centuries ago into our century, and ask them to develop new technologies that wil be used to fight an enemy. This general was not being asked to given information on tactics and strategy, where their footing was more sure.)

Star Trek writers, in the camoflage of the characters, have often characterized the 20th century as a savage century. The most egregious case would be “The Neutral Zone”.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I can’t agree with this. We saw Khan learn Enteprise and the Federation in Space Seed by reading the ship’s library. It’s not like Marcus woke him up and boom, he was designing stuff. Superior intelect and intellegence. He had a couple years to learn etc.

I have more of a problem with the superhuman (superhero) type physical feats…

1126. That guy... - September 6, 2013

Hey, Bob Orci…

MY problems with STID have less to do with using Khan (though it’d have been nice if it were more than name & physicality only) and more to do with laziness for which you’ve repeatedly made excuses…and when those excuses don’t make the grouchy people go away, you resort to anger (while claiming you aren’t angry) and insults.

1. WHY would ANY INTELLIGENT person think hiding a starship underwater within WALKING DISTANCE of the very people they’re supposed to be hiding from would be a smarter place to hide the ship than up in ORBIT where the indigenous people would NEVER see them? Yep, that shot of the ship rising up out of the deep is cool looking, but, as our favorite vulcan would say, it’s “illogical”. Obviously, this crew and especially the young, year into his captaincy Kirk need to rethink things and have a LOT to learn.

2. Any object caught in earth’s gravity while passing the moon would be slingshot around the planet with it’s “orbit” decaying rapidly…not fall straight down. On top of that, the moon does have gravity itself and would, in fact, have some influence on the course of the “falling” starship.

There are a couple others, but I cannot recall the specifics. The above are the two I find embarrassingly inexcusable every time I watch the film (yes…that’s right…I watched it more than once….and…I LIKE it…except those parts and the following).

Gripes:

Transwarp beaming. More specifically, PORTABLE transwarp beaming. Now, I ask the following considering the possibility that Harrison/Khan had access to secret tech that would not be available to just anyone…What would be the point of starships if this tech were to gain traction & become commonly used? It sort of defeats one of the very purposes in the Original Series in the first place.

Khan’s LAME reveal. Khan saying his name (rather sinisterly) was pathetic in the way it was handled. It would be at that point that this new alternate universe Kirk would be wondering, “Who?” I’d have likely done things a little differently. For starters, I’d have marketed the film with an emphasis on Khan. And perhaps this idea hadn’t occurred to you, but I would have had a nod to the Original Series there. Seeing as how Kirk didn’t know who Khan was (even in the Original Series, he hadn’t identified him as yet upon first meeting or after getting his name), I would have had something like this:

Harrison: “Khan…is my name.”

Kirk: “Khan. Nothing else?”

Harrison: “Khan.”

Nice nod to TOS (with Pine & Cumberbatch’s takes on those lines) and you’ve accomplished your goal…while also making it make a little more sense than having your pseudo-villain dramatically reveal who he is to people who haven’t a clue who that is without historical references. Now, perhaps your intent was to assume that Kirk & Spock already knew Khan had been found….but then there’s the fact that later in the film, Admiral Marcus seems to indicate only a handful actually knew about it.

As far as Paramount’s marketing, the cast & crew pretending he wasn’t in the film, LYING for a year to the fans & the general public, and this outburst with you telling fans to “F*CK OFF!” tells me you’re a spoiled brat who thinks you’re entitled and you owe no one anything. Yes, you get paid to write films….it’s more about your work ethic & ability to get it done as well as some great dialog, but that doesn’t make you the Star Trek “god”. And you DO owe the fans something…if it weren’t for those fans, YOU wouldn’t have a job writing Star Trek, my arrogant & confused friend.

Like I said, I LIKE the film. It’s up there…probably in the top 5 for me as far as Trek films go. I have a few issues with it, but then what Trek film doesn’t have issues? I think many of the grouchy “fans” conveniently forget that inconvenient fact. The arguably greatest Trek film ever, Wrath of Khan, even has them (Chekov? Where was he during Space Seed? The arboretum?” STID has a few MORE and some that are sort of hard to swallow, but it’s far more watchable than ST: Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations (HATE Kirk’s death there….far more intelligently done in STID…kudos), Search For Spock or Final Frontier (which is NOT my least favorite of all of them…that would be reserved for Nemesis. I think Trek 5 gets a bad rep for the poor effects & that’s what people remember most…it had some of the greatest Kirk, Spock, McCoy moments in the history of Trek especially around the campfire).

I do hope you come down out of your cloud & refrain from such outbursts in the future…seriously, NONE of this stuff from the so-called “fans” who do nothing but complain is worth getting bent out of shape over. They aren’t worth the time it takes to respond, but I can understand the desire to defend yourself, albeit perhaps in a more civilized manner. I would definitely think twice about blowing a gasket like that otherwise, some people may reconsider buying tickets to see your work.

1127. Mark Clark - September 6, 2013

I don’t think Star Trek is broken; it’s healthier than it has been in years in terms of drawing power. And I mostly enjoyed INTO DARKNESS despite its flaws. (See my review here http://onstageandbackstage.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/star-trek-into-darkness-a-review/)

However, I agree that Star Trek belongs on television. The franchise will never be back at full strength until it has some presence in that medium. I also believe that a return to TV is needed to recapture the original Roddenberrian spirit. The series’ classic thematic concerns are difficult to reconcile with current blockbuster filmmaking conventions. This does not, however, mean that the current reboot storyline needs to migrate to TV. There are many other options. I personally would like to return to the non-rebooted universe for a series set 75 years later than Next Gen. ST: The Third Generation?

1128. VOODOO - September 6, 2013

I agree with Bob Orci 100%…There are a couple of things I would nit pick about STID (the inclusion of Khan + the ending) but for the most part STID was a very entertaining film and I loved ST 09.

If the author of this article was saying ST was “broken” in 2008 he may have a point. To say ST is broken in 2013 when one considers the commercial and critical success of the last two films he sounds like a dope with no sense of where the franchise was only a few years back.

Keep up the great work Bob and thanks for helping save Star Trek!!!!

1129. Ahmed - September 6, 2013

@ 1102. MJ (The Original). – September 6, 2013

“@1097 “This Ahmed guy has seemingly caused a big public uproar now by his goading Mr. Orci into an over-response that both he and Bob now probably regret. At the very least, he owes Mr. Orci an apology.”

I think he went overboard in inciting Bob, and yes, I think it would be a positive for all if he apologized to Bob.”

MJ & Garak’s Pride, I think you two are seriously joking. Here is my original post to Bob.
——————–

315. Ahmed – September 2, 2013

@ 309. boborci – September 2, 2013

“You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive.”

No, we can have a movie with both action & brain, case in point Inception & Indiana Jones movies. What I’m saying that STID was a movie that has lot more action & explosions than a coherent story or character developments.

“Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?”

I’m sorry but what plot ? Khan was found & used by Section 31 & then he put his own people in the torpedo to save them or whatever & the rest of the movie follow in the same illogical way.

No disrespect to you guys, STID made tons of money but it was worse than ST09 in many aspects.

——————–
Now tell me is that post was worthy of his overreaction or not ?

MJ, when I don’t agree with some of your comments, I never tell you to “F**K Off”. We always agree to disagree in a respectful way.

btw, dswynne, I happen to like ST09. It is not about “Bad Robot’s interpretation of ‘Trek’”, it was just STID that I didn’t like.

1130. Bakerman - September 6, 2013

Hmm, I find myself in a strange situation. I consider myself a Star Trek fan, but I’ve never been the type of person that is such a diehard fan to the point of memorizing episode names or specific minutiae or the ship’s blueprints, etc. Also, I don’t outright hate something when it changes the previously given definition of a well known and loved thing when it is done with intelligence and for the right reasons.

So, what am I to do when my criticism of Into Darkness is from a different perspective than what other people are saying? I don’t particularly care that the ship looks a little different (little is my own quantification, not a general definition) or that the Engine room looks like a factory (I quite like that idea actually) or that there’s new actors portraying the TOS characters (in fact I think all of them are spot on in terms of looks and casting and acting ability).

My criticism of Into Darkness comes from the perspective of the way the movie was conceived, written and directed. It comes from what I consider Star Trek to be (as a concept, not referring to a particular series or film from the franchise) and finding that Into Darkness is not that.

Also, I don’t agree that there’s 2 categories of fans: those who like Abrams led movies and those who don’t. I’ve made it quite clear that despite it having some flaws, I quite liked 2009′s Star Trek movie. It managed to re-introduce the TOS characters, from a new perspective, with a story that very much felt like Star Trek.

And the 2009 movie very much felt like TOS: The Beginning. Thematically it fits that mold perfectly despite having quite obvious and intentional narrative and storytelling differences (the alternate universe idea). The characters were spot on and despite a few missteps the story was spot on, the “feeling” was spot on.

When that movie ended, Kirk and crew were on the bridge of the Enterprise as a crew (in the early part of their story, sure, but they were a crew). And for all intents and purposes they “felt” like the younger versions of the old TOS characters – from both a thematic and characterization perspective. Things were looking good for Star Trek, really good. I thought that the next entry in the franchise would be a new Star Trek story, with the young TOS characters, that it would manage to tell a meaningful story while managing to be large in scale and entertaining, or better yet – fun.

Others here have said that these are not the same characters on screen as the ones from TOS and the TOS movies. Well then, that means we are seeing vague facsimiles that have no other connection to Trek’s history than the color of the uniforms, some superficial characterization and their names. But judging the performances of the actors, the story, the themes, the writing and the presentation, to me it felt like the same old characters, only (as previously mentioned) in their formative years.

I always understood the alternate universe concept as the perfect excuse for the writers to use the young Kirk and Spock characters without having to rely on referring to previously established and really cumbersome Trek canon about them. It’s the same people, but we’re calling it an “alternate universe” because we want to tell new, fresh stories that otherwise would have conflicted with established Trek canon. Seemed like a good idea, but it wasn’t what they were actually setting out to do. The key words here are “fresh story” and not a story that shows elements from previous Trek (almost for the entirety of the movie) but with minor twists added – because, hey – alternate universe.

For my own personal tastes, Into Darkness is a movie that’s not Star Trek. Using the TOS characters (including Khan) in the manner that they did causes me to observe a narrative dissonance much like I had with Picard turning into an off-road driving, extreme sports loving character in Nemesis. Had it been Riker behind the wheel of the Argo – fine, that suits that character. When they chose Picard, they messed with the thematic definition of that character.

That narrative dissonance that I mentioned above is for me felt with the entirety of Into Darkness. It doesn’t feel like Star Trek. It uses that name, it presents itself as being from that family, but it doesn’t feel like one. And for every good move it makes it decides to make 3 wrong ones.

Here’s Kirk deciding to ignore regulations in order to save a planet and getting demoted for it (a good move) and then here’s transwarp teleportation, submerging the Enterprise for no real purpose (please explain the narrative imperative for doing that please) and here’s Spock turning into Steven Seagal and breaking Khan’s arm over his shoulder (3 bad moves).

Here’s Uhura being strong and facing those Klingons with her own skills (linguistics) (a good idea) but then here’s Carol Marcus in her undies (because boobs), here’s Kirk kicking the warp core (on the same level of “the kids will love it” as Riker using a joystick to drive the Enterprise in Insurrection) and then here’s Kirk calling Scotty via communicator from half way across the galaxy.

Here’s Spock getting into a logic based (yet emotionally underlined and driven) VERBAL conflict with Khan but then here’s the Klingons not finding the Enterprise next to their homeworld for what seems to be half a day, here’s Khan using the BFG from the Doom games and jumping like The Hulk and here’s Spock getting into a freaking Super Mario type of jump and run chase with Khan.

Into Darkness felt and feels (after 2 viewings) like a movie from another franchise. It’s a pretty average summer blockbuster, but when they labeled it as Star Trek, it’s down right…dumb.

I understood every single message this movie tried to convey. Every single emotion, every single idea and metaphor. But…they were all poorly done. And from a thematic point of view, they have all been done in the Star Trek franchise numerous times.

So what did I get with Into Darkness? Reheated leftovers in a nicely colored package.

Even outside of reusing Khan, outside of outright stealing the ending of Wrath of Khan (despite the fact that it makes no sense for these characters to have that same emotional response at this stage in their development), outside of recasting Khan (and using him so poorly that I still haven’t understood why they did it). Outside of all of that, everything else about this movie has already been done in other incarnations of Star Trek. And done better.

So, for me Into Darkness was just a bunch of rehashed ideas (and when you rehash ideas from within the same franchise, you will always end up with material far poorer than the original) with some impressive CGI added on top.

The acting was great.
The CGI was great.

The directing – not so much, average at best (Abrams still frames his shots too tightly and he still hasn’t bested his directorial work on MI:III and there’s other problems, but I won’t get into them here)

The writing – this movie wrote itself. I cannot think that this script took that long to write when all they did is look back at previous Trek moments and hand picked the ones they wanted to use in their movie. This was an unfocused story, messy and juvenile. Whether the script was actually THAT poor or whether someone came in and messed with it or whether Abrams hacked it to pieces while directing it – I don’t know, but relying on so much stuff from previous Trek is such a lazy man’s doing that I can’t defend the writers for doing it.

The music – again, not impressive. Michael Giacchino almost seemed like he used things he had left over from when he did the score for the 2009 movie. And this is coming from someone who admires this composer’s work and his work on the 2009 movie.

The action – too much + too much and then some more. Shooting, fighting, kicking, explosions, jumping, running, punching. And the worst part? It was meaningless and there just for the spectacle – which would have been ok had this been a GI Joe movie – but not in Star Trek.

The violence – so it wasn’t enough that Khan breaks Carol’s leg, he had to CRUSH Admiral’s Marcus’ skull with his hands. It wasn’t enough that there was a massive explosion within a city that definitely killed a large number of people (off screen yes, but it still happened), let’s show a ship crashing into the very same city, let’s show Khan killing Klingons left and right, let’s show Khan audibly trying to crush Spock’s skull, let’s show Spock break Khan’s arm, let’s show Enterprise crew members being sucked into space (for the second movie in a row), let’s show Enterprise crew members being bashed around the ship, let’s show Kirk punch Khan pointlessly in the face for minutes and so on and so on and so freakin’ on.

The space battles – some of the worst in Star Trek history. And pointless and poorly directed.

So – I am a fan of Star Trek. I liked Star Trek 2009 quite a lot. But here I was sitting the cinema when Harrison reveals he is Khan. And having already been disappointed by what Into Darkness had showed me up until then, that moment made me want to walk out of the cinema and go home. I didn’t. I stayed still hoping for things to improve. They didn’t.

And now, months later – I re-watched Into Darkness at home. This time I didn’t get angry. But I was saddened. When all we get to see these days in cinemas are dumb comedies and loud and stupid summer blockbusters (I am broadly generalizing, of course) when presented with the chance to do a Star Trek movie what did Kurtzman, Lindelof, Orci, Abrams and Paramount decide to do? Make another loud and stupid summer blockbuster that re-uses fan favorite moments in an attempt to legitimize itself as a Star Trek movie. I felt and still fell insulted.

And the worst thing? When Spock broke Khan’s arm over his shoulder – I felt disgusted.

No, up until Star Trek 2009 this franchise wasn’t broken. After Into Darkness – for myself and a bunch of people I know – yes, this franchise is broken and badly. Because it isn’t Star Trek anymore, it’s just another GI Joe, Transformers, Battleship, Wrath of The Titans, etc -> Generic Action Movie Number 256.

For the next one, they better fix things or they won’t get my money.

How disappointing that the people in charge of this incarnation of Star Trek started out with this wonderfully done teaser: