Roberto Orci in talks to direct “Star Trek 3″ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Roberto Orci in talks to direct “Star Trek 3″ May 9, 2014

by Brian Drew , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,ST: Into Darkness Sequel , trackback

star-trek-writer-roberto-orci-wants-to-revive-the-franchise-on-tv-146446-a-1381748857-470-75Deadline Hollywoods Mike Fleming is reporting that Roberto Orci, co-screenwriter and producer of the previous two Trek films, has emerged as the frontrunner to direct the third feature and is currently in talks with Paramount and their producing partner, Skydance Productions.

According to Fleming, Orci has mounted “an aggressive lobbying campaign” to land the job, and should he get it,

…this would amount to another first-time director taking on a massive project, which has been hit (Snow White And The Huntsman) and miss (Transcendence, John Carter, 47 Ronin).  Orci could be an exception on the positive side of the ledger because he has been involved for so long as writer and producer in shaping such big scale films as the Star Trek films as well as theTransformers and Amazing Spider-Man movies. I’m told that Paramount’s partner, Skydance Productions, has been in Orci’s corner, but Paramount needed convincing. Now it all could happen at warp speed.

Source: Deadline Hollywood

The pace certainly appears to be picking up.  We’ll bring you more information as we get it.

Comments

1. Buzz Cagney - May 9, 2014

So nobody else wants to do it? Really?

2. Pierre - May 9, 2014

Sorry my englishe is a little bit carzy i am from france

the first star trek film did not give me an excite. second star trek film gave me a very nice excite. i hope number 3 star trek has a very nice action to it, and a very grand story.

my favorite characher persons in star trek? dark vaders and lucky sky walker. i like when dark vaders say to luck sky walker ‘your lack of faith is giving me a very big disturb’!

3. Observer1 - May 9, 2014

One question: why?

As a co-writer, he has screwed up STID incredably. And now he wants to direct the third? I don’t think so!

Bob Orci is a nice guy, but he’s already pounded at CBS’ doors for a new Star Trek series, and twice they said no. For a good reason.

Don’t let him direct the lemon he’s writing now; hire one from the outside.
Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Frakes. To name a few…

Seriously, after STID my fanfeeling for the franchise decimated.

4. Khan was Framed! - May 9, 2014

The guy who has single handedly ruined this series to date gets a chance to direct?

Why?!

Everyone should have been fired after Into Dorkness!

5. Check the Circuit - May 9, 2014

Good luck Bob! You’ve earned your shot. And thanks for everything you’ve done to breathe new life into this beloved franchise.

Star Trek Lives!

6. Cygnus-X1 - May 9, 2014

1. Buzz Cagney – May 9, 2014

So nobody else wants to do it? Really?

We really haven’t heard of any name directors expressing interest.

Joe Cornish was being considered (never heard of him). And now it looks like it’s gonna be Orci.

7. Ed - May 9, 2014

I’ve never directed before either but I’ve seen every Star Trek episode and film and I know the difference between a dolly shot and whip pan….I’m not a fan of flare or 3D….can I have a go at Star Trek 3?…….

8. Optimistic Doodle - May 10, 2014

Orci or not, let us enjoy Star Trek 3 (Reborn?) being made. I choose optimism before going dark ;-)

9. Elias Javalis - May 10, 2014

One thing Trek needs is infusion of Fresh Material. If Mr Orci has a Vision seems a logical Course of Action. From my Part, i believe he cares about Star Trek. His Block-buster-ish writing style is quite good for a Trek Movie – just look at the Scale of Star Trek Into Darkness!!

10. Jefferies Tuber - May 10, 2014

Good luck Bob. All previous comments and speculation aside, we’re all rooting for your success.

11. Harry Ballz - May 10, 2014

If Kirk can go from cadet to captain in one day, why not screenwriter to director?

12. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 10, 2014

I, for one, am cautiously optimistic. The man seems to know Trek, even if not everyone agrees with his vision. Once a director is locked in, maybe we’ll hear more about progress being made towards a (hopefully) 2016 movie.

13. Captain Slow - May 10, 2014

Two things should be pointed out. One: all the people Paramount has offered the job to have turned it down, Orci is the first person to come to them. And two: if he’s the front-runner, then that means Paramount is considering him a better candidate than other people who presumably have prior experience.

14. Loon44 - May 10, 2014

Well, I’m looking forward to it. No slight to the new writers, but I’m hoping this might show us what a more single minded, passionate approach can bring. I thought STID was ok, but it seemed like any issue i had with it, especially that terribly ill-judged over-cribbing from TWOK, was a result of too many cooks just not knowing when to stop throwing stuff in the pot.
Whatever anyone thinks about BR or Paramount, they are the ones that are going to make the next film.
I think Orci can do it, and he obviously cares deeply about it. Maybe this is the chance to see what his singular, uncompromised vision for trek can be.
No pressure!

15. Bakerman - May 10, 2014

No. After the way he and Kurtzman made Into Darkness a dumb summer blockbuster, vapid, soulless and poorly written, lifting almost all the elements from past Trek and from the Dime-a-dozen Blockbuster Book of Cliches I don’t want him writing the next one and directing? NO.

If be directs it he’ll rewrite it, hack it to pieces because he loves the franchise so much he literally reused its best moments in Into Darkness bringing nothing new to the table. Into Darkness is to me the worst Trek movie AND the least Trek one of the whole 12 pack.

Ironically I liked the 2009 movie, thought it was a nice way to reintroduce Trek to new audiences. Saw it twice in cinemas. Into darkness – I wanted to walk out half way through.

16. Stephan - May 10, 2014

Good luck Bob! Ich keep the fingers crossed, that you get the job. Ioved Into Darkness. It is now my favourite trek movie, so I think it is a great idea to let bob direct the next one.

17. shaney - May 10, 2014

I really like the new movies but handing a big budget fx driven movie to someone with no directing experience is not the way i would go i can understand why parmount needs convincing id be looking at all other options first. Even J.J. had directed some tv before paramount gave him mi3.

18. Marja - May 10, 2014

8 Harry, you have a point !
Maybe Bob was writing the story he wanted to be a part of from day one! Kirk is him. Now he’s Kirk …

Well … we’ll wait, we’ll see … and

I’ll be optimistic.

Might as well! :-)

19. Nemesis4909 - May 10, 2014

Seems like this is becoming somewhat inevitable, he will be writing and directing the next Star Trek movie.

I honestly can’t think of anyone less qualified, if Into Darkness proved one thing it is that this braintrust doesn’t get Star Trek. They don’t understand why people love it or what makes it tick and that makes them wholly unqualified to handle it.

To say nothing about the fact that he’s never directed anything. This is the 50th anniversary film and this is what we’re likely to get? The Doctor Who 50th had its flaws but at least it was done with genuine love and understanding of the franchise.

In short, don’t want this

20. summoner2100 - May 10, 2014

Just going to say, no directing experience – for a movie as big as Star Trek? Shouldn’t happen..

21. Surak1701 - May 10, 2014

Trek again predicts real life….. in some surreal meta fourth wall explosion…. witness Kirks’ rapid promotion in ST 2009, now Bob follows suit, thanks to Admiral JJ in his corner! Joking aside, like father figure Abrams, I have faith in Mr Orci… plus we need new Trek in 2016 !!!

22. Stephan - May 10, 2014

Trek- history shows one thing: If trek fans are in disagreement over something trek related then the result will be great. :)

23. The Keeper - May 10, 2014

Here we go folks. The end is here.
Any hopes and dreams that Star Trek can make a return to enlightenment with logical and meaningful story telling has just gone down the tubes and out the window.

It was bad enough that this insulting walking reject was rewarded with still being on the writing team, now Paramount Pictures is going to let this talentless half wit buffoon direct.
A fine group of actors will be left bumbling around on screen adding yet another bad credit to their resumes.

I’m sure there will be dozens of screaming fans of Orci excited with this news, but the heart and soul of Star Trek’s long life will be left out in the cold and tossed to the side adding more insult to what’s already been injured beyond repair.

Star Trek has become the franchise that died.

24. Elias Javalis - May 10, 2014

If i were to judge him for his story-telling, i d say he is THE most qualified right now! As for Transcendence and IF i were to guess – clearly, the Director didnt have Orci’s devotion for Star Trek.

Even more IDW comics bare his signature. Which are Great!!

25. Shane - May 10, 2014

Devotion to trek doesn’t make a good director or writer look at what a mess Doctor Who has turned into since self confessed fan Moffatt took control! We don’t even know who has actually been approached or turned down directing the movie at this point it all just rumour mill. I just hope they get the best experienced director they can it needs to be good!

26. Jeyl - May 10, 2014

I’d still like to hear from Roberto himself on why he wants to direct the next movie.

27. Trekbilly - May 10, 2014

Go BOB!!!! Good luck, buddy!! In the immortal words of comedian Rob Schneider — “You can do it!!”

28. AJ - May 10, 2014

Just when many of us were hoping for an uptick in quality for the 50th anniversary, we get downgraded back to the minor leagues of wristband trans-warp transporters and reanimated tribbles….

Is there any good news around?

29. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - May 10, 2014

Hey Bob Orci. Would be nice to hear from you directly here on Trekmovie.
Tell why why you feel you will make a better Star Trek then J.J

30. Scott - May 10, 2014

Writer, fine. Director? Big mistake…

31. OzK - May 10, 2014

With the level of vitriol being spewed around here, why the hell would Orci give up his time to show up?

I wish him every good luck with whatever happens next. I found much to enjoy and applaud in both Trek films and if he does get the gig, I hope he has a great time and enjoys success. So many nasty, spiteful comments in these threads. And it goes without saying that if we were all in real space with him, butter would not melt!

Stay strong, Mr Orci. Don’t let the turkeys get you down.

32. Khan 2.0 - May 10, 2014

Qapla’ Bob!

33. Robert - May 10, 2014

Just remember Leonard Nimoy’s first major motion picture as director was Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock. And personally that movie already broke the odd number curse before there was an odd number curse.

It’s the same with Jonathan Frakes whose first time directing a major motion picture was Star Trek: First Contact, and I believe it’s still regarded as the best of the Next Generation movies.

It can be argued that he did direct Star Trek: Insurrection, and though I enjoyed it, many didn’t. But also remember Leonard also directed Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home, and that was even better than Star Trek 3.

As well both Jonathan and Leonard had an advantage that they were familiar with the series or saga, as well they were familiar with the cast in which they knew how they would act.

This will be the 3rd time that Roberto Orci will be involved with Star Trek, and thus he has that advantage that he is familiar with the new Trek, as well he is familiar with the cast.

Did I mention that Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan was Nicholas Meyer second time not just as a movie director, but director period?

Besides, I have more faith in Bob Orci directing a million times over that that turkey who gave us G.I Joe: Retaliation and Justin Biiber’s: Believe

34. Keachick - May 10, 2014

Why are some people so dumb and rude with it?

The truth is that nobody has seen what Bob Orci’s own vision is. He is one person within a team of writers, producers and director. He was not in charge. The studio executives and JJ Abrams got the final say.

For better and/or worse, if Bob does get the director’s job as well as being one of the writers, this will be the time when we may get to see the Orci Trek vision far more than we have seen so far. I am cautiously optimistic. Maybe he has actually liked and wanted to do a story more akin to what people like myself and Marja wish to see – or not. Just don’t know – can only hope!

35. Gary Neumann - May 10, 2014

Excelent news :)

36. Oscar - May 10, 2014

A remarkably shortsighted decision. The 50 annyversary star trek film and we have not a super director, a super producer , a super writer…we have Roberto Orci and the John Doe brothers. A no experience director, a mediocre producer and writer. A guy who insulted the fans. A man who insulted the fans…the producer and writer of the worst reviewed Spider-Man film yet.

Incredible. outrageous, sad very sad. You insult fans and critics And you become the head honcho of the next trek film.
Incredible. Pure decadence. Pure shamelessness. They are kidding us. Maybe they think no matter because ST is nothing…and trekkers a lot of nerds.
Disney knows better. They wanted superstars to helm an write SW ep.VII. they say:« our fans are important for us» SW is the future.

This annyversary movie will be a funeral. It will be a funeral because Orci and his little helpers have not talent to make a good trek movie. Arrogance is not enough. A bunch of grouppies bowing their servile head it is not enough.
Do you want Orci to direct the next star trek film? Ok. It is yours. I’m done with this mess. I m not the only one. A huge number of true trek fans are tired of this humiliation, intolerance, arrogance, and soddy star trek.

37. Ann - May 10, 2014

I think what most Star Trek fans want is an intelligent story first and foremost, they want something that is thought provoking which is what TOS brought to TV.
Pure razzle dazzle special effects can be had with all the Marvel movies along with countless others. Some are really fun movies and entertaining as well,but they all seem to morph together at this point and seem like different variations of the same formula.
Is it asking too much to have intelligent fare and also be entertaining?
I think the worry of such an inexperienced director which Mr. Orci is, is that he well turn out another mind numbing all special effects movie,which might do just ok at the box office but will enrage Trek fans.Yep, a bad directing job can tank a movie even one with a loyal fan base.
Let’s just hope Mr Orci. Paramount and Bad Robot know what they are doing.
I do want the next Trek movie to be great and successful !

38. Michael Pruitt - May 10, 2014

For those who hated STID and can’t understanding why Orci may get the job:

It has a 90% audience rating at Rotten Tomatoes. The vast majority of viewers liked the movie. A lot.

It has grossed 467 million worldwide. It was unequivecolly a financial success.

When I point this out I usually get responses that try to unskew these numbers. You can’t. The Bad Robot version of Star Trek is both very very popular and very very lucrative.

I liked it. I didn’t think it was perfect. I specifically think the hospital and open scenes needed to be flipped. I get what they where trying to do by having characters expirience primeverse events but at different points in there life journey. I’m not sure it works exactly.

But this isn’t Transformers by any stretch: a financially successful film series that makes money despite the people who watch it not really liking it much.

39. endeavour crew - May 10, 2014

Good luck Bob- my wife met you on Matador and when she told me I just about fell out of my chair!

Also, has there been any discussion about the potential for more movies or is this one the final?

40. John from Cincinnati - May 10, 2014

This would be fantastic! I hope Bob gets it. Bob understands Star Trek and I think he would do an amazing job. Better than having an outsider come in (see- Stuart Baird).

41. Michael Pruitt - May 10, 2014

@Ann my impression is that a lot of the negative feelings about STID aren’t really about the movie itself but rather a rejection of Star Trek as a tent pole franchise. If that’s correct it doesn’t matter who directs — the type of movie it will be is already set in stone.

42. c - May 10, 2014

Home stretch. Bob.

Thrusters on full.

43. jonboc - May 10, 2014

Go get ‘em, Bob! The next headline I want to read on this site is “Orci to Direct Trek 3″!

44. Viking - May 10, 2014

Home stretch, Bob.

Thrusters on full.

45. Mike Barnett - May 10, 2014

29. Oscar
I hope you give Bob Orci a chance with the next movie. Let’s see his vision before dismissing him.

I’m super excited about this and I hope the agents/lawyers dot the i’s and cross the t’s soon!!

Last summer Bob asked us here on Trekmovie what we’d like to see in the next movie. He ‘noted’ several suggestions so let’s see if he can work them into the next movie.

boborci:

I hope you will be able to check in with us every once in a while after it’s made official.

46. JRT! - May 10, 2014

boborci – good luck! And I actually enjoyed Spidey 2. One of the very few who did,it seems,lol!

Oscar – you might be done,but a lot of new people will come along. I hope you stay long enough to see if it turns out any good though. You never know. And there might some other fun stuff for you that year.

Keep Trekkin’!

J-R!

47. JohnR - May 10, 2014

I belive in Bob Orci!

48. Trekbilly - May 10, 2014

What I don’t understand is why some people want to put all the perceived failings of STID on Orci. There were two other writers and a director calling the shots on how the film came to fruition! How do you know Bob is responsible for the things you didn’t like? Maybe it was Lindelof, Kurtzman…or heck, even JJ who was responsible for the things you didn’t like? Film making is a collaborative effort!

Knowing Bob is a fan and has tons of writing and producing credits to his name, I think we would be in good hands.

If anything, that Cornish guy was the one I didn’t want to see direct!

All you people hoping for Spielberg (who, in my opinion, only made three great films a lonnnnnnnnng time ago), Ridley Scott, James Cameron or Michael Bay should give it up. Those guys will (read my keyboard) NEVER direct a Star Trek film! LOL!!!

So, yeah…Bob deserves a shot at this one! Why not?

49. captain matteo - May 10, 2014

Roberto is bright, talented and a very passionate trek fan! His contributions to the 2 movies was mostly spectacular, but some fell short. I loved both movies, but was never comfortable with this version of Khan, (or the “magic blood”). No writer creates perfection — they’re all human. And when they’re also a serious fan, maintaining objectivity could sometimes be difficult. This is where the production team and director come in. Their oversight results in all sorts of modifications (rewrites, added/deleted scenes, set alterations, etc). With no “gate-keeper”, lack of objectivity certainly increases the risk of ineffective scenes/dialogue reaching the final print. The pressure will be enormous on Roberto. I wish him the best and will certainly see the movie. I just hope it goes well.

50. Mr. ATOZ - May 10, 2014

Wen Star Wars comes out, the Trek reboots will unfortunately be a faded memory. Marvel will have a huge lineup of 2016 movies as well. My hope is that Orci can make a movie that sneaks up on the summer blockbusters and closes out the trilogy well. A fresh story and the release date are so key to it doing well. Also resisting the urge to use transwarp beaming, Khan’s superblood and oneliners from previous Trek movies (ex:Khannnn!).

Good luck! Make a movie for the fans that honors us keeping Trek alive for 50 years!

51. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

That is a very logical decision, Bob is the perfect choice to directs a Nu-Trek movie. A Nu-Trek movie doesn’t need an experienced director, it just needs a fan who understand the materials.

Bob is the creator of Nu-Trek, therefore it is his right to get the gig.

Godspeed!

52. Bill Peters - May 10, 2014

#37 posts are Valid, Bob didn’t work in Vacuum for STID or 09, and If Bad Robot and JJ think he is best for the Job, he should get it, he is Currently Writing the Movie and Directing is the next Logical Leap.

I would say live with IDIC with everything Trek, don’t just Dismiss something cause it is Different.

53. Bill Peters - May 10, 2014

#27 Also has some good points.

54. Trekbilly - May 10, 2014

Oh…and as far as I’m concerned, Bob was totally justified in telling a fan to F off. If I had a bunch of jerks piling on me I’d do the same thing. Actually, I’m surprised he didn’t say it sooner! :-) I know some of you don’t like him because he said that — but what would you do under the circumstances?

Brannon Braga never stood up for himself when the fans came down on him. Maybe if he had, he might have garnered some respect…

These guys are human just like the rest of us. I can understand them maybe losing their cool on occasion.

55. Wes - May 10, 2014

I wanted to love STID. I really, really did. But it just didn’t happen. It just wasn’t a good Trek film. I absolutely loved the first film, but ID just kind of fell flat with me. Admittedly, I had sky high expectations…and needless to say, the film fell far short of them. Saw it once in the theater, bought the Blu Ray when it came out, and it’s sat unopened on the shelf for months, unwatched.

So unfortunately, with this news, I think it may be time to bow out of the Nu-Trek fandom. I’m sure Orci is a nice guy, and there is no doubt he’s a talented writer…but he’s most definitely not right for Trek, nor is he ready for the director’s chair. That much has been demonstrated.

To me, Nu-Trek is a now failed experiment to bring Trek into the future with modern audiences. It just didn’t work, and it pains me to say that. I’ll always be a fan of Trek, and thank goodness we have so many years of television shows and films to enjoy…but it may be time to admit that Star Trek’s hayday is over, and it’s never going to be what it once was.

And that’s ok, because as I said…we have years and years of shows and films to cherish and enjoy.

56. What is it with you? - May 10, 2014

If he thinks he’s ready and the studio thinks he’s ready, then I’m happy with this. First Trekie in history directing a major Star Trek movie! As Picard would say….

http://youtu.be/muBRrX9JyE4

57. Trekbilly - May 10, 2014

No, it really hasn’t been demonstrated. LOL!! He’s not been in the directors chair and he hasn’t even solo written a Trek film.

Hey, if he gets the job; the film comes out and it sucks then maybe it’ll be time for Bob to move on. But right now, to me…he’s not responsible for you not liking the film.

At least not until he comes out and lays claim to the things you didn’t like in STID.

For the record, I was against Khan being in STID. So, I’m hardly a bootlicker. I did end up enjoying STID though. I liked it better than the first BR film.

58. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

@ 46. Trekbilly – May 10, 2014

“Hey, if he gets the job; the film comes out and it sucks then maybe it’ll be time for Bob to move on.”

Why ?

He is co-writing the movie with TWO other writers, why should he gets the blame if he hasn’t even solo written a Trek film? What about JD Payne & Patrick McKay ?

btw, Bob never wrote any script solo, he was always co-writing with other scriptwriters.

59. Hugh Hoyland - May 10, 2014

I had/have a gut feeling evevr since I read Bob was lobbying for the job that it was pretty much in the bag. I’m fairly sure he’s going to direct it (unless something out of the blue happpens.) This could be really cool IMO.

I would just like to ask Bob does he have his “own” directorial style in mind, or woul he do what so many others have done, copy or emulate their favorite directors work. And in either case could he describe it?

I also wonder if the script for STID is up anywhere on the web? So far nothing.

60. BatlethInTheGroin - May 10, 2014

Blaming John Carter’s failure on the director is misguided and uninformed. It’s a great film and was well-received by those who actually saw it. The problem was that it was poorly marketed, and thus had a poor turnout.

61. Cygnus-X1 - May 10, 2014

37. Trekbilly – May 10, 2014

What I don’t understand is why some people want to put all the perceived failings of STID on Orci. There were two other writers and a director calling the shots on how the film came to fruition! How do you know Bob is responsible for the things you didn’t like?

Because the things we didn’t like in STID (plot holes, bad science, poorly motivated villains) were also present in ST09. The main difference, and why most people rate ST09 higher than STID, has to do with the newness of ST09. It was an origins story introducing a new premise, i.e. the Alt Universe (meaning the particular alternate universe in which the BR Trek movies are set; alternate or “mirror” universes have been regularly occurring Trek plots since TOS “Mirror, Mirror”). And the characters were all new. And the actors were all new. And the directing style (including lots of lens flares) was new. Are you seeing the pattern here? The best stuff about ST09 was the newness of it, and we forgave (whether consciously or unconsciously) quite a number of sins in favor of remaining excited about the new Trek and its promise. And while ST09 was very enjoyable in the theater, it hasn’t held up well over time, especially if you start to consciously analyze it even a tiny bit. The more you look, the more loose threads you see. And the more you tug at them, the more the whole thing unravels.

And ST09 was, I think many people would say, Bob’s BEST work. Look at his other movies, then revisit the notion that maybe the flaws in STID were due to everyone but Bob.

62. Ensign Ro- (Short for Roland) - May 10, 2014

I have never been so un-enthused about the release of a new Trek movie in my entire life. With the release of STID I thought all hope was lost for my beloved franchise…and now I’m convinced of it. What made the last 2 films so bad (especially STID) was the writing. I found it gimmicky, lazy, and pandering in the most insulting of ways. And now one of those responsible for that writing may (and most likely will) direct what is supposed to be the 50th anniversary tribute to Trek? That is disheartening to say the least.

63. Buzz Cagney - May 10, 2014

#4 thats what staggers me. I’m genuinely surprised that Bob is the front runner.

64. AyanEva - May 10, 2014

Cool. I already said my piece earlier but, again, I’m willing to give him a chance and at least he genuinely cares.

65. Oscar - May 10, 2014

40. Ahmed.
This is not only a nu trek film, this is the 50th annyversary film of the most important sci fi saga ever, and

What is the PARAMOUNT plan?

«oh, STID was a economic fail, we have lost Abrams, our main lure, and the next movie will be the last nu trek movie. So,We will make a low profile film with a second class team and ciao ,amore.»
Not a great plan but a petty plan.
And what kind of master plan has Orci? More copypaste? More plotholes? More mindless video game action ,more hungry angry bald supervillains with superspaceship and stupid vendettas,more captain Proton stuff, more melodrama and cringe worthy dialogues?
Because Orci’s formula is the same every time: Spider-Man, Transformers, Star Trek, El Zorro, Ender, tv series…
He is a mediocre writer because he is a FORMULA WRITER. Always the same stuff. And without Abrams a feather weight.
Yes, we Do know his ST vision. We do, so, please no more , «he has nothing to do with STID mess or rotten tomatoe Spider-Man…» He is the main guilty because he was the only trekker in the Abrams team…writer and producer…
I’m a old trekker, a old school trekker, with strong opinions, not a rosewater dreamer, the politically correct thing is not my stuff, I prefer the John Coffe Hays style. The old Texas style.

66. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

@ 51. Buzz Cagney – May 10, 2014

“#4 thats what staggers me. I’m genuinely surprised that Bob is the front runner.”

The latest movie by Bob, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, brought in more than $460 million worldwide in just 4 weeks. That is a very good reason for Paramount to hire him.

At the end of the day, it is just another summer movie.

67. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

@ 53. Oscar – May 10, 2014

“40. Ahmed.
This is not only a nu trek film, this is the 50th annyversary film of the most important sci fi saga ever”

It is the 50th anniversary of the PRIME UNIVERSE. Nu-Trek03 has nothing to do with that. Bob & co should not bother themselves with that anniversary, they should focus on bringing their vision on Nu-Trek, nothing more & nothing less.

As for the 50th anniversary, CBS will figure out something or maybe not!

68. Admiral_Bumblebee - May 10, 2014

I am really unsure how this movie will hold up against Star Wars. I mean they press every button. Bringing the old cast back, even giving them most of the screen time if recent rumours are to be believed. They bring the Star Wars back, fans wanted to see since 30 years!
And I fear that we will get some trivial Star Trek story with a cast no one cares about… Chris Who? Who Quinto?
This is the 50 th anniversary of Star Trek. This has to be the biggest thing Trek has ever seen or no one, not even the fans will care about Star Trek after it anymore.
They could do it in an epic way by bringing back most if not all of the old cast for one gigantic last ride. An epic universe-crossing adventure with Prime Kirk, Prime Spock, Picard, Nu Kirk, Nu Spock, and some of the the others. This would create the buzz Trek needs to hold up against Star Wars, this would be the epic explosion that would drive the series further.
Some young crew that didn’t do it two times trekking along for the 50 th anniversary of Star Trek would simply be disappointing and irrelevant.

69. Gary 8.5 - May 10, 2014

Good Luck Bob!
I really look forward to seeing what the story will be and what your vision as a director will entail.

70. Trekbilly - May 10, 2014

#47 — All true. I guess I’d like to see a breakdown of “who came up with what” with regard to the STID story/script.

71. Oscar - May 10, 2014

56. You are right.
Irrelevant is the word. No doubt sw will crash this mini st…in fact, the guardians of the galaxy will overshadow it. Captain America is overshsdowing Orci’ s Spider-Man…so
Chris who? Zachary who? and Roberto who?
Star Trek: death by suicide,
Produced, and directed by Roberto Orci. Plot: Roberto Orci. Main theme: Roberto Orci, song: Roberto Orci. Photography Roberto Orci, visual efects Roberto Orci. Atrezzo Roberto Orci, make up, Roberto Orci…With Roberto Orci as James T Kirk, Spock, Sulu, Chejov, Bones and Uhura..
STAR TREK: DEATH BY SUICIDE
A Roberto Orci production

72. Josh - May 10, 2014

We are behind you Bob!

73. Marja - May 10, 2014

56 Adm Bumblebee, “A cast no one cares about” … my guess is, a family of mice moved into your pockets. Plenty of people like the new cast. I think … dare I say it … that most of the new cast are better actors. Not to mention that Zoe Saldana has starred in or headlined several blockbuster movies in the last 10 years. IMHO the actors have at least better than most of the original cast has been since the last season of TOS [I make exceptions for Nimoy and Kelley, who've been wonderful in every outing]. I know, blasphemy. But give me a break. Unconditional statements win you few points in debate.

“How [Trek] will hold up against Star Wars” is IMHO completely irrelevant. It’s like comparing apples with oranges, expecting the oranges to be equally crisp, or the apples to be as juicy as the oranges.

As for your proposal for “pressing all the buttons,” that sounds more like a recipe for a confusing hash than the first two BR movies put together. I’m not sure I can say “UGH!” loudly enough.

74. Marja - May 10, 2014

27, Rose, My bet is that most moments of “heart” we saw in the first two movies were written by Orci and Kurtzman, and supported or added to by Abrams. That they were interested in character development. But, many of their movies have shown that they cram these moments in between huge action sequences [I've recently concluded, based on reviews and my viewings of certain of their productions, that JJ Abrams is not the only one responsible for the relentless action in Trek1 and 2].

SO, I hope that Mr Orci and Payne&McKay have seen our comments in this site, and realize that sequence after sequence of ACTION! does not so much honor our beloved Trek characters as put them through paces. That they haven’t gotten enough “space,” you should pardon the expression, to perform more scenes that showcase their abilities as actors. They have to cram a lot of acting into 30 seconds at a time.

29 Oscar, IMO it’s ridiculous to compare Paramount’s box office acumen with Disney’s. Disney is a POWERHOUSE in the industry and has tons and tons of money to invest in any project they choose. And they usually choose very wisely. Remember they have headed up the Marvel movies and now own the Pixar movies, which do boffo box office.

They exercise more CREATIVE control, by which I mean, they control the quality of the content and are more invested in the drama, story arcs, hiring of actors/directors and so on than the money honchos at Paramount.

I see it kind of like, Paramount: “Here’s a life ring and $190M. Good luck fellas!” while Disney says, “Here’s a boat with complete supplies and $ More Millions. Plus we’ll have a ship full of supportive people to help you get to the island, and helicopters monitoring your progress.”

Paramount: “Now that you’re on the island, here’s a crappy movie poster to promote your journey.” Disney: “We’ve had a huge number of standee posters here for the last six months, promoting your journey to every resident of the island! And a year of previews too, to make the audience here more eager to see your story!”

75. Marja - May 10, 2014

30 Ann, I think what most Star Trek fans want is an intelligent story first and foremost, they want something that is thought provoking which is what TOS brought to TV. Pure razzle dazzle special effects can be had with all the Marvel movies along with countless others. Some are really fun movies and entertaining as well,but they all seem to morph together at this point and seem like different variations of the same formula.

I agree with this, and the other things TOS had in abundance were feeling – chances to explore character – and questions for the audience to examine.

Alas, not the keys to a Summer Blockbuster.

Star Trek being a Summer Blockbuster does not lead to its thought-provoking formula, questions, and actions. We got some in STiD, but not enough compared with the ACTION!

76. Marja - May 10, 2014

And, no matter what Mr Orci does, he’s sure to enrage some Trek fans.

We are seldom — if ever — in complete alignment.

77. NuFan - May 10, 2014

I’ve seen enough past evidence that the fans have never agreed on anything ever. Which is why I’m happy they ignore the fans.

78. Aristomenis Tsirbas - May 10, 2014

As a film director myself, I would have loved to see Orci find a way to be a first-time director on a smaller film. Any film. Even a short – before taking on a tentpole. IMO being a good director isn’t something anyone can do. It takes a special innate talent combined with actual experience. Steven Spielberg directed several TV episodes before earning his chance to direct a studio feature. So did JJ Abrams. Marc Webb directed the fantastic 500 Days of Summer before given the honor of helming a huge franchise film. So I don’t understand how Mr Orci can be given a tentpole blockbuster without proving himself as a director first. With all that said, here’s hoping I’m proved wrong if Orci is chosen, and that he delivers a brilliant Trek

79. Buzz Cagney - May 10, 2014

#54 but wasn’t that as a writer? He didn’t direct it did he?
Sorry, my basic point remains- are there no experienced Directors that want to do Direct the next movie? I am alarmed and disappointed that a co-writer appears to be the front runner! Trek needs a Sam Mendes to be involved. I don’t see Orci as anywhere near that level.

And yes, the movies he has been involved with have made good money and yes, he definitely has his strengths- most notably humour- but decent box office doesn’t automatically mean decent movie.

80. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

@ 61. Marja – May 10, 2014

“My bet is that most moments of “heart” we saw in the first two movies were written by Orci and Kurtzman, and supported or added to by Abrams.”

It was a team effort!

======================

StarTrek.com Staff : What’s the collaborative process between the two of you, and also between the two of you and Damon Lindelof?

Orci: We all worked pretty closely on the first movie, just in terms of conceiving the foundation of what we needed to do to both reinvent Star Trek and to stay true to what Trek had come before. It was a committee of five from the beginning. And Alex and I have been writing together for 21 years. Most of that has been he and I across the table from each other. So it’s already a conversation, the way we write.

To add another band member, as we call it, is natural because our writing doesn’t always entail us just sitting quietly in corners typing away. There actually are transcripts of conversations and sometimes we even record things with our phones, and that in and of itself can become dialogue in a script. So it just became a conversation with three people. Obviously, lining up our schedules has become harder, so sometimes we’d check into a hotel that we’d just use for the day, to get away from all of our phones and all of our lives. We’ll go and order up room service for weeks at a time as we divvy up scenes and talk through it.

In terms of working on scenes, we’d do it all kinds of ways. Sometimes we’d split up scenes. Damon would take one, Alex would take one and I would take one. Sometimes we’d write all together. Sometimes Alex and I would write one and pass it to Damon and he’d pass it back. Every scene in the script was worked over 17,000 different ways by all of us.

http://www.startrek.com/article/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-and-alex-kurtzman

81. Disinvited - May 10, 2014

FWIW

I’d say that in television the showrunner is probably more akin to what is nowadays thought of the duties of a motion picture director, especially in terms of creative control.

And I’ve seen a reference or two to one, Roberto Orci, as being one of those:

http://www.cc2konline.com/podcasts-1/item/2151-comic-con-hawaii-five-o-panel

“showrunner Roberto Orci”

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/el-rey-network-trailer-dusk-till-dawn-series/

“Showrunner Roberto Orci”

82. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

@ 65. Buzz Cagney – May 10, 2014

“but wasn’t that as a writer? He didn’t direct it did he?”

No, he didn’t direct it.

“And yes, the movies he has been involved with have made good money and yes, he definitely has his strengths- most notably humour- but decent box office doesn’t automatically mean decent movie.”

True, but the fact is that the “money honchos at Paramount” , as Marja put it, are more interested in the box office numbers than anything else.

In any case, I think it is a done deal that Bob is going to be the director.

83. crazydaystrom - May 10, 2014

61. Marja

I like your Paramount/Disney comparisons very much. So apt. It just doesn’t seem that Paramount or CBS care about Star Trek, beyond its tentpole/blockbuster potential. One feels the ‘suits’ don’t get it, still, to this day.

If Bob gets the chair can he make both the fans and the general audience happy? Not an easy thing to do, to be sure. As I’ve said before, the star will have to be aligned exactly right for this to happen.

For me the question is – Can he (or anyone, for that matter) give us a nuTrek movie that will even come close to exploiting the full potential inherent in the Star Trek concept? Adult science fiction adventure that does not insult one’s intelligence. I truly believe that will happen one day. But I’m starting to lose hope that will happen in my lifetime. Maybe Mr. Orci will make what will turn out to be my favorite Trek film of all time. I’d very much like that to happen.

Bob Orci! Make me laugh. Make me cry. Make my pulse pound. Make me ponder possibilities of the human adventure! ST’09 actually accomplished most of that. STiD for me failed to do so for the most part. For it to have riffed so much on TWOK it still managed to feel less “Star Trek-y” to me than its predecessor.

Bob I believe you love Star Trek and want it to be successful. So do we. If you get the job I hope your love and care for Star Trek is evident in the results. I hope you can manage to teach Paramount and CBS a thing or two about the franchise’s potential, not just as a moneymaker but as a platform for telling great stories as well.

84. pilotfred - May 10, 2014

to be honest they could get micky mouse to direct it!!The films are enjoyable however not smart but as long as they don’t screw up the real time line then does it matter, I hope the third film will be the last

85. Phil - May 10, 2014

@59. Just a bit on the bitter side, are you? Given your obsession on this, I’m beginning to suspect that you have never, ever, seen any Trek, you’re just one of those guys who gets some perverse pleasure complaining about things.

Give it a rest, buddy. All you are doing now by marginalizing Trek fans and foreign audiences is making yourself look even more embittered. That’s bad for your health.

86. Mark Anton - May 10, 2014

I vote no for Robert Orci as director mainly because I did not care much for Star Trek Into Darkness (which i often refer to as “Into Dorkness” because of all the lame Kahn stuff that shouldn’t have been in a new movie to begin with). I don’t usually write negative comments about Star Trek on this site, but I wish they would take this series in a different direction other than someone who wrote the last film. I will see the next Star Trek movie no matter how bad it is, but I’ve been watch Trek since it first appeared in prime time back in the 60s.

87. Oscar - May 10, 2014

71.
Beh, I only want the best for STAR TREK. A no experience director, a mediocre writer, it is not the best choice. I do NOT like this Abrams cult, or Orci cult now. The most important thing in ST should be ST. I’m not a rosewater dreamer…«Orci make me laugh make me cry», bla,bla bla.
STAR TREK needs and Star Trek deserves a great space exploration movie. Orci can not write the movie ST needs and deserves because it’ s a mediocre formula writer, his movies maybe earn money but with Video game type films. Critics know it. You should read amazing Spider-Man 2 critics…
If you can not accept the thruth ,sorry but the annyversary film will be low profil Project made by a second class team.
It is a Paramount’ s call. They want a new puppet director, a new Stuart Baird.
TOS guys had not money, but they had talent, Nu Trek guys had money ,but they had not talent.

88. Mad Mann - May 10, 2014

Well, I’m sure that Orci won’t be so uptight as Abrams was about secrecy. I asked Orci about getting us some pics during production of STID, he said he had to ask JJ who said no.

Bob, show us some production photos, please! I remember Pegg snuck one once….

89. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

@Brian Drew,

Any progress regarding an interview with Bob ?

90. Marja - May 10, 2014

69 Crazy Daystrom Can [Orci] (or anyone, for that matter) give us a nuTrek movie that will even come close to exploiting the full potential inherent in the Star Trek concept? Adult science fiction adventure that does not insult one’s intelligence.

73 Oscar STAR TREK needs and Star Trek deserves a great space exploration movie.

Daystrom, Oscar, I think it’s not likely to happen, unless they schedule Trek3’s release for Fall/Late Fall/Early Holiday season, when people want a break from the frenetic pace of the American holiday season. AFTER hoo-ha, yippee skippy let’s get the young! Summer, in other words.

Or [crossing fingers] on television, long-form, story arc, television.

74 Mad Mann, YES. Production photos, even those with just actors in uniforms in a situation that doesn’t give away plot elements, will stimulate more interest.

The “magic box” serves no one, least of all the films. It ticks off fans and keeps audiences in the dark. Here’s hoping JJ doesn’t put his foot down and insist on absolute secrecy. Definitely, keep “leakers” away, but let slip some costume shots and Enterprise bridge shots.

Revelations and surprises can be kept out of production photos for gods’ sake. They are photographed and publicized by the production company, yes?

91. Marja - May 10, 2014

Bob Orci …

Navun!

[Vulcan - "success"]

92. Jonboc - May 10, 2014

I’m sorry, did Oscar say something again? For some reason, the more he talks, the less I hear him…

93. Disinvited - May 10, 2014

#72. Mark Anton – May 10, 2014

Isn’t that more a reasoning to vote no on writer/director Abrams known for making uncredited “adjustments” to scripts he films, which is exactly the situation, as it is, as in him not going to direct? Voting no on Orci as director isn’t going to change the script and its narrative one whit.

If anything, I’d say, using your reasoning, it would make more sense to vote Orci onto the Director’s island as he’d be so preoccupied with keeping his director’s cap above water that it would minimize his ability to find the time to make direct contributions to script “adjustments” which would force him to rely on others for rewrites. Thus minimizing the contribution that you sought through your “no” vote.

Of course, if you have the slightest notion that he might actually be competent in the gig he seeks, then I’d understand your voting “no.” But then if he is so regarded generally, I’d understand nuParamount hiring him to direct in spite of your vote.

94. CsMisi - May 10, 2014

I’m absolutely OK with this. I know that Orci is the biggest fan from the ST and ST:ID stuff, so I’m perfectly fine with this. As a new director he might even bring in some uniqueness into this. I can only say good luck and make us a good Star Trek movie

95. Cygnus-X1 - May 10, 2014

69. Trekbilly – May 10, 2014

#47 — All true. I guess I’d like to see a breakdown of “who came up with what” with regard to the STID story/script.

I’d like to see that as well. But, I don’t think we’re going to. Lindelof has gotten more blame than praise for his insistence upon the TWOK death-scene rip-off since that little nugget became public.

96. Oscar - May 10, 2014

94.
And he is a huge fan of Spider-Man, but his Spider-Man is a rotten tomatoe and in USA , a flop…
There are a lot of directors, TRUE directors ,who are huge trekkers…Brian Singer, for instance…his next x men film will be great..wait and see
Why not Brian Singer to helm a trek movie?
Why not Levar Burton?
Why not Frakes?
Ah, I see , they can not lobby, they have not powerful friends and lobbyst
This is the question, not «he is a huge fan» or « he knows better», but he wants to be the head honcho and he can because he has powerful influences and powerful friends (Abrams…) No matter experience and no matter talent.
This is a sad, sad sign of our times…

97. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

@ 78. Buzz Cagney – May 10, 2014

“are there no experienced Directors that want to do Direct the next movie? I am alarmed and disappointed that a co-writer appears to be the front runner! Trek needs a Sam Mendes to be involved. I don’t see Orci as anywhere near that level.”

You may find the answer to some of these questions in this interview with StarTrek.com

==================================

StarTrek.com Staff: The assumption is that someone in the Bad Robot family will end up directing Star Trek 3. Alex, how interested might you be in possibly doing it?

Kurtzman: Wow, that’s a tough question. I think Star Trek has become such a part of us that we will all do whatever we have to protect and to make sure, as Bob said, that it lives long and prospers as well. I haven’t really thought about that yet because we’re still in the throes of finishing this movie, but I’m flattered that you asked. I’m not sure, I guess, is my honest answer, only because I haven’t had time to think about it yet.

http://www.startrek.com/article/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-and-alex-kurtzman
==================================

They were looking for someone from the “Bad Robot family”, not an outsider.

98. The Keeper - May 10, 2014

They should hire that famous director Alan Smittee.
He’s directored all the greatest films and Star Trek 3 can be his crown jewel.

99. CecilofRil - May 10, 2014

Hey Ahmed:

Is there something to making a movie other than money…? I mean, your argument precludes the fact that both 09 Trek and STID are the HIGHEST GROSSING Trek movies of all time? Ergo, why wouldn’t Paramount want the guy who is the one who WROTE and PRODUCED the movies to direct? I guess (in your estimation) that he hasn’t spent enough time on sets. Even though he has produced Transformers Dark of the Moon, G. I. Joe (1 and 2), The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (which was excellent, by the way) and others? I guess you really don’t know what TREK is. Obviously, to you Trek is just TOS and TNG movies.

100. Star Trek Family - May 10, 2014

Paramount has always treated Star Trek like a stepchild, no matter how much money it made them, it was never enough.

I guess all we can do is hope for the best!
GOOD LUCK Bob Orci ! If you really love Star Trek please give us a great movie!

Doing all this bitching won’t help, as Star Trek fans, all we can do is support him. Sometimes things workout better if you are more positive than negative.

No matter what we will always have old Trek on video.

101. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

@98. CecilofRil

Hey CecilofRil,

I guess that you didn’t read my previous comment:

==============
65. Ahmed – May 10, 2014

The latest movie by Bob, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, brought in more than $460 million worldwide in just 4 weeks. That is a very good reason for Paramount to hire him.
==============

I think that Bob is the perfect choice to direct ST03, he created Nu-Trek & brought in lots of money from the last two movies.

So we have someone who knows how to write a successful box office movie, add to that that he is one of the Bad Robot family, a perfect match.

“I guess you really don’t know what TREK is. Obviously, to you Trek is just TOS and TNG movies.”

Obviously, that is incorrect given the fact that I liked ST09 :-)

102. dmduncan - May 10, 2014

Apparently, from that Yahoo story where Bob is the frontrunner, both Snow White and the Huntsman and John Carter were made by first time directors.

Snow White was a hit but JCM was not–but it was still a damned good movie.

I am shocked–SHOCKED I say–that a first time director can make a good movie.

103. Red Dead Ryan - May 10, 2014

I agree that “John Carter” is a great movie. Outstanding score by Michael Giaccino as well.

Too bad it didn’t make enough money for a sequel.

104. Desertrat - May 10, 2014

I have a bad feeling about this!

105. captain spock - May 10, 2014

good luck Bob hope u get the Job as the director of star trek3 , put one thing though please no sinister driven plots or conspiracy theories type movie just an old fashion good trek movie . please!

106. Ahmed - May 10, 2014

@ 101. dmduncan – May 10, 2014

“Snow White was a hit but JCM was not–but it was still a damned good movie.
I am shocked–SHOCKED I say–that a first time director can make a good movie.”

Andrew Stanton, the director of John Carter, directed two animated movies, Finding Nemo & WALL·E. John Carter was his first live action movie.

John Carter tanked at the box office making it the biggest flop in history according to the Economist

=====================
The biggest flop ever?

AROUND this time last year the Walt Disney Company released a very expensive, very bad film: “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides”, which went on to make over $1 billion worldwide. This year the company released a similarly expensive film—one that is not just a great deal better than the misconceived flotsam of Pirates, but also, as such things go, is not a bad film at all.

But “John Carter” has not gone on to make $1 billion. Indeed, Disney says it has left the company $200m out of pocket, giving it a claim to be the biggest flop of all time—bigger even than Kevin Costner’s 1995 fiasco “Waterworld” (which actually did reasonably well outside America).

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/03/disneys-john-carter

107. Phil - May 10, 2014

@95. Been waiting for someone from the ‘anyone but Bob’ choir to kick out a couple of names…
Bryan Singer – current legal troubles aside, do you really want the director of ‘Jack the Giant Slayer’, a notable big budget dud on board. Superman Returns?? The guy who singlehandedly turned Superman into s stalker pervert?
LeVar Burton. Wait a minute, you are giving Bob s**t about directing, but are comfortable handing the keys to someone who directed ONE movie that grossed a half million dollars TOTAL. The vast majority of his experience is in TV….hmmm, just like someone else we all know? Love Reading Rainbow, BTW..
Jonathan Frakes. That’s what Trek needs, a sequel to Insurrection. Starships for video gamers.

This is fun, I can do this all day….if Trek could survive Final Frontier, Generations, and Rick Berman, it’s fine in the hands of Bad Robot.

And yeah, I plan on seeing Godzilla next weekend. Guilty pleasures are allowed….

108. Corylea - May 10, 2014

Are there no people on the planet who are experienced directors AND Star Trek fans? Surely there must be many such people … any of whom would probably be a better choice than Mr. Orci.

109. Mike Barnett - May 10, 2014

Assuming boborci gets the job, why not wait and see the movie before judging his ability to be a worthy director for ST3?

110. Bill Peters - May 10, 2014

107. Mike Barnett – May 10, 2014
Assuming boborci gets the job, why not wait and see the movie before judging his ability to be a worthy director for ST3?

That might Actually be good to do, See what it is before Judging it, Also Oscar Should point out that Star Trek 2016 comes out AFTER Star Wars Episode VII, almost 6-8 Months later, yes it will probably be a good movie but Paramount will be on Star Trek’s 50th by the time this movie comes out and 50th get Hyped, that is what happened with Bond and that is what happened with Doctor Who, people will show up cause it is the 50th.

111. Trekbilly - May 10, 2014

#94 — Yeah, Lindelof is a doofus. I’ll never forget what he did to Prometheus and thank God he’s not going to be working on the sequel to that!

112. Cygnus-X1 - May 10, 2014

98. CecilofRil – May 10, 2014

Is there something to making a movie other than money…?

Yes, there is. Unless you’re utterly soulless.

I mean, your argument precludes the fact that both 09 Trek and STID are the HIGHEST GROSSING Trek movies of all time?

Again, the gross isn’t really a significant measure. Return on investment (ROI) is the measure. STID cost $190 million to produce. That money was gone for two years. The domestic returns were not high relative to the cash outlay. And if you want to talk about the international returns, then we can talk about how the movie was made to appeal primarily to non-English-speaking audiences.

Another factor that’s often overlooked is the marketing costs, which are not included in the cost of production. STID cost $190 plus…???

113. Roger Taylor - May 10, 2014

I could draw the characters on my rump and spank myself, and it would be a better movie than what you’re planning to make, PORCI.

Ditch him.

114. Elias Javalis - May 10, 2014

95,

Oscar, the idea of Block-buster Films is to enjoy yourself! Hope you like Star Trek 3!

115. Jason - May 11, 2014

I’m not going to go into a long winded and bloated comment but the haters on this site are really pathetic. He ruined the franchise? Really? What world in the Federation do you people live on? I don’t remember planet La La Land joining as a member world. What obscure gutter was the franchise in before he came along?

116. Richard - May 11, 2014

Hope he handles the pressure of directing better than the pressure of dealing with fan comments

117. Captain Slow - May 11, 2014

I was at the beach a few hours ago and wrote “Orci for director” in the sand. Then a wave washed most of it away. Hopefully it wasn’t an omen.

118. Oscar - May 11, 2014

111. Elias
I enjoy good blockbusters, Batman trilogy, Captain America, the winter soldier, Raimi’ s Spider-Man…I can not enjoy gijoe type blockbustets, sorry, I’m not four years old…

110 Cygnus

STID cost $250 millions (total budget, marketing included), According to boxoffice.com.
In USA its deficit was an important deficit, more than $ 50 millions (because you must pay production, marketing, taxes, and theaters)

A very good director to helm a Star Trek movie is JOE KOSINSKY.
OBLIVION is a good Sci FI stuff, full of trek soul.

Flop or not flop John Carter is better than ST 2009 or STID, the two more overrated films ever (as usual with an Abrams movie)

119. Stephan - May 11, 2014

114. Oscar:

Your opinion.

120. Oscar - May 11, 2014

115.
Obviously. But I have some strong arguments. It is not a empty vassel.

121. Captain Slow - May 11, 2014

@ 116 Oscar

Actually, it is. You claim that the movie lost Paramount $50 million. But you are only looking at USA box office. It made a lot more internationally and so it was profitable. You keep insisting that it was a financial failure but the fact is that if the total budget was $250 million, and the total box office was $467 million, that it earned $217 million. And that doesn’t even factor in home video or broadcast sales.

122. Stephan - May 11, 2014

116. Oscar

Still just an opinion. An opinion which differs from mine. You say John Carter is better than STID. In my opinion the opposite is true.

123. JRT! - May 11, 2014

Spidey 2 a flop? It hasn’t flopped just yet,lol. Funnily enough I enjoyed it,even though socalled superhero/comics fans did not. But like a lot of Trek fans,and SW,Transformers,and whatnot,they are never pleased with what they say they are fans of. Yes,by all means nitpick and be critical,but in the end it’s just one individual’s opinion. And I’m fairly sure everyone here is quite capable of having their own opinions. I like what I like,don’t really care if no one else does. lol! Probably why I don’t care what critics say or how much box office a movie makes,if I enjoyed it then that’s the important thing for me. Plain and simple.

J-R!

124. JimJ - May 11, 2014

It’s funny how certain other movies make the same amount (and cost about the same amount to make) or make LESS than STID made and people call them huge successes and sequels are ordered up immediately with much encouragement. Then there’s this so called Star Trek fan base who whines, complains and contributes to Paramount’s worries. Yeah, let’s vote it the worst Star Trek movie at a convention and get international attention over our vote-REAL COOL! Worst Trek ever? Are you freaking kidding me? Never satisfied would be the best description for many of these so-called fans. JJ & Co. made Star Trek “cool” again, or perhaps for the first time ever. Do I agree with every single thing they have done? No, but nothing is that horrifically awful as some of you claim. Compare STID to the last two TNG movies and tell me, is there a slight increase in business? A kindergarten student could figure out that answer. Is Star Trek going to ever match Star Wars or The Avengers franchises? NO! However, Star Trek could be a nice nest egg for Paramount for MANY years, if the so-called fans don’t KILL it. Everyone that I know loved STID plus the first one JJ did. Are there flaws? Sure, but there are flaws in ALL the Star Trek movies. It’s science FICTION after all.

I for one would be thrilled to see Bob Orci helm the next one. IMO, one of two things will happen if he is in charge. 1. He will make a more “pure” Star Trek than ever, because I truly think he “gets” what the soul of Star Trek is over what JJ ever could see. OR 2. It will not be up to par and Paramount will try a new direction for one “supposed” last try. Star Trek will not go down without a fight. Either that, or they’ll sell it’s rights to Disney. Either way, some of you whiners and complainers will get what you want. The question is, will it be sooner….or later. Wait, for some of you, it will be NEVER because you are NEVER satisfied!!!

125. AJ - May 11, 2014

120:

JimJ

We “whiners and complainers” love Star Trek, and I do not see the fans as a required cheering section for whatever Paramount sees fit to produce under the Trek moniker.

You are correct to point out that that, in fact, 3 out of 4 of the TNG films were garbage, and that comes after a real hit-or-miss series of TOS films. Many of us nay-sayers would much rather bring Trek home to TV rather than watch Paramount patch together a B-grade team to make another generalist action film, crafted and marketed especially for the overseas boxoffice in markets where Trek was never a TV show to begin with.

The fact that this next one is the 50th Anniversary film is also of high importance. Where is the assurance of the high-point of the franchise being this very film in 2016? Where is the hype and all the positive buzz? Instead we get “X director decided he wasn’t interested, and JJ is off doing Episode VII.” How’s that for a great start? The Avengers get a Voltron reveal at a Con over two years before launch, and we get “maybe the head writer will direct it; he really wants to. And here are two unknown guys co-writing.”

Big difference.

126. Curious Cadet - May 11, 2014

@107. Mike Barnett,
“Assuming boborci gets the job, why not wait and see the movie before judging his ability to be a worthy director for ST3?”

I agree. There’s a really nice guy who’s a waiter at local restaurant. He’s never cooked a meal before in his life, nor has he ever run a restaurant before, and his taste in food is typical — but he’s worked in the restaurant business for years, managed a few small ones, and everybody likes him. I think that qualifies him to be given a multi-million dollar investment to open and run a restaurant in the heart of Beverly Hills with him as the head chef. We’ll judge his ability to be worthy chef and restaurateur after he serves his first meal at the grand opening.

127. Buzz Cagney - May 11, 2014

In all fairness to Orci i’m only basing my preference for him not to Direct on everything of his that he has written. Maybe Directing will be his real talent? I’d prefer not to risk it though.

128. dmduncan - May 11, 2014

105. Ahmed – May 10, 2014

Andrew Stanton, the director of John Carter, directed two animated movies, Finding Nemo & WALL·E. John Carter was his first live action movie.

***

In other words, of the two examples I gave you from the article that seems to disprove the notion that an inexperienced director can make a good movie, you chose to point out that the box office FLOP was actually made by a director who DID HAVE experience directing FEATURES, while ignoring that the SUCCESSFUL MOVIE was made by a guy who had no previous feature experience at all.

Thank you for helping me to point out the weakness of fear-based arguments such as you are making.

And please do point out that Rupert Sanders made two SHORT films so that your experience requirement appears so flimsy that it amounts to a poorly hidden face-saving measure.

Rumor has it that Bob, ever the Good Samaritan, was once spotted directing traffic in Santa Monica.

There ya go. Face is saved.

129. dmduncan - May 11, 2014

122. Curious Cadet – May 11, 2014

That’s a terrible analogy.

A much more accurate analogy would be promoting an already high level manager with proven skills to lead the company.

It’s so funny how you guys are portraying this as if Paramount is looking to the mailroom for their next CEO.

130. Disinvited - May 11, 2014

#122. Curious Cadet – May 11, 2014

That sounds very much like the premise of one of those Kitchen reality shows on FOX.

131. I am not Herbert - May 11, 2014

John Carter is definitely a good movie! nu-trek sucks! (no comparison)

WALL-E IS OUTSTANDING!!! (would LOVE Star Trek rendered like this)

OF COURSE boborci will direct: “ST(sic)3: the Final Outrage” =(

132. Ahmed - May 11, 2014

@124. dmduncan

Actually I was pointing to the simple fact that John Carter tanked at the box movie so badly that your following statement is not accurate at all.

“I am shocked–SHOCKED I say–that a first time director can make a good movie.”

In any case, I think that Paramount agrees with you, they don’t need an experienced director to make ST03. Anyone can direct a Star Trek movie, so why not give it to the guy who is bringing in millions to the studio.

At the end of the day, it is a waste of time to argue about experience requirements for a mere summer action movie.

133. Oscar - May 11, 2014

117.
Oveseas STID earned $ 238 millions. But you must pay theaters, taxes, (21% in European Union, for instance), distributor and subtitles or maybe you must dub the film into other languages…(spanish, german, french, chinese..)
Paramount expected $ 525/550 millions minimum worldwide.
127.
« a mere summer action movie», HeHe, Ahmed , Master of the disdain…but you are right. A film directed by Orci can no be a very important thing, Something trivial, an absolutely expendable thing.

134. Ahmed - May 11, 2014

@ 129. dmduncan – May 11, 2014

“It’s so funny how you guys are portraying this as if Paramount is looking to the mailroom for their next CEO.”

I think it is a lot funnier the way you are looking at this whole issue, it is like saying:

Bob is the ONLY GUY IN THE UNIVERSE who can direct ST03. He is OUR ONLY HOPE, without him in THE CHAIR, we are LOST.

HE IS THE ONE!!!!!

But we all know the TRUTH , that NEO is the ONE :-)

135. I am not Herbert - May 11, 2014

Ahmed: But we all know the TRUTH , that NEO is the ONE :-)

HEH!! Amen, brother!! ;-D

136. Thorny - May 11, 2014

I wonder if Abrams is going to be around a lot while Orci is directing ST13. Sort of like how Spielberg (while filming ET) had a big hand in “Poltergeist” even though Tobe Hooper was the official director of the movie (a movie that looks an awful lot like a Spielberg movie and very little like Hooper’s previous movies.)

137. Jack - May 11, 2014

I’m ignoring the nay-sayers. I loved Star Trek 2009 and while I didn’t enjoy Into Darkness as much the first time around, it has really grown on my through repeated viewings.

I suspect that if Orci had more control, we’d get the Trek we’ve been waiting for- the Trek which the last two efforts have been tantalizingly close to.

138. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

#87 – “The most important thing in ST should be ST. I’m not a *ROSEwater dreamer…«Orci make me laugh make me cry», bla,bla bla.”
*my emphasis

Did you call? Everything starts with an inspiration, idea, dream…at least, the best does!
You’re welcome.

No more Khan, but mention of use of, possible problems with transwarp beaming technology, the so-called “magic” blood are two ST ideas that could be further analyzed and help make for an interesting story. For some, a form of *”magic” blood already exists, each time a person eats and drinks of the blessed host and wine (Christian/Catholic liturgy and practice).

*”magic” – Speaking of what could be considered another kind of “magic” or what others can often refer to as either superstition or pseudo-science, homoeopathy – AFAIK, the Queen of England still swears by this form of medicine, homoeopathy, and she has NEVER appeared to me to be anything but an educated, intelligent and eminently practical individual…

Some people need to consider thinking “outside the square”, if that is possible, instead of being so small minded and ignorant. One could be forgiven for thinking that some here belong to the Flat Earth Society or something similar.

There is clearly not enough “rosewater” up your way…

If the third Star Trek movie gets released on the 50th anniversary of the first screening of Star Trek on US television, then it will be a late summer/early fall release date – ie 8 September 2016. It will just avoid being part of the “Summer Blockbuster/Tentpole” whatsy/jargon category. I mean September (22) is the start of our Spring here, so I assume it is the reverse upover.

139. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

Oscar – all the studios etc have to pay taxes and all the movie companies talk about the gross earnings/takings. You are not one of the studios’ accountants. If you are, I would say that you are talking “out of turn” and need to shut up before someone more senior shuts you up!

140. Curious Cadet - May 11, 2014

@129. dmduncan,
“That’s a terrible analogy.”

OK how’s this: the web designer for a notable wedding photographer, who has never taken a picture before, but has worked with the photographer for years and manages his company. The photographer isn’t available for the million dollar Bernstein wedding, but the web designer thinks he can do it.

Here’s the thing about the chef analogy … I want to know whether the guy I hire to create the menu and cook the food for my restaurant is any good at it before I spend millions on him. Likewise for the wedding photographer — even if he’s not actually snapping the photo, I’d like to know what kind of creative eye he has, whether he has the experience to manage the resources or not.

Does Orci have the background to become an effective director? Sure. What I’d like to see him do first is direct an episode of one of his TV series, or even have an exhibition of his vacation photos in a Hollywood gallery. But at the moment, we don’t even have so much as an Instagram photo to show us what kind of eye he has.

Look what Abrams did for Star Wars — he showed everyone with ST09 he could turn Trek into Wars, so ‘imagine what he could do for Wars’? I could be wrong but Disney wasn’t just going to turn over the most valuable franchise in cinema history to a first time director, or even one who had never shot a blockbuster scifi or fantasy film before. Yet Star Trek should?

141. dmduncan - May 11, 2014

132. Ahmed – May 11, 2014

Actually I was pointing to the simple fact that John Carter tanked at the box movie so badly that your following statement is not accurate at all.

***

Since John Carter was a GOOD movie regardless of its box office performance (don’t conflate the two, please), you are wrong yet again.

134. Ahmed – May 11, 2014

Bob is the ONLY GUY IN THE UNIVERSE who can direct ST03. He is OUR ONLY HOPE, without him in THE CHAIR, we are LOST.

***

And wrong a third time. Nobody I am aware of is even suggesting that, least of all me.

142. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

Wall-E was boring!

143. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

Ahmed and I am not Herbert – yet more deceit and exaggeration…:(

144. Ahmed - May 11, 2014

@138. dmduncan

“Nobody I am aware of is even suggesting that, least of all me.”

Good to hear that.

145. Ahmed - May 11, 2014

@ 139. Keachick (Rose) – May 11, 2014

“Wall-E was boring!”

Yet more nonsense from Keachick !!

146. Randall Williams - May 11, 2014

Did any of you detractors from Bob Orci directing ever consider that Bob
was vehemently against Khan appearing in STID? He was over-ruled
by his superiors and had to take a bad personal situation and write a
script for a film he wasn’t that fond of making to begin with (although I
am not “Speaking for Bob” in that regard).

IMHO let’s give Bob Orci a chance and see what he can come up with!

By the way, did you know that Chris Pine is contracted for FOUR nu-Trek
films? Who said this next 2016 film will be the last?

147. Vultan - May 11, 2014

#128

But the director of Snow White and the Huntsman did have some directing experience before his first feature. Look him up. A couple of shorts and a lot of TV ads. Can’t say the same for Bob.

148. Vultan - May 11, 2014

Anyway, Paramount seems to be going a bit cheap this time around. A reduced budget, unknown writers, and (maybe) an unproven director….

Sounds like fun!

149. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

Well, I did find Wall-E boring and so did my kids, who were the intended audience. It was over-rated, in our OPINION.

#143 – I think that your notion that Chris Pine is contracted to make four Star Trek films is a misunderstanding. It comes from the fact that a quote by him was used after STID was released thereby giving the impression that you have. What was quoted was actually what he said just after the release of the first nu-Trek movie, when indeed he did have two more movies to make. The schlock journalism that seems so pervasive did not date Pine’s comment as it should have.

That is not to say that there might not be a fourth movie and that he be in it – anything is possible, but for now, it is just the three movies.

150. Shilliam Watner - May 11, 2014

I lost hope for these visions of Star Trek after the last film, which was absolutely dreadful. Unfortunately they have handed Star Trek over to very average people. Abrams, Orci and company are all about quantity over quality, and put their spoons into so many pots that no one project is ever done all that well. I have no hope for the third film. I have no hope at all for Star Trek until somebody talented can take it back to TV where it belongs. Abrams and Orci are not the ones to do it.

151. TheAmorphousBlob - May 11, 2014

An un-tried director (no offense to Mr. Orci) directing what amounts to the franchise’s 50th Anniversary celebration? … just makes me feel like Paramount has given Trek the “goodbye look”.

152. spooky - May 11, 2014

Is he the Star Trek fan of the previous writing staff/producers?

If so, I hope he can bring something fun, original and genuinely interesting.

I want to see exploration rather than explosions and mindless stupidity.
I am also sick of seeing the shitty side of humanoid relations. I want to see these characters being heroic and being better than what people are today.
That’s what Star Trek was and is to me, not this gritty broken soul crap means being real every movie tries to shove down our throats. “Man of Steel” comes to mind.

Movies are about escapism and being something better, forging ahead, sure they will run into shitty people every now and then.

So, I want to see more alien vistas, world building, exploring the aliens that didn’t get much attention in the original series or movies.

Oh and please, end the formulaic villain of the week storyline. Bad people don’t line up and take turns being villainous. This isn’t an invitation for the writers to shove in 2 or 3 villains either, “Batman Forever!”

Or, If they are going that route, go with a non-humanoid protagonist.
It doesn’t even have to be a being, it could be something like the probe from Star Trek IV or a doomsday machine.

Additionally, I want the crew to be genuinely awed by what they are witnessing. They seem to focused on themselves and their personal dramas.

How the hell are these officers cleared for space duty?
Do they not go through psychologically/readiness screening before they go off flying into space?

I’d be terribly embarrassed if my senior officers were squabbling about their relationship while on a dangerous mission into enemy territory.

In other words, less 90210 please.

That last one was terrible in every way imaginable.
A shitty storyline with cut and paste moments from previous trek films.
It had logical gaffes that a planet could pass through and a formula that needs a kick in the pants.

Good luck to Bob and the writers, its a tall order so I hope the studio suits will allow them some creative freedom.

:D

153. boborci - May 11, 2014

148 Non taken

154. Mike Barnett - May 11, 2014

148. TheAmorphousBlob
” just makes me feel like Paramount has given Trek the “goodbye look”.

Keep in mind Bob is one of us. He’s a real Trekker/Trekkie who may get to be the director of the 50th anniversary movie (and maybe more?).
Bob’s on a mission, so we should keep the faith and see what he can do with the franchise.

155. Dee - lvs moonsurface - May 11, 2014

#150. boborci

Mr. Orci, I def do not have a bad feeling about it, so to whatever happen… Good Luck!

156. Zeeman1 - May 11, 2014

Orci has tons of on set and post production experience, and from what I’ve read he knows what makes trek tick. He won’t be working in a vacuum.

If he keeps the same production designer, and especially,Giachinno as the composer,I think he would do a great job.

If you’re reading this Mr. Orci, good luck, and let’s dive into that 5 year mission into new frontiers!

157. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

#150 – “non taken”
What does this mean exactly?

158. Stephan - May 11, 2014

@boborci:

Bob, I remember asking you, if you would like to direct the next trek movie a few months ago. You answered, you had to grow up at first. What happened that you grew up? ;-)
My best wishes that you get the job. I look forward to a boborci-directed trek. ;-)

159. BobOrci's Son - May 11, 2014

@boborci

If you get the job, all I ask is that you don’t limit your imagination. Take these characters where no “writer” has gone before. I hope you bring us an exciting tale. I loved Into Darkness contrary to all the numb skulls who got their panties in a bunch over nonsense. The movie is fantastic. Screw your critics sir.

Star Trek is not an easy thing to do because it is polarizing. I clearly get why Lucas parted with Star Wars. (Besides the nice payday).

Bob I know this is a tall order but here it goes: Find some way to bring William Shatner back. Don’t allow what happend in Star Trek Generations to limit you. Find a way to have young kirk and old kirk saddle up. WIlliam Shatner deserved a better send off than the last one they gave him. He is not getting any younger. Bryan Singer brought Patrick Stewart back to hand the baton to James McAvoy. Find a way Bob. Hey I would be happy if you guys retconned it where the Kirk who dies on Veridian III was a shape shifter or an alien. Make him a clone. Spock would have found a way to rescue his old friend. Kirk came after him. Why wouldn’t Spock find a way?

I don’t care how you would do it, just find a way. What they did to him in 1994 was a disgrace and it would be cool if you and the new writers could make it right. If not then cool, I will still support you, but find a way Bob to have Mr. Shatner back.

160. Cygnus-X1 - May 11, 2014

151. Mike Barnett – May 11, 2014

Bob’s on a mission, so we should keep the faith and see what he can do with the franchise.

And what is his “mission,” exactly?

To make Trek the #1 comic-book-movie-style franchise in China and Russia by perverting it such that it bears little resemblance to the 40 years of Trek from TOS to ENT, beyond the names and likenesses being exploited? To make Trek more popular in non-English-speaking countries than the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise? To advance his own career into the directing field just like JJ did with ST09?

161. Benny - May 11, 2014

Best of luck in your bid to direct Trek, Bob.

162. Cervantes - May 11, 2014

Good luck Bob, you’re gonna need it.

While I’m cautious about the idea of someone with zero experience of being ‘behind the camera’ being entrusted to direct an instalment of a big budget franchise that I care about, I’m hopeful that you turn out to be someone with a ‘good eye’ for visuals, action sequences, and character scenes in general.

But for me personally, the only thing that would salvage this whole ‘alternate timeline’ rabbit-hole that the ‘Nu’-Trek movies/characters have gone down for 2 movies now, would be if you came up with a storyline that reverts everything *back* to the ‘Prime’ timeline!

I’d like nothing more at this point than to see Nimoy’s elderly ‘Prime’ Spock be the catalyst for a storyline that allows him to get back to his previous point in his original ‘timeline’…so that he can prevent the ‘Nero’ business, and *undo* the ‘Nu’-timeline ever happening in the first place!

Even though this would necessitate yet another ‘time travel’-type storyline, it would at least still allow Nimoy’s ‘Prime’ Spock to revert back to roughly the point he originally left off, where the rest of his days would continue to be open to whatever unknown possibilities his remaining years were to bring him at that point originally, before his life was so rudely interrupted by ‘Nero’s ‘timeline’-altering revenge plans…and the main thing it would do is give an opportunity for future movies to give us some story’s set in the as-yet-unseen last part of the ‘Prime’ TOS 5-year mission…whether in the next reboots of the movies, or hopefully as a regular new tv show, which would most likely have a new TOS cast of course.

Because if the future Trek sequels (or tv show episodes) were set in the unseen part of the TOS 5-year mission, then instead of getting convoluted ‘re-imaginings’ of previous adversaries from the classic TOS show, we could hopefully get *all-new* ones for the rest of their 5-year mission without contradicting anything for fans of the ‘Next Gen’ years that came much later in the ‘Prime’-timeline (even though I look on *that* and other Trek shows as being set in a totally ‘alternate Trek universe’!)…and could hopefully revert back to the previous kind of character traits seen on the classic TOS show too. And seeing the classic ‘Prime’ Enterprise again wouldn’t be a bad thing either.

But that’s just me.

As you might be able to tell Bob, I *really* disliked the the way that TOS’s ‘Khan’ character was regurgitated for the previous ‘Nu’-sequel, along with the many other bizarre plotpoints, production designs, and ‘Nu’-traits we’ve seen over the last 2 movies. But fingers crossed that things work out for you in making a Trek movie that’s both critically and financially successful across the board, and that will ensure that the Trek franchise flourishes for a long time into the future.

Oh, and PLEASE try and include finally include Shatner in *some* kind of way, even if it’s the originally scripted pre-‘Generations’ death ‘hologram’ scene in some way, or a restructured version of that kind of thing – ideally once Nimoy gets back to his previous ‘Prime’ timeline, after a final worthy adventure with the current ‘Nu’ cast! Just get the effects guy to use some *previous* footage of him if need be, but get his ass (or rather his face and voice) back onscreen for one last TOS hurrah!

*Whatever* you come up with, just don’t make me have to fan edit this instalment too! Good luck once again. :)

163. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

While we await some official news –

Where are you guys and gals – as in what city/state/country? what time is it? what’s the weather like?

I assume that you, Bob Orci, are in LA – so what’s the time and how’s the weather?

You can’t not answer these questions – I could google, but it is more interesting and fun to read individuals’ experiences of weather etc. I won’t start because someone else needs to…:)

164. Mike Barnett - May 11, 2014

Bloomington, Minnesota USA (where the “Mall of America” is located).
7:22 PM
mid-60’s with thunderstorms coming our way. I LOVE thunderstorms!

165. dmduncan - May 11, 2014

144. Vultan – May 11, 2014

And that is so weak a standard that it’s amazing anyone bothers to cite it.

By that standard any graduate from the local community college’s film program is more qualified to direct this movie than Bob–who has actually cast movies, handled huge budgets as a producer, dealt with actors, and written the movies which have succeeded at the box office by his creative efforts.

If Bob’s directorial debut on Star Trek leads to a mediocre movie, it won’t be because he never directed before.

166. Curious Cadet - May 11, 2014

Zoe Saldana playing Rosemary in Rosemary’s Baby — a miniseries tonight on NBC.

That’s an interesting choice …

167. Jonboc - May 11, 2014

Quarter till 8 in Texas, north of Dallas….sunny skies as the sun sets and 66 degrees. Still another month or so before mother nature rolls out the triple digits…enjoying the mild temps while I can.

168. Daoud, The Sinfonian - May 11, 2014

Best wishes, Bob, towards being named director of ST2016.

I’m convinced you are the one person who can bring balance to the farce…. solving some of the STID issues, advancing the characters the way you’d hoped…. and finding a way… risk, it’s what you do… it’s why you wanted to work on this franchise… and I hope they listen to you.

Best, David

169. USS Enterprise B - May 11, 2014

I think it would be great if Bob could direct Trek 3. Not only does he have a very strong knowledge of previous Trek canon, he has helped shape the previous two Trek films, but also he listens to our input! He is one of us; a fan too! Who else could possibly be more qualified for the job?

170. boborci - May 11, 2014

155 Stephan

Yes. thanks.

171. Bill Peters - May 11, 2014

I Really wondering about some of the fans that are here now, it like you want Trek 50th to Fail cause you don’t like Bob, or you don’t like the new Universe,ect I for one don’t want it to fail, I am glad that we have this Alternative Universe, why cause doing a Prequel in the Prime Universe or the one from the TV Shows would have near been Impossible, why too many things you could get wrong where things were stated in Canon in the 5 shows, now I understand that many of us have Treks we like and Treks we hate but that doesn’t mean the JJ Verse isn’t Trek. I think Bob is great for the Job cause he has Written the other two Films.

now for those of you who like the prime Universe it is still there on \ DVD and on Netflix, but don’t attack the new Trek that comes along, I am one of those fans who loves it when new live action Official Star Trek is made, not that the fan stuff isn’t great I love it too, but to have Trek that is made by CBS or Paramount means I am getting Trek that will Affect the Future of Trek and not be something someone had that has no weight to the Star Trek name or have any Offical feel to it. The fan stuff is good but it isn’t Cannon in any sence of the form.

I Really wish people would stop Complaing that this isn STAR TREK cause it doesn’t feel like STAR TREK to them, IT is the Star Trek Parmount has asked for, singed for and is making so it is Star Trek.

Also Studios make TV shows and Movies not just cause they are good Ideas but cause they will make money for the Studio in the end, you make a Film cause it has something you think people will pay to see, and that is the primary reason you make a film cause it takes money to make them there for you must have a Concept that you think will make money, the Studios Rarely make Films for just the fans they have to have a wider Market for them to get back the costs of the movies.

172. intruder - May 11, 2014

This crisis remembers me of Riker in Best of Both Worlds. There was no other option but the Number One (bob) to take the big chair as Picard (JJ) joined the other side.

Bob could be directing by now, like Kurtzman did, but maybe Bob was reluctant to sit down just as Riker was. Now the deadline is looming, the helm of the flagship needs a captain as the Federation (Paramount/Skydance) is under imminent attack (the ST 50th birthday).

I have faith, Number One. You know the ship and its crew inside-out.

173. Tom - May 11, 2014

Bob

You got my vote. Just likek cervantes said earlier.please do something for Shat and Nimoy.
Who is your competion for directors chair?

174. Bill Peters - May 11, 2014

#166, I like the way you put that….wow!!!

175. Vultan - May 11, 2014

#160

I would never expect you to place blame on Mr. Orci for anything. You’re buds. I get it. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Just realize there are those of us who do take directorial experience into account when possible director names are mentioned.

But if he does get the gig, I wish him all the best.

176. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

#157 – If anyone were to follow your suggestion, I can foresee a horribly convoluted mess. There are two timelines. In fact, I suspect there are probably more. Nero “fell” into one – a very similar one to the prime universe’s past.

We are now in this universe where the young Jim Kirk has blue eyes, like his father. George Kirk, Jim’s father died on the day of Jim’s birth. Winona’s ongoing grief caused her problems when it came to coping with the raising of two boys, especially the younger one who reminded her so much of her dead husband and whose death and birth happened on the same day respectively. Such a constant, sad reminder for the small fatherless family.

Young Spock had much the same upbringing as his counterpart, but this Spock appears more sensitive/incensed about how his human mother is often regarded by other Vulcans. He joins Starfleet and unlike his counterpart, chooses not to belong to the Vulcan Science Academy as well. This young Spock sees his mother die before his eyes, unlike his older counterpart, whose mother dies of old age.

This is the alternate universe. There is no going back and that is good. These characters are as worth rooting for as the characters were in any other time/universe. This universe allows the actors the opportunity to “stretch” creatively as well.

177. Mike Barnett - May 11, 2014

boborci:
Did you and your writing team finish the script?

178. Bill Peters - May 11, 2014

#170 I agree…TNG: “Parallels” proves this point, and also makes the JJ Verse Possible.

179. Phil - May 11, 2014

Riverside, CA (about 60 miles east of Los Angeles, though right not I’m putting in a shift at the USO located at the airport in Ontario, CA. If any of you saw Argo, I’m sitting about 50 feet from the building they used for the airport scenes.

7:10 pm PDT, about 84 degrees F was the high today. We are supposed to hit triple digits by mid-week

180. Commodore Adams - May 11, 2014

Best of luck Bob, I’m rooting for ya.

181. Red Dead Ryan - May 11, 2014

Victoria, Canada. Low 20’s (Celsius), sun and a few clouds earlier. It’s about 7:50 pm, still light out as the sun is beginning to set over the mountains.

BTW, “Wall-E” is great. An absolute classic. I can understand if some don’t like it, but to call it overrated is going to far.

#173.

I did see “Argo”. Must be neat working where they filmed a movie.

182. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

Thanks, guys. So it is warmest in California when I thought it might be warmest in Texas but not so.

I am used to everything being in celsius. It has been so long since Fahrenheit temperatures have been used here in NZ that Fahrenheit numbers mean little to me.

So Bloomington is 15.5 degrees C; Dallas is 18.8 degrees C in the evening, and Riverside, CA was 28.8 degrees C high (presumably middle of day).
Auckland, NZ is 22 degrees C or 72 degrees F and it is now 2.51pm Monday, 12 May 2014. It is almost officially autumn (fall) now. It is pleasant weather.

183. dmduncan - May 11, 2014

169. Vultan – May 11, 2014

I give credit and blame where it is due, and I have not been shy in criticizing either STiD or Now You See Me. Since I do not know exactly what Bob wrote in STiD, it’s hard to say I haven’t blamed him. I said what I didn’t like about the movie regardless of and not knowing who exactly came up with what. The only thing I really can’t blame him for in STiD despite his willingness to share the blame (or credit, I suppose, depending on your point of view about it) is the casting of Cumberbatch, which JJ should have known better than to do.

Same is true of Now You See Me which Bob produced and, despite being quite a thrilling and well planned action movie, was spooky in what I saw it doing.

Yeah, I like Bob. That’s why I give him my honest opinion. If I didn’t like him I wouldn’t bother.

184. Keachick (Rose) - May 11, 2014

If Bob had been allowed to have the villain be simply John Harrison, one of Khan Noonien Singh’s crew/family, then having Benedict Cumberbatch play him would have provided no controversy, confusion, angst for many. Harrison could be British who was one of those people experimented on, became part of the eugenics programme and became a Khan Noonien Singh supporter.

That way, John Harrison could have had his own story to tell which could include how and why he joined Khan…

185. Phil - May 11, 2014

@176. Well, it never really cooled off much here this year, and the Sierra Nevada snowpack was at record lows this year. Strange, considering that the rest of the country pretty much froze over…

Here’s some heat, Rose. Along the Colorado River at the CA, NV, and AZ boarders, it can get up to 51 degrees C in the summer, though 48 C is more common….the record in Death Valley, CA, is 57 C, set in 1913. Death Valley is quite popular with foreign tourists in the summer. It can take years to book rooms at the Furnace Creek resort during the summer

186. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 11, 2014

Here in sunny Canberra, it’s 16.9 degrees C (62.4 F) at 13:34 EST, after an overnight minimum of 2 C (35.6 F) . I’ve just come back from a walk and it is absolutely gorgeous out. We are in Autumn, and move officially to Winter on 1 June.

187. CecilofRil - May 11, 2014

131. I am not Herbert

Do you enjoy being a troll?

I agree that John Carter was good, on the level with Tron: Legacy. But, Star Trek 09 and ID are in a class of their own. Too bad you can’t put 2 sentences together to actually say what you truly think. Instead, you put down fragments and act like a troll.

Umm…how is Trek 09 and ID NOT rendered better than Wall-E? That movie is really NOT polished, and if that is what you want, you might want to stick with the old Original Series Animated episodes…

And since you have nothing nice to say to boborci, do us all a favor and keep your troll mouth shut.

188. Bill Peters - May 11, 2014

Hey Bob, when the only answer you should give people who ask you if you Qulifiyed to Direct or what is you Vision or Did you Finish the Scrip, you should answer there are four lights or five if you really want throw them for a loop.

189. CecilofRil - May 11, 2014

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!

190. Vultan - May 11, 2014

#177

Fair enough. I’ve yet to see Now You See Me (Later I See You), haha, so I can’t say.

The reason I brought up the Snow White director’s experience in commercials is because several big name directors have gotten their start there. Ridley Scott for one.

191. Brian Drew - May 11, 2014

Ahmed –

Nothing yet.

192. Mitchell - May 11, 2014

Bob Orci understands sci-fi and who in his position wouldn’t lobby hard to direct Star friggin Trek? I’ve been his biggest critic as a writer but in the directors chair I believe he will have the control to give us the Trek story we’ve all been waiting for in the 21st Century.
Highly recommend every one take a step back, as I have, to look at the positive side of his work and then watch him in The Prophets Of Science Fiction documentary. He’s got everything it takes to make the Star Trek 50th Anniversary grand.
I Believe In Bob Orci.

193. Stephan - May 12, 2014

158. Keachick (Rose)

I am in Osnabrück, the north of Germany. Sometimes they say, it is the city in Germany where it rains the most. At least since a few days I think it is the most rainy city of the world. ;)

194. Disinvited - May 12, 2014

From the WGA, West archives of their publication WRITTEN BY of June 2009, an article by Damon Lidelof, “The Space Between” on K&O:

http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/repo20/4973/17155/17155.pdf

TV vs. Cinema

Damon Lindelof: Let me ask you a question—because I think about this all the time. On a TV show, like Alias or Lost, you sit in a room such as the one we’re in right now, and you all sit around a table, and there are eight writers, and we talk about a story, and everybody has ideas, and we throw out dialogue; some ideas are good ideas and some ideas are bad ideas, and that’s the way that we write, the process. But ultimately, it’s all sort of funneling into the prism of whoever’s going to be writing that draft or whoever the showrunner is. In features, you guys are the exception to the rule. You will actually take a draft from the beginning to the end. But on most big movies, most franchise movies—pick ’em out of the hat, Terminator, Wolverine, or whatever—whoever the credited writer ends up being, there have been like eight or nine people who have taken a shot at that thing by the time it reaches the screen. For example, you guys have done work on scripts where you know you’re not going to be credited. You’re coming in at the 11th hour, you’re doing a pass, you’re writing a scene, you’re enhancing exposition, you’re doing a joke pass—whatever it is, you know you’re not going to be credited, so credit isn’t a part of the issue. Why can’t they take six writers, stick ’em in a room together—Judd Apatow does this, apparently—and say, “Break this movie and write this movie,” and, “You guys are going to be the ones who actually put your names on the script”? We don’t have a problem with it in TV. Carlton [Lost co-showrunner Cuse] and I put our names on scripts all the time that have been broken by the room, and other writers put their names on scripts that have been Broken in the room by me. So we have no problem sharing the credit. Why in features is it so territorial?

Alex Kurtzman: First of all, in features, each of those writers comes with a heavy price tag. So suddenly, what is more affordable in television is less affordable in features because you have to pay the bill on, let’s say, three writers as opposed to one.

Damon Lindelof: If you approach it from a completely selfish viewpoint—and let’s be honest, we’re in Hollywood, and I think that’s the way that you have to look at it—the reason that I want to collaborate with you two and with J.J. is because you are going to make me look good. If you go into that equation saying, “I don’t need these guys, I can be fine on my own,” then that’s not the spirit. But I think because I’ve worked in television, I understand that the reason that Lost is loved and adored is not because I’m an awesome writer, but because I have an awesome writing staff. That’s the fundamental ideology that we bring to it.

Alex Kurtzman: More writers should be producers.

Roberto Orci: Like in TV. We didn’t know that wasn’t how it went. In TV, if you get up there high enough on the set, you’re producing the show, and you’re looking at budgets and you’re handling it, and we walked into movies acting like producers.

Alex Kurtzman: The studios were not used to it, because it is a different sensibility. You have to have a pretty steel spine, in a different kind of way. But you have to have a steel spine to give someone your script and have them judge it. It’s just a flipside of the same coin. The reason they keep recycling through eight different people is because studio executives are not writers. They don’t know how to fix the problem, so they’ll just throw more money at more writers. …

195. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

I asked this question already, but it seems that I used something resembling a flag word and it got eaten up. But, I’m curious for the answer and it raises another worthwhile issue as well:

151. Mike Barnett – May 11, 2014

Bob’s on a mission, so we should keep the faith and see what he can do with the franchise.

His last two Trek movies have turned Trek into a comic-book/action franchise in order to appeal to the non-English-speaking foreign market.

What “mission” do you think he’s on?

165. Bill Peters – May 11, 2014

I Really wish people would stop Complaing that this isn STAR TREK cause it doesn’t feel like STAR TREK to them, IT is the Star Trek Parmount has asked for, singed for and is making so it is Star Trek.

And I really wish that there was no such issue to complain about, or that I was more easily satisfied so that it didn’t bother me that Trek has been turned into a shallow, comic-book/action movie series.

A very relevant question that no one is asking Bob Orci, especially those who are excited at the prospect of him directing the next movie:

Bob, is your Star Trek movie going to try more to appeal to Trekkies/Trekkers/long-time-fans than JJ’s movies did? JJ specifically stated that his movies (ST09, STID) were not made for Trekkies or with Trekkies in mind. Under your direction, will there be any change in this policy/attitude/vision for Trek?

196. Mad Mann - May 12, 2014

It takes a really cynical person to not like Wall-E. But, there are a LOT of people on this planet, so I guess there would be a couple. Many of them are movie critics.

Anyway, I re-watched “Journey to Babel” yesterday and noticed that the 2009 Star Trek movie pulled quite a bit from that episode about Spock, his relationship with his parents and Vulcan, and growing up a half-breed. Purdy kewl.

I hope that the next Trek movie continues to be based on Star Trek episodes not so much in plot, but in characterizations.

197. Oscar - May 12, 2014

Mr. Orci:
un minuto de su tiempo, por favor.

Please, remember:
1.Star Trek was all about outsmarting, NOT outpunching the enemy. More brain than brawn.
2.You should take again the large spirited humanism that sustained it.
3.James T Kirk is the best star fleet captain ever (Picard not included) because he is a smart , intelligent officer. Your new Kirk is a brainless lout who can only think with fists. Quoting David Mack: a punk.
4.Your Spock is an anti Spock. A polar mad. This is outrageous.
5. Scottie is a clown. Why?
6 In ST the sacred triangle is KIRK, SPOCK BONES. Not, Kirk, Spock and Spock’ s girlfriend. And Uhura is not an amazon.
7.Your Enterprise’s crew…,beh, they are a bunch of non pros. Not chain of command, silly buddy dialogues…OK, they are friends but in a Mission, in a team away they are , first, star fleet officers. Kirk is the captain, Spock his first mate , and Uhura a lieutenant. So more «aye, Sir» and less silly buddy talk.
8. Star Trek is sci fi Not tecno-fantasy. So, more good science, and no more magic tricks
9. STAR TREK is about space exploration, they are explorers, not a team of superheroes, they are not the avengers vs the supervillain.
10. Stop the ultramilitaristic style. A lot of trekker hate the new sovietlike dresses. Stop betraying Roddenberry heredity.
11. Your klingons are ludicrous Why not the original klingons? Or TNG klingons? They look like STAR WARS clon soldiers. And then, in the klingon philosophy, a masked warrior is a non honor warrior…you should read the last De Candido book about klingons.
They say you are a big star trek expert. I think you do not undestand it. They say you are a huge fan, a huge fan would Not destroy the body and soul of star trek
DO you want to shoot the movie STAR TREK deserves or only a mere summer blockbuster? ST is important for you or only a toy?

Gracias por su atención.

198. Chris Doohan - May 12, 2014

Bob knows Star Trek better than anyone I know. I for one think he’s the best man for the job. Hope this happens.

Good luck, Bob!!

199. Data - May 12, 2014

I hope he doesn’t bring in or get influenced by JJs’ “screwed” up Star Trek…there is one thing calling this is as a “not so good” news and there is other thing that may be nobody wants to take the director chair… (not because it is Star Trek) but because the way it has taken shape in 2009 n 2013.
I still believe the best bet would be Jonathan Frakes..but am not sure if anybody ever contacted him…am sure if he comes in he would want his own team and will never accept the JJ team’s vision of Trek because it is NOT…

200. Mike Barnett - May 12, 2014

190. Chris Doohan

I met your father at a World of Wheels automobile show up here in Minneapolis….I’m thinking it was 1987 or 1988. I said “Hope to see you in Star Trek 5, 6, 7 and 8.” He got serious, shook his head and said “I hope so too but it’s all up to Shatner.” I can’t remember if the they were considering the Starfleet Academy idea for the 5th movie or not.

By the way, YOU put a big smile on my face when I saw you play Mr. Scott in Star Trek Continues! Like father, like son! Also, I hope to see you in Star Trek 3!

Bob Orci:

Please give Chris a role in the 50th anniversary Star Trek movie! JJ made sure he got in the first two movies and I think it would be a crime if he didn’t make the cut to be in ST 3. And I think the die hard trekkies would love to see him say or do something that would make the fans think of James Doohan in the Classic TOS episodes or movies.

201. drum-van - May 12, 2014

good luck bob. may the forc…. oops, my bad.

my 2 cents to keep in the back of your head:

1. keep the kirk, spock, mccoy trinity strong.
2. touch lightly on the history of classic trek but don’t be bound to it.
3. the concept of the story should be fresh and original.
4. don’t get caught up in convoluted storyline gymnastics. remember the k.i.s.s. principle.
5. emotions are more powerful than pyrotechnics.

go get ‘em!

202. Mike Barnett - May 12, 2014

191. Data

Frakes would be my second choice to direct ST3. First Contact was the best TNG movie….but he also directed Insurrection which was a disappointment.

203. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 12, 2014

Question for Bob.

Was it a challenge to write the Jamie Fox “Electro” storyline?

When I saw Jamie Fox onscreen for a few minutes, and especially after he is talking to himself in the mirror, i knew there was no hope for your story.

I read on Aint It C_ol that the director choose to omit the killing of his mother from the movie. How did that move affect you as the writer of the story?

I sure do think that leaving that in would have halped the story and Electro’s development greatly, BUT how does that story element ever work when your primary audience is going to be children? I guess they tought better and left that special scene on the cutting room floor.

From Ray to Electro, how disapointing for Mr. Fox. I wonder, Bob, do you even care. SP2 seemed like a one-off, What did it take you a few hours to write that? WHO approved that mess of a story? I mean, how do you even pitch that to a serious movie producer?

Sorry, Bob. But I am really a still amazed at the lack-luster writing in SP2 – and also still – STiD.

I don’t know where to turn as a Trekkie, or gasp, as a more serious science fiction fan these days. I guess an intelligent Sci-fi story coming from Hollywood is going to be a rare thing to see onscreen – if ever.

And I am not here just to insult, if you are having trouble letting some tell you the truth about your writing and you need someone to give you the rteal skinny on what you may think is “Amazing” or a good “Trek” Please do not hesistate to call or write. I am very willing to help. I actually have over 50 productions under my belt, and I know how to craft a savy story and good on-screen entertainment.

Email me, if you care about Star Trek. I promise to be discreet.

startrekthemovie@gmail.com

204. Finnigan - May 12, 2014

STID was a writing disaster! Ocri is part of the writing team that failed miserably. I do not want him near the script or anywhere even close to the director’s chair. I don’ t care if he is a nice guy, a big fan or if he likes fuzzy animals , he should NOT direct the next ST movie.

205. LogicalLeopard - May 12, 2014

196. Finnigan – May 12, 2014

You may not have liked the movie, but what about the writing was bad? I mean, specifically.

206. Finnegan - May 12, 2014

197. LogicalLeopard

Tried old Starfleet conspiracy, pasty white Englishman as Khan, Khan being used as a Starfleet secret agent who is going to advance technology with his genetic enhancements from the past, Pike’s death was meaningless, the Carol Marcus backstory was weak, why didn’t they use the magic blood from one of the other 20th century genetic enhanced humans – why did Spock have to chase down Khan?

I can go on and on, but it only pains me further. The plot was silly and has already Ben overused, the dialog was silly. The script has turned ST into an action blockbuster. Roddenberry and Coon are rolling in their graves/orbit.

I’ve been a Trek fan since watching the original series on NBC in the 1960s, STID was a huge letdown, an enormous disappointment.

207. trekman_dave - May 12, 2014

2016, that is not long to create, film and polish off a new movie for 50 year old franchise.

Anyone, new, old, experienced or new to Trek has my blessing, but do you know what….

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE

The film, it’s story, its cast and crew, is out of mine and your hands.

We need to support our new and old family in this run up to 50 years.

Warp Speed to 2016

208. Phil - May 12, 2014

@189. Oh, Oscar, Oscar, Oscar…
1. Trek 2, 6 8, and 11. DS9. The Borg.
2. Trek was sometimes at it’s best when it touched on the spiritual, as well. Why limit yourself…
3. Shatners Kirk was quick with the fists, too.
4. No, this Spock is still young, and finding himself.
5. TOS Scott had a fondness for booze, and was frequently insubordinate when there were boobs involved.
6. We don’t live in the 60’s anymore. 60’s Trek was very sexist. Nothing wrong with a strong woman being on display.
7. Being in a chain of command does not preclude relationships. In fact, it could forge very strong ones.
8. Good science, oh, like warp drive?
9. So, guess this means Trek 1,2 5, 6,7,8, and 10 are also on your s**t list?
10. You just contradicted your own point 7.
11. Really? Trek has a long history of neutering it’s villains, including the Klingons. These guys struck me as individuals capable of slitting a thousand throats…the bad guys as envisioned in TOS.

Look, you seem to keep thinking that Trek is the sum of it’s parts, and it’s not. The lore and appeal of the franchise has clearly exceed the sum of those parts, and the franchise evolves, and continues to grow. That’s why horrible plot devises, like Red Matter or the Genesis Device can be overlooked – Trek isn’t about these things, its about characters that grow and develop (which is why the emergence of Uhura isn’t a sin), and a universe, where, despite it’s problems, we seem to have risen above the more petty squabbles.

209. Oscar - May 12, 2014

197.Logical Leopard.

STID (and ST 2009) has a stack of plot holes, idiocies, crynge worthy dialogues and Common places that stretches here to Kingdom Come.

Maybe you should read this intelligent analysis of the best ST author right now, David Mack. Why STID is a mess?

http://www.davidmack.pro/blog/?p=4532#more-4532

If you like this analysis, I have more links for you. Very good analysis.

210. Oscar - May 12, 2014

199.PHIL.
Some day I shall hope offer you conclusive evidences on other points, but, today, I’ll explain you why Nu Kirk is THE anti Roddenberry Kirk. I quote Glenn Greenberg:
«Their (screenwriters’) handling of Kirk is particularly apalling. In short, he is an ASS. He is portrayed as a sleazy horndog who beds multiple alien women at the same time, and who seems to think his fist or a phaser pistol is the only solution.
Shatner’ s Kirk was a ladies’ man, to be sure, but he was not a CREEP, and he was as much of a diplomat as he was and explorer and a military leader. This was a guy who could talk planet ruling computers into short circuiting themselves. Pine’ s Kirk is a bruiser, a reckless thickheaded know it all and a Real jerk when women are concerned.»

So, pal, stop revisionism. Pine’ s Kirk is the Anti Shatner Kirk. All this new stuff is only a whole betrayal. Nu trekkers can accept it or can not. But there are huge, powerful arguments on it.
Sorry.

211. Phil - May 12, 2014

@209. Correction:

*All Star Trek movies have* a stack of plot holes, idiocies, crynge worthy dialogues and Common places that stretches here to Kingdom Come.

Sorry, but David Mack, while entitled to his own opinions, just happens to have one that agrees with your very bitter outlook. One could also argue that his op-eds are biased, as he is heavily invested in the prime universe. That aside, it’s not hard to find writers who also support the new universe. No one is arguing with anyone for expressing a preference for either the new universe or the old one. There is argument when one frames their position by attacking the intelligence or literacy of the audience of the other, which is way out of line. Trek is big enough for both to exist side by side …………..you are very free to build your position by attacking what you see as a stupid product for an illiterate audience, but what does that accomplish? Do you really want people to be pointing out the fallacy of that by sharing all the examples of bad writing, pseudoscience, continuity errors, and horrid plot devices that exist in the old universe? Believe me, there are plenty.

212. Bill Peters - May 12, 2014

Cygnus-X1 You seem to like Trek as a Nich Market, you seem to not like the fact that Trek is doing well outside the Fan base, and much worse your hating on Bob and the Star Trek made sence 09, you also make a Rather bad Statement for a Trek fan : His last two Trek movies have turned Trek into a comic-book/action franchise in order to appeal to the non-English-speaking foreign market. Really? so you don’t like it if Trek is likable by non-English Speaking Abundances or to people who are not into Trek that is very Opposite of IDIC most fans live by.

Oscar on the other had seems to like what David Mack said, but there is a point to be made, David Mack is a TNG fan infact he writes post TNG books, they are good books but they are post TNG and Post DS9 and even VOY, it seems the Majority of Fans who attack Star Trek Post 09 are people who liked TNG and all that came after and want a Universe set in the TOS timeline to have the Feel of the TNG and Post TNG timeline, they forget that the TOS timeline was and is Chaos more Chaotic then almost anything that came after Except for DS9, you can’t do a TOS Parallel Universe Justice though the lens of TNG and Post TNG such things don’t exist in this Universe even with Nero’s Incursion into it from the Prime timeline. A lot of you who attack Bob are people who love TNG as the Highest, Best Trek out there, don’t get me wrong I love TNG and all that came after but I can’t Judge a Parallel TOS Universe though TNG Colored Glasses, this Univierse has a feel to it that is Similar to many Episodes of TOS including the Enterprise Incident, Balance of Terror,ect

198. Chris Doohan I have great Respect for what you say because of who your Father was and who you are..both of you are class Acts and I think you Confidence in Bob had to be earned and is well placed.

213. Mitchell - May 12, 2014

@3. Observer1 – May 9, 2014

“Don’t let him direct the lemon he’s writing now; hire one from the outside. Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Frakes. To name a few…”
– – –

Much as i love them, Zach Snyder & David Goyer are wrapped up with The Justice League and building the DC Comics brand on TV & Film.

Christopher Nolan is Star Trek’s best hope for the future but while he’s busy redefining sci-fi hopefully with Interstellar, Trek still needs Bob Orci to get to that point.

The James Bond franchise is the best example in my opinion. Sam Mendes was only able to come along with Skyfall after Martin Campbell and Marc Forster set the stage.

214. Phil - May 12, 2014

@210. Oscar, your bitterness blinds you. First, if you had paid any attention at all, I’ve been posting for a while that I’m not a fan of how this Kirks character has developed. I’ve also toned down my rhetoric, as insulting people who may disagree is counterproductive. That’s a lesson you should attempt to learn.

Second – this is Star Trek, and this Kirk, regardless of how he developed, will be the hero of the Federation – if this Kirk is the person you believe him to be, there should have only been one outcome to his initial meeting with Khan, he would have vaporized him. Guess what? That didn’t happen. Kirk, though still dealing with the emotions or rage and vengeance, calmed down to the point to understand that he still needed to adhere to the rule of law, that brining him back represented the finer points of duty and honor represented by Starfleet. Also, as you seem to have a fondness for the old universe, this isn’t without precedent. Though we didn’t see much of it, the Picard analogy is a valid one – we are being shown the reckless youth that Picard was when he was young. Could the story have been cleaned up a bit? Sure, but just like the ‘deus ex machina’ plot devices that litter Trek, these can also be overlooked as the franchise develops. The problem I see with your rants is that you tend to see old Trek as the perfection of sci-fi storytelling, and Trek was far from it. What made it good and memorable more then covered the sins of the show. So, moving forward, how badly to you want to examine those sins? Most supporters of Bad Robot know that there have been issues with their productions, but none of them are as horrible as you want everyone to believe. So, if you chose to keep pointing out the negative and ignoring the positive of the new universe, I’m just as capable of slaughtering your golden calf in response. Attrition will not accomplish, except convince the casual fan that Trekkies are crazy.. which is also something else we don’t want.

215. Mike Barnett - May 12, 2014

NuTrek is better than no Trek. Trek in the form of professional production of TV/Features was dead, dead, DEAD! Six feet under. RIP.

Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams came up with a way to revive the franchise by developing a new formula for a new audience (and original trekkies like me). What a visual treat to see big-budget, top-of-the-line visual effects! Sure, I’d like more character development but I think the people funding Trek as a tentpole franchise know what audience’s want when they shell out the money to view action movies at the theater and home video.

Keep on Trekkin’!!!

216. LogicalLeopard - May 12, 2014

206. Finnegan – May 12, 2014

Tried old Starfleet conspiracy
*************

True, Starfleet Conspiracy has been done at least once before, but was it well executed? I think it was, for the most part, at least on paper.

******************
pasty white Englishman as Khan,

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

That’s casting, not writing.

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

Khan being used as a Starfleet secret agent who is going to advance technology with his genetic enhancements from the past,

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

I think it struck me as odd at first, but I don’t think it’s badly written. After all, Khan DID have the capacity to do so. He stated in Space Seed that he was an engineer, and studied the technical manuals of the Enterprise. Seems like he was able to assimilate them as well. So, if they thaw him out, find out that he can learn at the rate that he does, Section 31 would almost certainly use him in some capacity.

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

Pike’s death was meaningless,

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

I’m in partial agreement with you there. I don’t think it was MEANINGLESS, but I do think it was not very valiant. I often joke that he got shot in the butt crawling across the floor. But his death did have a purpose and meaning – it contributed to the relationship between Spock and Uhura, and gave us a good “check in” on Spock’s emotional control after the destruction of Vulcan. Also, it provided a reason to get Kirk back in the chair and into action, with the motivation to hunt down Khan. And also contributes to Spock’s reaction at the end. As far as the valiantness of his death, I would have preferred another way, but I can’t say that it was wrong. Maybe they wanted to showcase the pointlessness of death at times. I would have preferred some “dumb dialogue” to get that point across, like Kirk saying, “Pike was shot like a dog while he was on the floor without his cane,” but I don’t know if they cut that down or whatever.

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

the Carol Marcus backstory was weak

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

What? They couldn’t do a full bio on her. They did just enough to introduce the character.

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

why didn’t they use the magic blood from one of the other 20th century genetic enhanced humans – why did Spock have to chase down Khan?

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

I assume because Bones used Khan’s blood in his testing, and there was no time to unfreeze one of the other guys (which hadn’t been done), and THEN test the guy’s blood, and THEN see if it could save Kirk. Bones knew that Khan’s blood worked. He didn’t know if that was the case with all the augments, because they were popsicles, and I’m guessing Bones didn’t have medical files on Eugenics because it was illegal. Now, the only question I could see is why did Spock have to bring him in ALIVE. *LOL* But I’m supposing that Bones would just prefer his patients alive, just in case he needed more blood from him over time.

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

I can go on and on, but it only pains me further. The plot was silly and has already Ben overused, the dialog was silly. The script has turned ST into an action blockbuster. Roddenberry and Coon are rolling in their graves/orbit.

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

I thought there were silly parts, of course. Nothing as silly as Picard doing the Mambo and Troi and Crusher talking about chest firmness, but silliness nonetheless. It’s a summer movie. You want jokes. All of the movies have them. Some are classic, like Kirk’s use of colorful language in STIV. Some are cringeworthy, like Data implying that Riker’s face wasn’t as smooth as an android’s posterior. But I suppose that’s all in the eye of the beholder. I thought the jokes were funny in this movie, but that’s got a LOT to do with the acting, rather than the writing. You can’t mess up when you’ve got Simon Pegg, but Pine gets the stars for some excellent comic reactions.

And some of the parts were phenomenal….I mean…..the best part to me is when Marcus said that he wasn’t going to save the crew anyway, and gets ready to fire (cutting off in mid sentence, which was BRILLIANT) and leaves Kirk in the position to have to apologize to his crew seconds before they thought they were going to die. That is a tremendous piece of writing, maneuvering Kirk into a vulnerable position we haven’t seen since David Marcus died. Showing him that there IS a such thing as a no-win scenario. I think the writing was very consistent with what nu-Kirk is, and successful in molding him into a person who could become more like Prime Kirk.

217. Commodore Adams - May 12, 2014

One small request, please put all bonus features on one disc, don’t split them up between regions. That just unfair and a low blow.

218. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

212. Bill Peters – May 12, 2014

Cygnus-X1 You seem to like Trek as a Nich Market, you seem to not like the fact that Trek is doing well outside the Fan base,

No.

I’d love to have Trek as a niche market just for us special people, but I’ve no illusions about that as a desirable business model for its current owners.

However, Trek seems to have been profitable enough to produce in a Trek-like form, more or less in the spirit of GR and TOS (with well-developed themes, character studies and drama balancing out the action) for the 40 years hitherto Bad Robot being put in charge of it. And since then, the square peg of Trek that millions of Trekkies/Trekkers/long-time-fans loved for 40 years has been forced into the round hole of the current foreign-market-driven Hollywood studio model.

Apparently you’ve no problem with what Trek has been turned into by BR at the behest of Paramount, but I’d wager that such a point exists where you would indeed have a problem with the transmutation of Trek, such a point where even you would find that it was no longer Trek-like. If you’ve a hard time agreeing with that last statement, just try to imagine Trek “re-imagined” as a cheesy, Friday the 13th style slasher franchise…permanently. How do you like it now?

Obviously, that was an exaggerated example for the purpose of illustrating a point. But, it is of a valid point expressed by many people—fans, critics and Trek veterans.

And, though you never answered my question directly, I take it from your response that you feel it is Bob’s mission, and a noble one, to make Trek the #1 action/comic-book movie franchise in China and Russia—even more popular than the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, which is still spawning sequels due to the foreign market demand, even though Americans have already tired of it.

The main point herein being that if you find it a laudable accomplishment that Trek has been made so popular to non-English-speaking audiences, try considering the manner in which Trek has been transmutated in order to achieve that end.

And why not consider that maybe there is a way to make Trek sufficiently profitable and broadly appealing without bastardizing it.

In any case, at the end of the day, you either find the product satisfying or dissatisfying. And I find BR’s Trek to be the latter. I’m not one of these people who wants Trek in any form, by hook or by crook. I’d rather see it nobly retired than have its brand permanently tarnished. I live on the pre-BR Trek as it is, anyway.

219. Phil - May 12, 2014

@214. That sums it up rather nicely. And they are selling tickets at a pretty good clip, too. A decent story on a decent budget could easily end up grossing 600-700MM, which would be a huge boost to the franchise. It’s a win for (almost) everyone…

220. LogicalLeopard - May 12, 2014

209. Oscar – May 12, 2014

Thanks! I read it. And, of course, he has some valid points in places, but what I really want to know is what he thinks about the other movies. If he looked at them beyond the veil of nostalgia (which, admittedly, is pretty hard to do,) he’d certainly find the same disregard for real world science, explosions for effect, etc. How does slingshot time travel hold up with real physics? “Cold fusion” devices? Magic blood? What about magic regenerative Genesis devices that will evolve germs, but revive dead bodies? As babies, who grow to maturity without eating. Oh, and stop at the age the person died. Now, look, I know comparing one mess up to another isn’t always the most effective argument, but if you’re going to tear apart STID’s science, you have to at least reference that Star Trek does this ALL THE TIME, in all series, movies, etc. His best criticism is probably the lack of Earth defenses, which is a pretty glaring error. To the credit of the pace of the film, I didn’t notice until after. I was pretty engrossed in what was happening on the screen. As far as rehashing…..that’s a tricky subject. The same plots are used over and over in many works of fiction, the same motivations, the same plot devices. And one person’s “homage” is another person’s “blatant, unimaginative rip off.”

But what really puzzled me is his assessment of Kirk. He didn’t seem to have much positive to say until the very very end, but I was surprised that he didn’t think there was some growth in Kirk’s character. I definitely see that as the case, and I thought the writing really gave us a great middle to Kirk’s arc. But that’s my opinion, anyway.

221. Oscar - May 12, 2014

211.
Yes, there are plenty. You are right. But in 50 years of trek history: + 600 tv episodes and ten films. This is a lot of stuff. And in this stuff there are plenty of gold moments,too. A true treasure of gold moments, good Sci fi and intelligent plots.Master pieces.
Isaac Asimov said « Star Trek is the most intelligent sci fi show ever»
Abrams did not want a «cervellotic»,« intellectual »ST, he prefered «emotions and explotions» So, maybe , I do not know, he wanted a « stupid product for an illiterate mass audiences» , not Roddenberry. He and his team. Their call.
This is the ORIGINAL SIN of this new trek: it does NOT want to be the most intelligent sci fi ever. It only wants to aim at the lowest common denomination action movie.
They do not want glory, they do not want their trek movies be cult movies, they only want cash flow…easy money. Take the bucks and run.
ST must try the best, you can fail, but you must try.
ST09 and STID have more plotholes and idiocies than the ten previous films +100 tv episodes because they think ST deserves no better.

Postscriptum
Do you remember the Anti Berman crusade? I do. You could crash Berman’ s trek for years and years, but oh oh, do not touch Nu trek stuff? Oh, c’mon. If Orci could critic Berman’ stuff, tng era fans can critic his eehem, star trek.

222. Jack - May 12, 2014

Direction, sure. Why not? Might work, might not. I just wish he wasn’t writing the thing.

223. LogicalLeopard - May 12, 2014

210. Oscar – May 12, 2014
199.PHIL.
Some day I shall hope offer you conclusive evidences on other points, but, today, I’ll explain you why Nu Kirk is THE anti Roddenberry Kirk. I quote Glenn Greenberg:
«Their (screenwriters’) handling of Kirk is particularly apalling. In short, he is an ASS. He is portrayed as a sleazy horndog who beds multiple alien women at the same time, and who seems to think his fist or a phaser pistol is the only solution.
Shatner’ s Kirk was a ladies’ man, to be sure, but he was not a CREEP, and he was as much of a diplomat as he was and explorer and a military leader. This was a guy who could talk planet ruling computers into short circuiting themselves. Pine’ s Kirk is a bruiser, a reckless thickheaded know it all and a Real jerk when women are concerned.»

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

Well, DUH! *LOL* That’s what I love about this series of movies. No, not that Kirk is a sleazeball, but that it’s a GREAT examination of what happens when certain things are present or absent from a person’s life. Prime Kirk’s father was there for him, and nu-Kirk’s wasn’t. His mother wasn’t even there all the time, and he was left in a situation with his uncle (that may have even been abusive) where he became a juvenile delinquent. It’s really examining what happens if you take a person with the drive and intelligence of Prime Kirk, and you take away a supportive factor. The death of the dad could have also impacted the mom, so you probably have two factors. So, is it believable that a young, angry Kirk would have become a juvenile delinquent? Yes, I say so. I mean, it’s at least ten times as believable as Mirror Kirk being evil. But the GREAT question through all of this is: Can nu-Kirk grow into Prime Kirk? And I think the answer is yes, to a degree. He’s working through, he’s finding his way. Yes, he’s quicker to ignore Starfleet Directives (although Prime Kirk was no slouch in that department, did he file a report on Khan after he left him on Ceti Alpha V? *LOL*), and yes he’s maybe quicker to booze and quicker to end up in bed, with green women, or women with tails, but I’m thinking some maturity has set in based on his two near-death experiences in the last movie. The utterly fascinating thing about it is this – where does he go from here? Does he become stiffer and more likely to doubt himself. After all, the mentor that dressed him down for all that is dead, and he might be inclined to treat his words with a little more consideration. And there’s the fact that he almost got his ENTIRE crew killed and had to APOLOGIZE TO THEM SECONDS BEFORE “DEATH” if it wasn’t for Scotty pulling a spark plug or whatever at the right time. And of course, he died. A little. *LOL* So, will we see the measured Jim of the Prime universe, Party Jim of the new universe who STILL hasn’t learned his lesson, emboldened after cheating death so many times, or will we see “Lets not get crazy Jim,” who is sort of like the alternate universe Picard who never got stabbed by the Nausicaan and become sort of a nerdish Lieutenant? Questions like these is what makes me like this new set of movies, because it’s just an alternate universe, like the mirror universe, or any other situation. And I think that’s why so many people don’t like it, because they don’t really understand that, they feel like the characters have been changed, when of course they have! Alternate universe.

224. Dswynne - May 12, 2014

@220: Sorry, but Berman was running out of steam, and it showed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ4JSVw3gU4

NuTrek may not be everyone’s cup-of-tea, but let’s not forget our history. Besides, NuTrek probably made more money than the TNG films combined, and had they been successful as a whole, there would not gave been a need for a reboot in the first place.

225. LogicalLeopard - May 12, 2014

NuTrek may not be everyone’s cup-of-tea, but let’s not forget our history. Besides, NuTrek probably made more money than the TNG films combined, and had they been successful as a whole, there would not gave been a need for a reboot in the first place.

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

Ouch. *LOL* Truth hurts.

But really, I can get with some of the criticisms of nu-Trek, but I think what everyone forgets is that it’s an alternate universe. You have to evaluate it in terms of an alternate universe, not compare it to the original. TOS is done. It’s not coming back. Maybe animated, but they’re not making new movies with the same cast and the same sets. With two beloved actors gone, who would want to do it anyway?

TNG had a chance to be profitable. It wasn’t, in the long run, enough to sustain itself. If TNG can’t survive on the big screen, no one is going to take a chance on DS9 or VOY right now. So, you have nu-Trek. They rebooted it in a great way, so if you don’t like it, you don’t have to consider it as prime canon. So you can disregard it at will. What else could you ask for? Some arguments are valid, if you like the new angle, but don’t think they’re doing enough with it. But that’s not the complaint we hear the most. Not constructive criticism, but….well….just plain odd stuff. They’re not coming up with anything new. It’s an alternate timeline, with the same characters, and same plots out there, so you’ll see repeating. I mean, with that criticism, the Mirror Universe should have had all new characters doing different things. Not a Spock that decided not to shave. People can choose not to like it, I just wish they wouldn’t bash it for being what it is.

226. Danpaine - May 12, 2014

209. Oscar – May 12, 2014

Great link. Spot on.

227. NuTrekRocks - May 12, 2014

Am I the only trekkie who believes that TNG was a stinker?

228. Phil - May 12, 2014

@227. From start to finish, yeah, that’s probably a solo act. TNG was really bad it’s first three seasons, but caught it’s balance and was really good TV by the end of it’s run.

229. Bill Peters - May 12, 2014

Cygnus-X1 once again you are showing your love for TNG and what cames after and saying that if Trek Doesn’t ‘ t fit you Perceived Notions of what Trek should be it should be that Trek should be put on Ice and you Idea of Trek is that it should always try to fit the Berman/Bragda Model that caused Trek not to be Profitable in the eyes of Parmount and CBS. You also seem to not understand for Movies we live in a Global Market and you have to make movies for more the Domestic Abundances want, please tell me why Trek has to be one way and you can’t Accept IDIC with Trek, to you you want any new Trek to be like and Episode of the TV show put on the Big Screen but that doesn’t really work, the Numbers for Insurrection prove this, Insurrection would have made a great TV Episode but as a Movie it didn’t work it didn’t have the things in a movie that General Audiences want, General Abundances want a Movie that has more Action and a plot tied to that Action, the days of Star Trek IV are long gone where you can have Minimal Action and just a story that does good things but no real shoot up action ect.

You want Trek to be more like TNG, but this Trek is a new take on TOS not TNG and the Differences show because this isn’t TNG or Post TNG.

230. Curious Cadet - May 12, 2014

@129. dmduncan,
“That’s a terrible analogy.”

OK, thought about it some more. You’re right. Orci is at the height of his career in the industry with a lot of experience in writing, creating and producing television and films. At issue is his ability to direct. But I stand by the premise of my original analogy — Orci wants to be the Chef in this equation, and he’s never prepared a meal before.

So the analogy should be: Orci is the restauranteur who has developed, created, and run various restaurants over the years, some successful, some not. He knows how to get it done, and he collaborates on the menus with the chefs hired to bring his restaurants to life. But he doesn’t cook, and has never prepared a meal before. Yet, now he wants to be the chef on his next restaurant project — one of the most expensive projects in Hollywood. He wants to have sole control over the menu, how the food is prepared, and everything he serves his customers. Yes he is passionate about the food, he’s eaten a lot of it, and he knows what he likes, and what he doesn’t, and he’s watched a lot of the chefs working with him prepare the meals he loves. But the guy eats out for every meal, and hasn’t even stopped in to take a cooking class at the local gourmet market, much less any formal training. Perhaps he’s a natural in the kitchen, but he wants his investors to essentially pony up the money to launch the restaurant based solely on the fact he’s successfully run other restaurants before, and he’s watched other top echelon chefs cook.

231. Bill Peters - May 12, 2014

I love TNG, I love everything that came after, but I understand why Trek post 09 has to do things Differently from the way they were done before while sticking as best you can to Genes Vison. There seems to be a denial of this Reality that you can’t make new Trek or get new Trek by using older Models that may not resonate with people beyond the fan base, Orci has hit the right mix of making Star Trek 09 and STID have links with past Treks without forcing those watching to have to know Trek going into the Film, there are in Essence two Films in both moves, stuff that the General Aduance gets and the stuff that we the Fans get on a Deeper Level.

Gene R once himself said he hope someone would come along and improve on his Ideas for Star Trek and make it so that they will go Gene Started Star Trek but this Person has Improved it to another level.

232. Keachick (Rose) - May 12, 2014

Oscar – YOU are one of the masses – we all are. Get over it!

Movies that do well with foreign audiences also do as well with English-speaking audiences. It is not a matter of language. It is a matter of what people want to go to see on the big screen, irrespective of their linguistic abilities. The reason why these big action movies with lots of special effects etc appear to do better at box offices ANYWHERE is that these types of films look and sound more spectacular etc on the very BIG CINEMA screens.

I and my family always made a point of seeing all the LOTR/Hobbit movies on the BIG CINEMA screens, at least once, and it is not because there may be a lot of action in these films. I go mainly to see the *scenery shown and remember…

Other kinds of films can be just as easily enjoyed on smaller screens found in the average person’s home, where these films can be watched in more intimate and leisurely surroundings.

I am sick of the repetitive idiocies that keep coming from naysayers, who have very little to offer that is constructive or original. You are the ones who keep saying that whatever was done in ST09 and STID is because Trek deserves no better. These are your ideas that you keep projecting onto others like Bad Robot, Bob Orci et al, as if that is what the film makers think, when none have actually stated or intimated anything of the kind.

What’s more, it is also a fact that what many people think are plot holes et al, are nothing of the kind. One has to seriously wonder about the overall literacy of many of the critics. I do not think they should be calling out the fact that movie companies are also making English-speaking films that they hope non-English foreign audiences will also enjoy either.

As I wrote, in many of these countries, English is a compulsory subject taught in schools, often from the Elementary (Primary) level. Some of these foreigners may not have enough of what it takes to speak fluently or read English that is more academic in nature, but many do have a working knowledge.

*Which reminds me re Hawaii-Five-O – @ Bob Orci – as one of the producers of this series – Thank you for showing me the islands that are Hawaii, ie the wonderful forest scenery, the ocean etc, from the air and from the ground…beautiful, fantastic. This is what television/internet is and should be about – sharing with others the wonders and beauty of parts of the world that many may never get to see in person. Thank you again!

233. Platitude - May 12, 2014

@ 224 & 225

You guys are spot on. Everyone who bashes the new movies seem to have forgotten what came before it (the financial & critical disaster of Nemesis). Star Trek is a viable money-making franchise again.

234. Oscar - May 12, 2014

232.
If money and not quality is the only important thing now in ST, then ST 2016 should be
STAR TREK vs TRANSFORMERS, DIRECTED BY MICHAEL BAY.

235. Keachick (Rose) - May 12, 2014

#222 Jack – Bob Orci is not the only person writing the third Star Trek film. Actually, he never has been the only writer.

What makes this present real-life scenario interesting, intriguing and giving a few a cause for some nail-biting is that Bob Orci, who has not directed before, has asked to be considered for the directing position for a major movie and that two new writers have joined the team. The reality is that this could be the very best thing to happen for Star Trek – or not.

It feels like, to me, that life could be imitating art here, as in the franchise could be going where none has gone before. Then again, isn’t that what Star Trek was meant to be about, as in “Space, the final frontier…boldly going where no man, no one has gone before!”?

#223 – Very good summary overall. Yes, Kirk is as interesting and as exciting an individual as he ever was.

236. Hugh Hoyland - May 12, 2014

Dunno if its been mentioned here but it looks like Bob got the gig! :) Good job Bob, now do us proud.

237. Keachick (Rose) - May 12, 2014

Where was it mentioned that Bob Orci got the job as director? Can you provide a link?

@Matt Wright and Bob Orci – Is this true? What’s the story? New thread?

238. Stephan - May 12, 2014

235. Hugh Hoyland

Do you have an update? Source maybe? ;)

239. Hugh Hoyland - May 12, 2014

Keachick, it was reported by Deadline, for some reason I cant post the link.

240. Quatlo - May 12, 2014

I am nearly 59 years old and always looked forward to the next Trek film since TOS ended. I even bought into some of the GR mythology for a while in the `70’s.

I learned better and was still hoping for the near-impossible; a TOS movie experience with some of the best TOS heart and soul and new ideas combined with modern SFX.

The egos of those involved combined with the evils of the biz spirits always negated my wish in all ST projects. Their have been some good moments and we all have our own. I won’t bore anyone with mine.

Then JJ Trek happened. The updated cast was well chosen for the most part. The reboot plot was full of holes but it got the franchise back in the game. The second JJ movie was null and void.

It is almost completely obvious now that a TOS based Trek movie of higher level quality can never be created. Flukes can still happen if the spirits allow it.

The limitations forced by the industry upon itself combined with all the egos involved effectively dilute all creativity and ideas. So many boxes must be checked on the form that the end product simply cannot be what many of us would hope for.

We can either give up entirely or hope to enjoy a diluted and overly engineered newer moment or two of JJ Trek and the good old TOS Trek episodes or moments.

We need to realize that nobody cares what any of us think except our loved ones, if we are lucky. We are all limited and under some kind of thumb.

Some just want more money or power, some just want enough to survive a new day. Money will not buy health and true happiness. But it will keep the fleas off of you.

It is a natural limitation just like other natural limitations in life and humanity.

At this point, I just hope Roberto can grab Paramount by the balls tight enough to engineer a film that is semi-worthwhile and better than the last one. For the 50th and all that.

A wish for a visionary and unique product to start his career as an awe-inspiring director remains as well. The random element will always exist. May the spirits be with RO Trek.

There is always hope. When you lose that, they start throwing dirt on you.

241. Hugh Hoyland - May 12, 2014

Okay let me step back a bit, I dont believe there has been an official announcement yet. Sorry about that, it that “sources” close to the situation say its a (almost) done deal.

Sorry about that fellow fans.

242. Oscar - May 12, 2014

232 (again)
In spite of Nemesis, ST was always a viable money making franchise because ST is not only the movies. CBS has sold millions of trek novels, and millions of VHS, CDs and blu discs of star trek tv series for decades .And toys, videogames, and merchandasing…

A blockbuster is a short live profit. But tv series, novels, comics, toys, merchandasing…is.a long live business. Because of that, CBS prefer the original timeline, because it is the truth gold mine. Paramount earned money with ST 2009, only for a couple of years. CBS is making money with TNG since 1987. And TOS since 1964…
I mean, sorry, neither Abrams nor ST09 saved ST. In spite of Nemesis star trek franchise was a wealthy and healthy franchise.

243. Jonboc - May 12, 2014

#227. “Am I the only trekkie who believes that TNG was a stinker?”

No! lol. For me, TOS is Star Trek….TNG was called Star Trek…but that’s where any similarities end. TNG rewrote the book,and I realize that there are 20 years worth of fans that absolutely loved that talky, pretentious, action-less show and it’s like-minded spin-offs…but I’m not one of them. TNG defines unrealized potential. It was a wonderfully executed soap opera in space, but so far removed from it’s namesake, in every aspect… for this TOS fan, Star Trek, it was not. And having watched some episodes on Hulu recently, I can also say, in my opinion, TNG hasn’t held up well with age…the novelty is gone, leaving only the acting and the stories…which, frankly, aside from a handful I can count on one hand…simply aren’t that good.
So yeah, long live nuTrek…the first real return to Star Trek in over 20 years! I’m sorry TNG fans aren’t getting what they’re accustomed to…but they’ll get over it eventually, or leave. Regardless, LOTS of fans love it, including myself, and I cant wait to see what lies ahead!

244. Jonboc - May 12, 2014

#229. “You want Trek to be more like TNG, but this Trek is a new take on TOS not TNG and the Differences show because this isn’t TNG or Post TNG.”

Yep. I think the shock of going from slow paced, yakety TNG sensibilities to the rock ‘em sock ‘em, fun, adventure style of TOS was just too much for many fans to handle. They should have watched more TOS, to soften the blow…you’re not in Kansas anymore, Mr. Data! :)

245. Mike Barnett - May 12, 2014

241. Oscar
TOS started on 9/8/66, not 1964.

BTW, how do you know about Star Trek financials? I’ve been following the brand since ’66 and I’ve never seen the ‘books’ for the franchise.

246. Lurker - May 12, 2014

Oscar:

I am a 52 year old TOS fan – and I have to say I disagree with about 99% of what you say

The new Trek movies have breathed life into a stale, and what was becoming a nerd-only franchise.

“STID (and ST 2009) has a stack of plot holes, idiocies, crynge worthy dialogues and Common places that stretches here to Kingdom Come.”

The same exact thing could be said about EVERY Star Trek movie – including the vastly over rated Wrath Of Khan.

247. Jack - May 12, 2014

242. Me too. Plenty of TNG episodes are tough to watch, even after the terrible first 2.75 seasons.

I’m fine with action and set pieces, just have the darned story make sense. I’m tired of “because we’re the Hollywood writers and you’re not” being the explanation for every nonsensical story element. And long 90s-movie speeches are no substitute for real character motivations and logic.

Good: Winter Soldier, Avengers, iron Man 3, TASM

Bad: TASM2, STID

248. Jack - May 12, 2014

PS. No Shatner

249. Picard, Jean-Luc - May 12, 2014

Since when have any of the great Star Trek movies been anywhere near to the level of intelligence of the TV series. I don’t really understand why there are fans who insist that Star Trek is some how this unique thing that needs wrapping up in a certain way. The one thing that killed Star Trek for a lot of fans (not me I love it all) was the fact that it had become so stale and sterile. I love Berman but as a result of holding too close to “Genes vision” he paralysed the creative people who could have saved it from being so monotone.

With Roberto Orci I see a guy who’s very much a FAN of Star Trek. To be a fan of Star Trek you need no qualification. He has his own ideas and thoughts on what Star Trek is to him. Just as everyone here has their own thoughts and feelings on this vast tapestry of stories that we call Star Trek.

If Roberto Orci believes he can direct and make a bloody good Star Trek story then good luck to him! This is exactly what Trek should be doing. Paramount taking a risk with it by giving it to a creative guy who loves Star Trek as much as Abrams loves Star Wars. A tired and tested producer, writer and a guy who’s been a huge part of the development of both of the Abrams movies. He’s the guy. Anyone like Singer, Nolan or Cornish would want to make their changes to an already established movie series. Orci will I’m sure put his own stamp on things but hold true to the vision he was a part of creating back with Star Trek 2009.

Some of you fans are forgetting a certain Leonard Nimoy who only agreed to return as Spock if he could direct the next Star Trek. With no directorial experience or ANY experience in writing movies of any kind, he made a worthy trek movie and then went onto making arguably the most successful Star Trek film of the classic 10 features.

This is a refreshing thing, going with a new director and I hope paramount give Orci the time, money and confidence to make Star Trek both exciting and engaging but also thought provoking and pioneering. A movie that not only is a fitting tribute to 50 years of Star Trek but also sets up the future of this franchise spilling into TV series, animated series and all of those multi-media things franchises of star treks size require to continue to inspire new generations of fans.

250. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

224. Dswynne – May 12, 2014

@220: Sorry, but Berman was running out of steam, and it showed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ4JSVw3gU4

The Plinkett Trek movie reviews are fantastic.

The TNG movies being so sloppily written was a bit of a mystery. They were all written by people responsible for turning out a plethora of good-quality Trek on TV (Ronald D. Moore!). And yet their movies were even more riddled with plot holes than the Bad Robot movies (not to mention contradictory of TV Trek).

The common denominator in all of the TNG movies was Rick Berman, so I place the blame squarely on his shoulders (as many people do). I don’t know how he managed to mess up 4 movies so badly, but the record speaks for itself. Ironically, while the Berman Trek movies make the BR Trek movies look better by comparison, the BR Trek movies make the Berman Trek TV shows look better by comparison.

I’ve complained about VOY as much as anyone, but when I go back and watch those episodes now, noticing that, at least, attempts at meaningful thematic development were made (and, sometimes, they led to a satisfying episode, though not nearly as often as most of us would have liked), it becomes crystal clear precisely which elements of traditional Trek have been dispensed with in the BR movies. And as much as we all complained about Rick Berman, Bad Robot’s Trek movies have actually made him look good by comparison—Not with regard to his movies, but certainly with regard to his TV Trek.

251. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

227. NuTrekRocks – May 12, 2014

Am I the only trekkie who believes that TNG was a stinker?

Yes.

And I wouldn’t go repeating that if I were you. It’s grounds to have your Trekkie membership revoked.

252. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

228. Phil – May 12, 2014

@227. From start to finish, yeah, that’s probably a solo act. TNG was really bad it’s first three seasons, but caught it’s balance and was really good TV by the end of it’s run.

Season 3 was already very good.

Season 2 was mixed.

Season 1…well, I don’t watch Season 1.

253. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

229. Bill Peters – May 12, 2014

Cygnus-X1 once again you are showing your love for TNG and what cames after and saying that if Trek Doesn’t ‘ t fit you Perceived Notions of what Trek should be it should be that Trek should be put on Ice and you Idea of Trek is that it should always try to fit the Berman/Bragda Model that caused Trek not to be Profitable in the eyes of Parmount and CBS. You also seem to not understand for Movies we live in a Global Market and you have to make movies for more the Domestic Abundances want, please tell me why Trek has to be one way and you can’t Accept IDIC with Trek,

(1) I do love TNG. I plead guilty as charged.

(2) I have no particular desire for adherence to the style of Berman TV Trek, and I would be opposed to a return to the style of Berman movie Trek.

(3) It has never been my contention that Trek has to be “one way.” What I have been saying is that there are certain fundamental, essential attributes of Trek that make it Trek, and when you dispense with enough of those essential attributes, the result is no longer recognizable as Trek (and, in the case of the BR Trek movies, inferior to Trek). I tried to illustrate that point with the slasher movie hypothetical, but apparently you didn’t meet minds with that analogy.

254. Oscar - May 12, 2014

243. Jonboc, my friend.

Nu Trek: one more to die. After 2016 releasing, no more nu trek. If CBS makes a new tv series , it will be in the original timeline o its own reboot, but the abramsverse is kaputt.

2. Some nu trekkers hate tng tv series because is the golden era of STAR TREK, and because is high quality star trek.
Sorry, but your disdain can bit change this fact.Cult series not short Lived blockbuster.
ST future is the original timeline,
Do you want proofs?

http://www.thetrekcollective.com

Marketing, novels …etc: 99% is TNG/ Enterprise stuff. Not nu trek stuff
Why? Because no future for abramsverse.

And tng tv series was not monotone. Nu trek is monotone.

Star Trek vs supervillain with superspaceship 1
Star Trek vs supervillain with superspaceship 2
Star Trek vs supervillain with superspaceship 3

255. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

233. Platitude – May 12, 2014

Everyone who bashes the new movies seem to have forgotten what came before it (the financial & critical disaster of Nemesis). Star Trek is a viable money-making franchise again.

I haven’t forgotten the Berman Trek movies, at all

But, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Though, three lefts do.

And hooray for money! Hooray for Paramount’s investment returns! Hooray, hooray, hooray! I’m so happy for the shareholders and upper management at Paramount receiving their $millions.

But, that doesn’t do anything for me, personally.

A satisfying Trek movie that isn’t merely a fleeting, guilty pleasure. A meaningful work of fiction that holds up well on home video a year later (and 30 years later). That’s what I’m interested in. An ankle-deep, run-around, shoot-em-up for the foreign market which happens to exploit the names and likenesses of STAR TREK I can happily do without.

256. seangh - May 12, 2014

Like it or not, Orci is a safe bet for Trek 3 and I think he has much to prove. I would like to think that he will deliver a sequel that makes things right with the fans on many levels. One can hope.

257. Vultan - May 12, 2014

I don’t know where some are getting this idea that those who dislike the Abrams movies were expecting TNG style Trek. I know I wasn’t (3 out of 4 of the TNG movies weren’t very good—the bad, the very bad, and the bland). Something like TOS or the TOS movies would have been nice. Sure, there is some of that there, but not much. To me they seem like run of the mill action, Transformers style movies with the Trek name slapped on it, and with a lot of reference chew toys for the fans.

A good business model, but it’s kind of soulless in my opinion. Hopefully whoever directs the next one can steer it back towards something like TOS.

258. Dswynne - May 12, 2014

Oscar, by the time ‘Nemesis’ came out, the suits over at Viacom felt that the established ST fan base was no longer interested in the franchise, based upon the box office receipts. And by the time ‘Enterprise’ ended its run, in spite of the efforts of Manny Coto, the suits decided to table the franchise based upon the fan base lack of interest in the franchise. So, they decided to make NuTrek more like science-fantasy than science-fiction, simplify both story structure and characterizations, and release it for a wider audience who think ‘Trek is ‘cool’. You can’t blame the suits for that; blame ourselves for taking ‘Trek for granted, and for thinking that it will always be there for us, as is. Do I like it? Let’s just say that I am not going get mad over these developments, since I have the re-runs, old movies, comics, books and fan films to keep me entertained.

Besides, NuTrek is still ‘Trek, even if it’s not the same ‘Trek that I grew up with back in the 1980s.

259. Jonboc - May 12, 2014

258 “Besides, NuTrek is still ‘Trek, even if it’s not the same ‘Trek that I grew up with back in the 1980s.”

You’re so right! It’s the Star Trek the world was introduced to in the 60’s and 70’s! What’s old is “Nu” again….gotta love it!

260. Dswynne - May 12, 2014

@242: I guess you have not noticed that CBS is simply repackaging the same franchise, by simply updating the media, and are not producing anything new. And again two of the NuTrek films made more money than four TNG films combined, not to mention the fact that home video sales of NuTrek will continue to make money for the studios. So, from a business angle, where us the downside where NuTrek us concerned? Again, I don’t fault any for disliking NuTrek, but let’s not forget how we fans are culpable for how all this came to be…

261. Mike Barnett - May 12, 2014

258. Dswynne

“Do I like it? Let’s just say that I am not going get mad over these developments, since I have the re-runs, old movies, comics, books and fan films to keep me entertained.”

I agree. I have something like 700+ hours of Trek on DVD/Blu Ray which will keep me happy the rest of my life. NuTrek is keeping me REALLY happy right now. It’s an unexpected bonus to have nuTrek – since I was sure the franchise was buried after Enterprise was cancelled.

262. Jamie - May 12, 2014

I admit to having a number of gripes toward certain aspects but I also highly enjoyed the last two installments to the Trek universe very much.
TOS is preserved as it is, and AOS isn’t in any way destroying it. Heck, there’s actually been a mighty surge in TOS merchandise like whoa during the last couple of years (as a kid who grew up with TNG, I’m more of a bit frustrated…more like jealous honestly…that there aren’t near as many new shiny TNG stuff!). I’m pretty sure the new films got more people to recognize and watch TOS, and appreciate it as it is…much like they enjoyed the new films as a part of the Star Trek lore (which they sure have been aware of due to it being quoted/joked about/referred to in almost…everything).
TOS is always gonna be TOS, and AOS should also be able to stand on it’s own too. It’s an alternate universe after all. Hope the third AOS installment and Mr. Orci at its helm prove this triumphantly by telling a story very different from the previous two…. we saw Kirk become a man and gain a new family in 2009, and then genuinely become the captain everyone respects in STID, so why not take that further…like gaining mutual respect and comradeship from another species. Saving them…or more like saving each other. Taking each other’s prejudices and conflicts aside. I love stuff like that. And it’s very Trek. Of course, it can still have flashy action too. The little kid in me would enjoy seeing Sulu fighting with his retractable sword again for that matter! The crew can fight together with the aliens, or start their relationship fighting against each other right? For example Darmok, my favourite episode of all time Trek, is a very quiet, slowly developed (as it needed to be) episode but actually has massive tension and quite a bit of action too. The crew can interact not only with the leader/authorities of the alien species but the citizens as well… get to know their culture and perhaps encounter some subplot regarding that. The Enterprise crew work apart from each other but help each other in their own ways, and in the end, come back together again on their lovely ship.

263. Phil - May 12, 2014

@242. A couple of points. Nemesis: It opened in second place behind a Jennifer Lopez movie, and was promptly buried in the box office. Even with John Logan as the writer, the entire production was pretty much doomed from the start, and never made money. Enterprise was hemorrhaging viewers, the franchise was quickly being pigeonholed, there was nothing left for the general viewing audience or the aging fan base.

CBS make plenty of money on I Love Lucy merchandise. That doesn’t mean there will ever be a Lucy revival. If Abrams hadn’t come along, Nemesis would have been the last Trek movie made, there would be no discussion of Trek on TV, anywhere, and attractions planned for theme parks would be modeled after some other Paramount franchise. Terminator-Land, anyone??

And as it seems you are just making stuff up now, here’s another stick in your eye. Those Trek themed attractions being built…yep, modeled after Abrams version of Trek. The new universe is going to be around for a long, long time, amigo.

Live long and prosper…

264. VulcanFilmCritic - May 12, 2014

This is sooooooo wrong on so many levels.

Does everyone think that directing a movie, let alone a major motion picture is easy?

What does a script writer know about directing movies? You just show up and tell the cinematographer to do some interesting things with the camera. You just show up and tell the actors to do some interesting things in front of the camera. You just show up and tell the editor to do some interesting things with the editing?

Actors and production designers probably make better film directors. At least an intelligent actor (like Charles Laughton, Clint Eastwood, or Warren Beatty) has been on a film set and has some idea of the mechanics of filmmaking.
A production designer (like Alfred Hitchcock or Ridley Scott) at least has some idea of visually what he wants a film to look like.
But a writer?

And the excuse is that he’s a fan and he really likes Star Trek. Well, we’ve seen what fans are capable of on YouTube and I have yet to be impressed.

I thought that for the 50th anniversary of Star Trek we would get something special. My dream would have been someone like Stephen Spielberg (on the high end) or Sam Raimi (on the low end), who knows how to tell a story as well as deliver the action goods. Instead of someone who has never even made a student film.
If you think it is easy, just try it sometime. I did when I was in high school and college. Just shooting a little 10 minute Super 8 film was very difficult, even with the help of more experienced and creative friends.
Or better yet, read Jerry Lewis’ book, “The Total Film-maker.” Excellent book, but I break out in a cold sweat when I think of what it would actually be like to sit in the director’s chair.

Directing, like any other profession, involves a certain amount of craft. It may take years before a director gets the knack for telling stories visually.
And let’s not forget the politics of dealing with the studio, the producers, the actors and the crew. We know what happens to film sets that don’t have a real leader in that chair. The actors rebel, the crew laughs at you, and the producers yell at you (or even worse, fire you) for going over budget.

People have cited Leonard NImoy’s (relative) success with Star Trek III and IV but he did direct some TV before that and had been a working actor in films and TV for over 20 years at that point. He was also a photographer who had some knowledge of the workings of a camera and sense of composition. And lastly he’s a total egomaniac. I wouldn’t want to cross him, and I bet the cast and crew didn’t want to either.
Bob Orsi, you are no Leonard Nimoy. Ed Wood…maybe.

I think this whole rumor must be another instance of Bad Robot-style misdirection. I pray that it isn’t true.

265. Curious Cadet - May 12, 2014

@249. Picard, Jean-Luc,
“Some of you fans are forgetting a certain Leonard Nimoy who only agreed to return as Spock if he could direct the next Star Trek. With no directorial experience or ANY experience in writing movies of any kind, he made a worthy trek movie”

That’s because it didn’t happen. You are making that up.

Nimoy directed three episodes of popular TV series, wrote two episodes of another, and wrote and directed one TV movie before taking the helm of TSFS, which he didn’t write. And that’s only what’s credited on IMDB.

When Nimoy asked to direct, everyone could look at the work he had done, and determine intelligently whether he was any good at it. Like Orci, Nimoy had enough experience in the business to provide a solid background for directing. However, unlike Orci, Nimoy actually had experience directing before he was given his first feature film.

266. Mike Barnett - May 12, 2014

265. Curious Cadet
Orci could practice directing this summer…Sleepy Hollow, H50 or maybe even Bad Robot’s Person of Interest.

267. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

263. Phil – May 12, 2014

If Abrams hadn’t come along, Nemesis would have been the last Trek movie made, there would be no discussion of Trek on TV, anywhere,

That’s total speculation on your part.

Between the final episode of ENT (May 13, 2005) and the signing of JJ’s deal to make the next Trek movie (July 15, 2006) was little more than one year! That’s a lot less time than has passed on average between Trek movies! And the interim between the two BR Trek movies was 4 years!

So, please. Let’s not rewrite history here. Paramount offered JJ the next Trek movie, and JJ (who never liked or “got” Trek) happily exploited the opportunity as a means to get into feature films.

If JJ hadn’t grabbed Trek, I’ve no doubts that someone else would have, and I believe sooner rather than later. JJ Abrams isn’t the reason why we have Trek at all.JJ is the reason why Trek is now a comic-book/action movie franchise.

Gosh, what if Paramount had waited two whole years! Imagine the possibilities.

268. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

P.S. And yes, the directive from Paramount for more action! more lasers! more explosions! more running! And don’t forget the action! The Chinese and Russians love that action! Lots of action! No time for boring chit-chat about the meaning of things; that’s time wasted that could be filled with action! would still have come down. But it is possible that a better director, one who actually cared about Trek for its intrinsic value, could have found a better balance, a way to up the action and visuals while preserving the spirit and artistic sensibilities of Trek.

269. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

P.S.S. And some better writers could have written stories without all of the plot holes, bad science and poorly motivated characters of the Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams et al scripts. A better director would have seen the problems in ST09 and especially in STID. Not that it matters, right? The movies made plenty of money, and that’s more important than good quality work.

270. Cygnus-X1 - May 12, 2014

P.P.P.S. Or, a director who could have made a sufficiently profitable Trek even without so much action. A Trek good enough on the merits of its story, dramatic scenes and other attributes (photography, sound) that foreign audiences—perhaps those more appreciative of drama—might still have come out in high numbers for it. Or, a director who might have fought for the integrity of Trek and struck a compromise with Paramount.

The point being, there are many other possibilities for what might have been and might have happened after the one-year lapse between ENT and the signing of JJ’s Trek deal.

271. Bill Peters - May 13, 2014

246. Lurker good points.

244. Jonboc have to agree.

263. Phil I like you’re points but I also hope someday we get a MIni-Seires that ties up the lose ends to DS9 or lets us Catch up with the Rikers I know this will never happen in a movie but in a Mini-Serires it could and you could do a TV show in JJ Verse and it would do well, I do think Trek will be back on TV someday and I will be happy to support it but I am betting it will most have to do with the JJ Verse.

272. Li'l Shat - May 13, 2014

If Roberto Orci really loves and “gets” Star Trek, he will graciously step aside.

273. Oscar - May 13, 2014

259.
Nu Trek is Nu Trek , not TOS.

If the formula is a different formula , not brain but brawn, non «intellectual» but «emotional», if the characters are differents (not in name but in behavior), if TOS was space exploration and the abramsverse military sci fi, if in TOS tricorders were more importants than pistols, and in the nutrekverse no tricorders at all because the most important thing is a good phaser pistol…If the background and philosophy are differents…
, You can not say seriously nu trek is the 21th century’ s TOS.

You are yourself . you can not be you And other guy at the same time…one body two souls? Ce pas posible, mon ami.

oks , a very cervellotic argument..
In short,

I mean, JJ Abrams was not a trekker. He did not like TOS. He changed the TOS formula because he prefered a Star wars touch…his call.

By changing the TOS formula , he created a new thing, an Hybrid, a TOS/STAR WARS hybrid. This hybrid is nu trek. ST in name. SW in soul,
But neither TOS nor SW..

And ERSATZ.

Star Trek the motion Picture ( my favourite TOS film) was produced by Roddenberry. The story and plot is Roddenberry’ s stuff. So , this is the most genuine TOS film ever. An its formula is absolutely AntiStarWars. Roddenberry did not want a starwarslike ST. Abrams / Orci do.
They changed Roddenberry’ s formula. They destroyed TOS and they created this new hybrid.

Its name should be TREK WARS . But if you want to make money ST is a better name because it is a Very popular franchise.

274. Lurker - May 13, 2014

“Star Trek the motion Picture ( my favourite TOS film) was produced by Roddenberry. The story and plot is Roddenberry’ s stuff. So , this is the most genuine TOS film ever. An its formula is absolutely AntiStarWars. Roddenberry did not want a starwarslike ST. Abrams / Orci do.
They changed Roddenberry’ s formula. They destroyed TOS and they created this new hybrid.”

No, no, no – Paramount changed Roddenberry’s formula after the “fans” complained that ST TMP was too slow and un-Star Trek like.

And they changed it again with the utter box office and critical failure that Nemesis was.

275. Oscar - May 13, 2014

274.
Yes, Paramount wanted a more starwarslike stuff. And they tried, but they could not. Not enough for their taste.
ST I is the purest TOS because writer and producer is Gene Roddenberry, the creator of ST.
Only a violin crafted by Stradivarius is an Stradivarius.
Some people prefer a banjo…a Stradivarius is too much for them.

I quote Gail Berman, president of Paramount Studios (2007) :
(The reboot) «will be a NEW WHOLE FRANCHISE»
A new whole franchise.

276. K.J. - May 13, 2014

I’m not worried or anxious about ST3…I am more than satisfied with the new episodes of Star Trek Continues. TOS is back in a BIG way and they’re on track to complete two to three episodes a year!. Next month they are premiering a Mirror universe ep. in Sydney, Austrailia.

Check it out if you haven’t already. http://www.startrekcontinues.com

277. Curious Cadet - May 13, 2014

@263. Phil,
“Enterprise was hemorrhaging viewers”

This is not an accurate assessment of that series. Your perpetuating the popular myth, embraced by those who did not like Enterprise. I can say the same thing about Orci’s FRINGE and Abrams’ LOST. The reality is, the ratings were at least as good if not better than the competing cable sci-fi series of the time. All network TV at the time was beginning to lose viewers at an alarming rate thanks in part to the DVR and wide availability of alternate programming and the Internet. Further, there is evidence that the viewership was much higher than the weekly Nielsen’s were accounting for based on those DVR numbers that were not counted until much later — today, the Nielsen’s will include DVR numbers as long as the program is watched within a week of the original air date. Finally add to that UPN programming the series inconsistently in all of its markets, loss of stations in some markets, and a poorly promoted move to Fridays, all conspired to lower the ratings on paper. There was a thriving Star Trek community watching Enterprise. Why Les Moonves cancelled it is anybody’s guess, but cleaning house of both Berman and ill-fitting genre shows timed just before the creation of the CW which would focus on programming devoted to teen angst is a reasonable bet.

278. Disinvited - May 13, 2014

#274. Lurker – May 13, 2014

No, I lived through it and what is conventionally “known” about TMP’s so-called failure was just a continuation of studio fiction created during the series’ run to increase Hollywood’s profits at the expense of the creative talent by painting a “success” as a failure which was a typical tactic to reduce the need to share profits and thus line the studio’s and Network’s pockets.

NBC and Gulf Western/Paramount were just following the prevailing attitude of the suits at the time that once the brand’s established creators and writers are a dime a dozen. Gene was pushed out of the 3rd season and the movies not because as a consumable product something was “wrong” with the Trek he produced, but because he didn’t give the suits proper “deference” and gave them headaches by constantly finding endruns around their dictates. They were going to do everything in their power not to have to reward this insolence by sharing profits.

If he wasn’t going to turn STAR TREK into STAR WARS as they demanded then they were going to take what they got, ditch him, and turn it into at least a “franchise” like FOX’s PLANET OF THE APES.

279. LogicalLeopard - May 13, 2014

227. NuTrekRocks – May 12, 2014
Am I the only trekkie who believes that TNG was a stinker?
***********************************

Wait….people don’t like TNG? *LOL* You guys are making my mind hurt! I’m still trying to adjust to the fact that there are actually people who can vote who didn’t see it during it’s first run. Stop it! *LOL*

280. Curious Cadet - May 13, 2014

@266. Mike Barnett,
“Orci could practice directing this summer…Sleepy Hollow, H50 or maybe even Bad Robot’s Person of Interest.”

Except those shows won’t be shooting again until late July or early August.

Do we all realize the clock is ticking loudly now?

In order for us to get a Summer 2016 release, the next movie needs to start shooting in 7 months, just to have the same amount of time STID did (and they were still making changes to STID up to a month before it was released). They’re going to need to get into pre-production in a couple of months, casting the film, designing and building the set, scouting locations, all in and around Orci’s incredibly busy schedule.

So Paramount needs to set a director NOW, which I suspect is why this issue has bubbled up to the surface as of late …

281. Disinvited - May 13, 2014

1. Buzz Cagney – May 9, 2014

Maybe we should keep track of the rejections?:

” Dude, I used to be a ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ fan. Like, big time… But no, I probably wouldn’t do that. I don’t know if me getting involved with a franchise is the best thing for me. When studios smell franchises, they smell money. And they’ll try to do what they can to the franchise to make it make the most money it can make, and a lot of those interesting ideas kind of fall by the side of the road. So… Do I like ‘Star Trek’ on its own without the politics of making it? Yes, absolutely. But do I think that you could make it in the way that I would want to make it? Probably not, which makes me not want to make it.” — Neill Blomkamp

My estimation is that with this possibly being the prevailing attitude, Paramount is not putting enough money on the table to overcome this reason in other candidates minds?

282. Mike Barnett - May 13, 2014

273. Oscar

You are brave to admit to your fellow Trek fans that TMP is your favorite Trek movie. It’s also my favorite ORIGINAL CAST movie because it felt like a
B I G theatrical motion picture compared to Trek II through VI. TMP was more like 2001: ASO – which is one of my all-time favorite SciFi movies.
I’m also a big Star Wars fan so I liked it when Paramount injected more action by taking the keys away from Roddenberry and giving them to Harve Bennett – who produced Trek II through V.

See ya later, buddy! We can be friends now because we both like TMP!

283. Mike Barnett - May 13, 2014

280. Curious Cadet

One could argue with this: the 50th anniversary is on 9/8/16….so the year of the 50th is between 9/8/16 through 9/7/17. If ST3 doesn’t come out until the summer of 2017 then it’s still within the 50th year …..unless I’m using some sort of fuzzy math!

284. Phil - May 13, 2014

@271. Oh, the existence of the new universe doesn’t preclude going back and revisiting the prime universe. I’d venture a guess that if 24: Live Another Day does decent ratings, you’ll see other popular properties get a similar treatment. The fan base needs to get used to the idea, though, that if CBS does this with Trek, we will see something very new in format – while Starfleet would be involved, the captain and crew format would have to be tossed aside because it is very limiting.

285. I am not Herbert - May 13, 2014

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers

US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth

http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers

286. Exverlobter - May 13, 2014

God, this will become Star Trek 5 all over again, when Shatner (like Orci) overestimated his directing skills which resulted in one of the worst Trek-films ever.

287. Oscar - May 13, 2014

282.
Thanks
V’ger is maybe the best original conception in the star trek films history and TMP the most ambitious film, the only pure sci fi movie. And asimovian /clarkian movie.
That’ s why I said Abramsverse lacked of ambition. They want high adventure, but only high adventure, not high conceptions. Sometimes ST needs high conceptions, needs remember everybody why is the most important sci saga ever.
A propos, if you like TMPlike ST novels you should read STAR TREK The Next Generation Cold Equations book III, The Body Electric….
Starring: the (evil) brother of V’ger.
Author: David Mack.

288. Mike Barnett - May 13, 2014

284. Phil

“…if CBS does this with Trek, we will see something very new in format – while Starfleet would be involved, the captain and crew format would have to be tossed aside because it is very limiting”

I’ve been thinking about this the past few months. For the next series have it be something like “Starfleet: X-Files” or “Star Trek: X-Files” or Starfleet: Fringe” or “CSI: Starfleet” …. where the main cast are Starfleet scientists, investigators, etc.
I know you can’t use the “Fringe” or “X-Files” titles…I’m just thinking how fun it would be to have a show like X-Files placed in the 23rd century. That way they aren’t tied down to one crew-one starship.

That idea is a freebie for you, boborci! But I bet you pitched something similar to CBS when you tried to get them to greenlight a new TV series. I would think CBS would especially be interested if you pitched the CSI angle since they currently air several shows similar to CSI.

CSI: Starfleet
NCIS: Starfleet
Starfleet X-Files
Fringe: Starfleet
Starfleet Five-0
Starfleet: Alien of Interest
Starflleet: Section 31

Just having a little fun ;-)

289. Mike Barnett - May 13, 2014

287. Oscar

Thanks for the tip on the book! I’ll look it up sometime in the near future.

290. LogicalLeopard - May 13, 2014

286. Exverlobter – May 13, 2014
God, this will become Star Trek 5 all over again, when Shatner (like Orci) overestimated his directing skills which resulted in one of the worst Trek-films ever.

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

Is there a reason why people say that STV is one of the worst ever, besides it’s examination of faith? Because it’s actually one of my favorites, with some of the best character moments ever. Jim’s campfire revelation. The fun bickering in the brig. The crushing revelation of Spock’s and Bones’ greatest shame. Lots of humorous stuff. And of course, the one of the most disturbing (but real) lines in all of Trek during the opener, when Sybok asks if the “farmer” was prepared to shoot him over a barren patch of land full of holes. “It’s all I have.” Great stuff in that movie.

And are you saying that the direction made it worse? I admit, I rarely notice directing unless it’s really really good, or really really bad, but how did Shatner’s directing make it bad?

291. Marja - May 13, 2014

270 Cygnus, the operative word in your phrase “…that foreign audiences might come out for…” is MIGHT. Paramount is not looking for art. They are looking for guaranteed profits.

279 Logical, I find it hard to believe there are Trekfans who didn’t check into TNG after the first two rather stinky seasons, just to see if it had improved.

Because it had improved. VASTLY.

282 Mike Barnett, On reflection, TMP did seem like a “big” Hollywood movie. This may be something to do with the only “big” Hollywood director to take on Trek, Robert Wise.

Unfortunately, IMHO, the horrible costumes and the ponderous pace — not to mention the *re-hash of a fairly good episode of TOS* — made it unworkable to me. The acting was good, but strained by having to look at what was a blue screen “in wonder” for ages. The OTHER acting was good, let’s put it that way. The endless, endless “approach” to Vger was not.

IF Vger had turned out to be something else … if we had not had to watch Vger reveal itself to Enterprise for endless decades of minutes, THEN it might have intrigued me more.

292. Marja - May 13, 2014

But the beauty of the shots on the Bridge, and Spock’s shuttling into the Enterprise, and some others, were not repeated in subsequent movies … okay, making a huge exception for all the Mutara Nebula scenes in TWOK, though. They were gorgeous, for their time.

293. Bill Peters - May 13, 2014

,I find it funny that fans can’t accept that things with Trek have to Adapt and change to keep Trek Alive, you have to keep Trek Relevant while staying as true as you can to the Spirit of Trek, not all Trek can be TNG or Affected by TNG Directly, many of you can’t Fathom why 09 or STID doesn’t fit the TNG Model to you all Trek must have a more TNG Feel then a TOS Feel, but this is telling new Stories in a TOS setting, I can accept this cause it is what is happing.

Cygnus-X1 fears it will become a slasher flick or that some How Action Dilutes Trek, that in Trek you have Minimal Action, but if I remember right TOS and TNG and DS9 and VOY and ENT all had Action. Too many of you want to Piggon Hole what Trek is based on the Trek you like, you Fear change cause you fear it might become something other then Trek, Bob Orci is a Fan he has shown this by putting Easter Eggs in that Fans understand that General Abundances might not…you hate is based on fear and really nothing else, I don’t Fear losing Trek to new Directors or New Ideas, I do Fear losing Trek cause Fans don’t understand what is needed outhere for any New Star Trek Movie or TV show to me be made and those Conditions might Necessitate a few changes that might make Purist uncomfortable cause it follow the Spirit of the law not the Letter of it, I get it change even minor change to something you love can be hard but if we want Trek to stay new and Fresh and have Movies and TV shows we must be willing to Adapt and not just yell everytime Trek does something new that might make us go for a Moment wait this hasn’t been done before and that dosen’t fit what I understand of the Trek I know. I am willing to accept that this is Star Trek cause it has that Feel to it, I have watched alll the series and all the Movies this Movie set of late has more of a Balance of Terror Feel or the Enterprise Incident to it it isn’t whom the God Destroy or The Conscience of the King or Star Trek IV.

We lost Enterprise for one cause CBS in it Statement about the Series talked of Franchise Fatigue, and because Berman wasn’t Fully Willing to hand all Responsibility to Coto for the sereis and make a clean break, so it ended I loved Season 4 of Enterprise and would have loved a Season 5, we didn’t get it, Nemsis Faled as a Movie, I loved it, it wraped up several strings of Story lines but it wasn’t good enough in the eyes of Paramount to continue Stories in the Post TNG timeline. I wish we had had the Chance to see more of the Voyager Crew and there lives now or get Sisko out of the Wormhole and a DS9 Movie but that isn’t the route Paramount Chose they said lest try something Different.

294. Bill Peters - May 13, 2014

Funny I am old enough to Remember when people said TNG wasn’t Really Trek, and then the same thing for DS9, infact that happen a lot during DS9, DS9 is too dark to be Trek I heard it all though out the 7 Seasons, then I heard Complants about Voyager being a Star Trek Take on Lost in Space and being about as good or maybe turing out that good, then I heard a lot of Complants about ENT, not Trek cause the ship doesn’t have X or there Shouldn’t be a Vulcan on the Bridge or we hate the Xindi Arc…I mean fans always seem to find something to Complain about which is good but they always come around on many Treks, we all have Treks we like more then others but the Majority seem to come around, the main Complant I am hearing from fans right now is that Trek is to Popular in there minds, it is Drawing too many non-fans in and this somehow is going to hurt Trek? yet I know people who have gone back and watched TOS, TNG Ect cause of 09 and STID because they go maybe there is something more to this Trek, or I want to know where this Idea for Section 31 came from Ect.

295. dlope67 - May 13, 2014

Perhaps everything I didn’t like about the first two new trek movies is not Mr. Orci’s fault. The general directing, set designs, re designed enterprise – all detracted for me. The script detracted for me with stuff like spock meeting kirk on the ice planet, and kirk getting promoted to captain, a lot of coincidence and silliness… But, as someone mentioned earlier, this was a team, perhaps if the vision is all his own, it will be fantastic. (or perhaps not). It will all rest with him if he writes and directs.

JJ Abrams gave us a pretty darn good cast, and proved Star Trek has legs as a summer blockbuster. It just needs some tweaking.

Doug Lopenzina

296. CecilofRil - May 13, 2014

210. Oscar
199.PHIL.
Some day I shall hope offer you conclusive evidences on other points, but, today, I’ll explain you why Nu Kirk is THE anti Roddenberry Kirk. I quote Glenn Greenberg:
«Their (screenwriters’) handling of Kirk is particularly apalling. In short, he is an ASS. He is portrayed as a sleazy horndog who beds multiple alien women at the same time, and who seems to think his fist or a phaser pistol is the only solution.
Shatner’ s Kirk was a ladies’ man, to be sure, but he was not a CREEP, and he was as much of a diplomat as he was and explorer and a military leader. This was a guy who could talk planet ruling computers into short circuiting themselves. Pine’ s Kirk is a bruiser, a reckless thickheaded know it all and a Real jerk when women are concerned.»

So, pal, stop revisionism. Pine’ s Kirk is the Anti Shatner Kirk. All this new stuff is only a whole betrayal. Nu trekkers can accept it or can not. But there are huge, powerful arguments on it.
Sorry.

Umm…have you even WATCHED TOS!? That is what Kirk did. Sure, he used some diplomacy (The computer, the silicone organism), but what about Errand of Mercy? I didn’t really see any diplomacy in that episode. Oh, and what about the time he fought the Gorn? Did he sit around and discuss things with him? I don’t remember that while he had his shirt off. And what about Amok Time? Don’t remember him trying to work things out with Spock…

I think your argument is better served trying to defend Nemesis, not trying to “bash” boborci about his movies. His movies appeal to a wider fan base now. People are starting to watch more Trek thanks to them.

Cygnus-X1

You think that because audiences (wider audiences) want more action, that it “automatically isn’t Trek” anymore? Did you even WATCH the Berman productions? You said you did, but I highly doubt it. First Contact, (widely regarded as the “best” among fans) had LOTS of action. Heck, Berman and the screenwriters turned Picard into John McClane! But, fans didn’t seem to have a problem with that. Wider audiences did, ergo Insurrection, which brought the series back to the TV show. More thinking, moral choices, etc. But, the “fans” (like you) didn’t like that movie. Enter Nemesis, where they went back for more action. Critics, fans and wider audiences hated it. But, they looked at Star Wars (Prequels, mind you, since that was what they were up against in 2002 and 2005) and said, “hey, maybe there is something to this.” JJ Abrams comes along with boborci and Kurtzman (fresh off Transformers) and said “here’s a new script, going backwards. It worked for Bond, why not Star Trek.” The reboot has a lot going for it.

I don’t think you have really watched 09 or STID. You think that there aren’t many “cerebral” moments. I have both films, as well as a lot of the TV shows (fan collectives and captain’s log) and the movies. I don’t consider myself a “trekkie,” or whatever the “fans” decide to call themselves this week. I know Trek though. 09 and ID ARE Trek, in the truest sense of the word. How about in 09 where Spock is devastated over the loss of not only his world, but his mother. We see this as he is walking amongst the Enterprise and her crew, as he is talking out his monologue. Or how about Uhura, who loves Spock, devastated that he might die. Spock again eludes to his emotions, and how he doesn’t want them. This is repeated when Kirk dies in the engine room. It is a total reversal of this, as Khan was dead in TWoK. Kirk didn’t have time to really take it out on Khan. He had time to go after Klingons who kill his son in ST3: TSS, but STID had some real human moments. Especially with Spcok kicking the crap out of Khan and Uhura pleading with him to stop, as that is the only way to save Kirk, his friend. And at the end of ID, when Kirk is recovering, that is a very human moment (ruined perfectly by Bones, as per TOS). Bones was always doing that in TOS.

So again, where is the fight? How are they “butchering” Trek, when they took the best parts and mashed them up? I can’t see it. Oh, and you can’t be a “TNG fan” and only watch certain parts of the series. It doesn’t work. You have to take it all in to be a true fan. Just like Star Wars. I love all of the movies. But, I think that the Clone Wars (2008-2011?) series was a bit weak. I can overlook it, because it was made for children. But, the core films (all 6) I love. Even Episode 1.

297. Bill Peters - May 13, 2014

Oscar if I remember right the only reason Kirk went to talk to B-5 was cause Starfleet had order that the Big E be Destroyed and the crew that Remained on her be killed, Kirk only was able to talk B-5 down cause he had a bit of Humanity in it thanks to Richard Daystrom.

Also dlope67 I like the New Big E, I understand that for anyone but fans a Old mock up of the 60’s set wouldn’t work, at all, yea it would bring Nostalgia back for the fans but that would be about it, I love that they are going down roads we have never seen before in the Relationships both Friendships and Dating Relationships in these new Flims, this take is new and Fresh while also keeping true to who Kirk,Spock and McCoy are at there core.

298. Oscar - May 13, 2014

ENTERPRISE was a good tv series. Better than the horrible Andromeda (5 seasons), the mediocres SG 1 (10 seasons), SG ATLANTIS (5 seasons) , etc, etc…
Voyager is one of the best trek series: Seven of Nine , space exploration, dozens of new worlds and species, boldly go…back. The Doctor, Tuvok, my favourite Vulcan and, of course Seven of Nine…
293.
I can accept changes. I ‘m fan of Superman and I like very much Man of Steel. I ‘ m fan of the original Galactica, and I like Moore’ s Galáctica…
I can accept intelligent changes, because the final stuff is a high quality one.
In the new trek the changes are capricious and non intelligents ,aiming at the lowest common denominator in a summer blockbuster.
So, the final stuff is worse. A huge number of trek fans are angry because they (we) think the new trek is bad trek or anti trek, the changes are not the problem per se.

299. Disinvited - May 13, 2014

#283. Mike Barnett – May 13, 2014

You could argue that and it would be preferred that you were right, but the facts are that old Paramount (now CBS) gave licenses for Trek anniversaries to be “celebrated” in marketing far wide of that. For example, Creation Entertainment has already opened and closed last month THE OFFICIAL STAR TREK CONVENTION which they advertised as “This year’s convention also celebrates the 50th anniversary year of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry’s amazing legacy.”

300. Oscar - May 13, 2014

297.
I think you mean «the ultimate computer» episode
You should revisit «a taste of Armaggedon» and «the changeling».

301. Oscar - May 13, 2014

And « the return of the archons»

302. star trackie - May 13, 2014

Beginning to wonder if Oscar has ever watched TOS myself! No surprise he loves The Motion Picture, which was the beginning of Roddenberry’s trip to Boringville, disregarding all he, along with Gene Coon, DC Fontana, etc created, instead becoming fixated on his ridiculous utopic vision. Nice thoughts, but perfection makes for some seriously dull TV and movie watching!!
Oscar is a Next Gennie, and comes off as such with his clear ignorance of TOS. I mean, really? expectations of a Next Gennified movie from a film based on TOS? Unable to understand WHY TOS and TNG can never be the same? wowza

303. Disinvited - May 13, 2014

#296. CecilofRil – May 13, 2014

You need to rewatch ARENA. Kirk and the Gorn did exchange words. It’s the primary reason Kirk chose NOT to kill it when he had the upper hand. Kirk decided the Gorn’s beef could have been a legitimate one born of misunderstanding.

And as for AMOK TIME, Kirk was constantly trying to figure a way to “win” without killing his first officer even though it was clear Spock was not giving Kirk the same consideration.

304. LogicalLeopard - May 13, 2014

291. Marja – May 13, 2014

IF Vger had turned out to be something else … if we had not had to watch Vger reveal itself to Enterprise for endless decades of minutes, THEN it might have intrigued me more.

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

*LOL* HA! Endless decades of minutes! I have to use that……

305. CecilofRil - May 13, 2014

#303: Disinvited:

I don’t remember Kirk using “diplomacy” with Spock though. Yes, he didn’t kill the Gorn, but he DID beat it with his fists so that he would survive.

But, like Man of Steel, Kirk hasn’t yet just “killed” because. Superman didn’t want to kill Zod, but he had no choice. Kirk, of 09 and ID, has made certain choices based on his interpretation of Starfleet general orders. Spock, who has the books memorized, constantly reminds Kirk what is supposed to happen. Ergo, how is this NOT Trek in the minds of people like Oscar and Ahmed? I mean, it is all there. Even TNG had some “rule bending” episodes, but they were few and far between. Voy, because they were SOOOOOOOOOO freaking far from home, didn’t have to use the rules when it suited them. I liked this approach, especially with episodes like “The Omega Directive.” Because she was in the Delta Quadrant, not the Alpha, she was able to use the senior staff to help her. But, she invoked the Prime Directive more than once on the show to protect fragile planets. Even though it would have meant that they got home sooner if she had just thrown the book out. But, I digress.

Kirk could have used the Prime Directive in ID, and sacrificed his first officer and made an enemy of Lt. Uhura. I think that, in boborci’s mind, he did the right thing by having Kirk bring the Enterprise up from the ocean and save both Spock and the planet. It would be interesting (like the final words spoken by Kirk in Space Seed), to visit Nibiru in the future and see what the actions there wrought.

But, I still don’t see how 09 and ID are NOT Trek. I invite Oscar and Ahmed to comment and tell us. Exactly what do THEY think Trek is supposed to be? Because TOS, the rules were not in place as much as they were in TNG, DS9 and VOY. In fact, Enterprise was more about the Prime Directive even though they didn’t have the Federation yet. So, how is “nu Trek” not Trek?

306. CecilofRil - May 13, 2014

#303: Disinvited:

I don’t remember Kirk using “diplomacy” with Spock though. Yes, he didn’t kill the Gorn, but he DID beat it with his fists so that he would survive.

But, like Man of Steel, Kirk hasn’t yet just “killed” because. Superman didn’t want to kill Zod, but he had no choice. Kirk, of 09 and ID, has made certain choices based on his interpretation of Starfleet general orders. Spock, who has the books memorized, constantly reminds Kirk what is supposed to happen. Ergo, how is this NOT Trek in the minds of people like Oscar and Ahmed? I mean, it is all there. Even TNG had some “rule bending” episodes, but they were few and far between. Voy, because they were SOOOOOOOOOO freaking far from home, didn’t have to use the rules when it suited them. I liked this approach, especially with episodes like “The Omega Directive.” Because she was in the Delta Quadrant, not the Alpha, she was able to use the senior staff to help her. But, she invoked the Prime Directive more than once on the show to protect fragile planets. Even though it would have meant that they got home sooner if she had just thrown the book out. But, I digress.

Kirk could have used the Prime Directive in ID, and sacrificed his first officer and made an enemy of Lt. Uhura. I think that, in boborci’s mind, he did the right thing by having Kirk bring the Enterprise up from the ocean and save both Spock and the planet. It would be interesting (like the final words spoken by Kirk in Space Seed), to visit Nibiru in the future and see what the actions there wrought.

But, I still don’t see how 09 and ID are NOT Trek. I invite Oscar and Ahmed to comment and tell us. Exactly what do THEY think Trek is supposed to be? Because TOS, the rules were not in place as much as they were in TNG, DS9 and VOY. In fact, Enterprise was more about the Prime Directive even though they didn’t have the Federation yet. So, how is “nu Trek” not Trek?

307. Bill Peters - May 13, 2014

The New Trek works on Multiple Levels for both fans and non-fans. Have any of you watched DS9’s “In the Pale Moonlight?” Sisko IS nu-Kirk. Oscar, you worry about “the lowest common denominator.” But, for more movies to be made, it has to first make money. Insurrection works as a movie for us fans, but general audiences hated it because it was a 2 hour TV episode on the big screen. Everyone seems to have problems with Nemesis, but I loved it because it tied up the loose ends. Riker and Troi are together finally doing what they are supposed to be doing. What sucked was the marketing and execution and the fact that “cloning” Picard wasn’t a great idea. This was an attempt to have Picard have a “Wrath of Khan.” Not to mention the Picard we see in Nemesis is different than the Picard we see in Insurrection, who is different than the “scarred” Picard from First Contact who still has issues from the Borg. I mean time and space don’t lessen this whole thing. What, is he the Doctor all of the sudden? (I love Doctor Who, but I don’t see Picard being a Doctor)

Plot holes. You complain about plot holes. The temporal Prime Directive, which was mentioned in TNG once, a few times in DS9 and plays a heavy role in VOY’s plot to the point that in Relativity it is thrown out the window completely. Captain Braxton, Anyone? The guy meant to enforce the temporal Prime Directive tries to destroy Voyager and Janeway because she stranded him in the past, and he was supposed to have his memory wiped. There are some HUGE plot holes in that episode. Or how about in TNG Ship in a Bottle, when Reg Barclay is told to run a diagnostic on the Holodeck, but no one told him not to enter the protected memory where Moriarty is being held! Thus, a comedy of errors ensues. It’s a fun episode, but you think Data and Geordi would have told Barclay about this program that is in storage who gave them problems in the past. There are other Plot Holes. For instance, Guinan. How did Picard meet her, and come to trust her? In the first season, she is non-existent, but in the second season, she is the bartender! And, apparently, better counsel that Counselor Troi at this point. I actually like Guinan, but there is not a huge explanation of WHY she is on the Enterprise. Time’s Arrow kind of retroactively explains how Picard and Guinan met originally, but it doesn’t explain how they met before Season 2 and she got assigned to the Enterprise.

And the biggest Plot Hole in Trek that I can think of. It’s an entire Plot Hole of a movie. Star Trek V. First off, that movie has some good parts to it. Camping, anyone? But then we go from wonderful scenes to “James Kirk, we need you to go to a neutral planet, neutral to all 3 parties involved, the ambassadors have been kidnapped.” Kirk points out that the Enterprise is not up to the task , she hasn’t been properly fixed and shaken down, not to mention the fact that Starfleet has hundreds of vessels. Surely somebody else could do this. It gets worse from here. They get to the planet, Spock looks at the recording, knows the Vulcan but doesn’t explain how. They get to the planet and take a shuttlecraft down. Standard Procedure. But, we have to have Uhura do some *odd* stuff. They attempt to retake the planet, “fan dance” and all, and “keptin” Chekov. You have have superior numbers to take the planet, but still get overwhelmed by them! Not only that, they take your weapons away, force you back on your own shuttlecraft, force you to crash it into the shuttle bay, get out of the shuttlecraft and onto the bridge with no alarms going on, or security stopping them. After Sybok does the wierd “mind meld I’ll help you with your pain” thing, Spock Jim and Bones get thrown in jail. Kirk asks Spock why he didn’t shoot Sybok, you then find out that Sybok is Spock’s Half-brother. HUH!? After being broken out of prison, the master engineer cracks his head on a low hanging pipe, knocking him out. But once Spock, Kirk, and Bones finally make it back to the bridge, they decide to go along with the madman’s plan to “find God.” Stockholm Syndrome, anyone!? Not to mention that Spock, Kirk and McCoy sent a transmission that was intercepted by a Klingon ship who’s translator poses as a Starfleet Officer. So, as they set their merry way off to the Galactic Barrier, Chekov says something that is blatantly false, or at least Spock should know. “We’ve never crossed the Galactic Barrier.” WTF!? They did this in 4 episodes, 3 of them involving Chekov! Selective memory, anyone!? Far funnier is when they are in standard orbit, they are so mesmerized by the Arizona desert (Utah, New Mexico, down there somewhere) they ignore the warning on the screen behind them about the Klingon bird-of-prey. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Sybok travel by shuttlecraft to the surface, because the transporters are down. Haven’t worked since the beginning of the movie. They leave the other hostage takers on the bridge with the crew they have taken hostage. Problem here!? Funny, the only crew member who is doing work received a nasty bump on the head and he is trying to get the transporters to work. Meanwhile, Uhura is trying to get Scotty to come and look at the Arizona Desert. Somehow the camera follows them (via the viewscreen on the bridge) throughout the ENTIRE desert. Is this movie not ONE BIG plot hole? Ok, they meet God. What’s the first thing “God” asks for? A SHIP. Bringing one of the best Kirk lines out in all of Trek. It’s my favorite, and he has some good ones in ST6. “What does God need with a Starship?” Which promptly gets Kirk zapped. Clearly we are dealing with the OT God. When Kirk and Spock come around, they run for it while Sybok decides to “mind meld” with “God.” Freaky. And then Scotty gets the transporter working, but can only take two people. Kirk nobly suggests that he beam up Spock and Bones. Meanwhile, the Klingon bird of prey attacks right after Spock and Bones have returned to the ship, conveniently stranding Kirk on the planet with the Sybok-God creature. Spock then tells Koord, the Klingon Ambassador “Damn it, sir. You will try.” Then, the bird of prey comes down and kills the Sybok-God creature and turns it’s guns on Kirk. Kirk is beamed aboard the vessel to discover that Spock has, in fact, killed his brother (while refusing to do so earlier in the film). Making him a hypocrite in the process. Not only that, Kirk goes to hug Spock, where Spock comments “Sir, not in front of the Klingons.” How is it that a “hug” is taboo in Klingon culture? From here on out it goes back to being a normal Star Trek movie, where God might reside in the human heart, and ends with Bones, Spock and Kirk camping again, and Spock plays “Row, Row, Row your boat” on a Vulcan Lyre. It appears that this movie became TOS’s in the Pale Moonlight, where they decided to forget that it ever happened. Because in Star Trek 6, there are holes where things happened in V. For Example, someone comments on how they have never been this close to the Klingons. But, if you remember Trouble with Tribbles, Day of the Dove and the aforementioned STV, they have been on the same ship and in the same quarters with Klingons many times, as well as in ST3, where they took over a bird of prey with Klingons on it! Still, even as bad as STV is, it is still a Trek movie. I consider it a “so-so” movie, but it is still considered Trek in my book. That is why I can accept JJ’s Trek movies as they are. There are plot holes in every series of Trek, and the movies as well. For instance, Nemesis. Where did Wesley Crusher come from!? And when did he get promoted to Lieutenant? He’s wearing a uniform, and the insignia of a Lt. When he resigned, he was an ensign. I don’t think Picard would have given him that commission without him going back through Starfleet Academy again.

JJ’s Trek, as I have said before, is like the Star Trek TNG episode “Parallels.” This is a Starfleet that exists along the same lines as the Starfleet from the original series that we know and love. Things changed because of Nero. Nero moved from one parallel universe to the JJ parallel universe, which makes a lot more sense than Worf blacking out and jumping between universes when Geordi’s VISOR is near. Not to mention that when Capt. Riker receives the hail from the “prime universe” Picard, Worf is ON THE BRIDGE with them…Wait. How is that? He is supposed to be on the current version of the Enterprise we see him on. How can he be in two places at once. Because, according to Data, he has crossed the interdimensional threshold. Not to mention that he is back on the shuttlecraft in the end of the episode. And he has to explain what happened, and therefore the Worf/Troi romance started. But, this doesn’t affect All Good Things, nor Insurrection and Nemesis. Plot holes? Many. JJ’s Trek IS Trek, just not what you are used to.

308. Disinvited - May 13, 2014

# 306. CecilofRil – May 13, 2014

” I don’t remember Kirk using “diplomacy” with Spock though. Yes, he didn’t kill the Gorn, but he DID beat it with his fists so that he would survive. ” — CecilofRil

Sorry, but in ARENA the Kirk character specifically observed that if he had to take the Gorn on barehanded, i.e. using his fists, that he would lose this was the whole point of him having to use his head to make a cannon out of raw materials available to best it. And I don’t know what you’d call it when Kirk decided to NOT use the Gorn weapon to kill it and told the Metrons he didn’t want them to kill the Gorn, either, but it sure seemed as though he was indicating to the Metrons that he was planning to use diplomacy and NOT his fists to resolve the matter.

And in AMOK TIME, Kirk was not choosing to use his fists to resolve his friend’s “problem” but rather he chose to go on with it because he estimated that his friend would lose to the next likely combatant, Stonn, if he, Kirk, refused. That sure seems like a move employing some diplomacy to me.

By the way, this episode seems to foreshadow the Kobiyashi Maru as it was a no win scenario until McCoy came up with a way to cheat it.

309. Carl LaFong - May 13, 2014

Bob, if you read this just remember one thing from all of your enjoyment of Star Trek: It is not an action adventure series. It is much more than that.

Yes, action adventure is certainly an element, and Trek has had some rousing examples going back nearly 50 years, but it is a thinking, reasoning multi-layered ensemble piece that aspires to more than just thrills. Dessert is delicious, but I wouldn’t want to subsist on it – so it is okay to ratchet back a bit on the spectacle and go explore that whole amazing universe out there.

If you need inspiration, look to Patrick O’Brian and C. S. Forester and you’ll discover Star Trek all over again.

I wish you well, Mr. Orci, and hope you surprise everybody and knock it out of the park

310. Keachick (Rose) - May 13, 2014

#210 So you actually quote Glenn Greenberg in order to “prove” your assertions. Have you ACTUALLY read what this Greenberg said? Greenberg’s comments point more to his own misunderstandings, hang ups and prejudices more than anything about Shatner or Pine Kirks’ behaviour.

I quote Glenn Greenberg:
«Their (screenwriters’) handling of Kirk is particularly apalling. In short, he is an ASS. He is portrayed as a sleazy horndog who beds multiple alien women at the same time, and who seems to think his fist or a phaser pistol is the only solution.Shatner’ s Kirk was a ladies’ man, to be sure, but he was not a CREEP, ”

Sleazy horndog? We saw nu-Kirk with three women in all – one Orion, and two Caitians. What constitutes “multiple”? OK – let’s look at the TOS Shatner/Kirk – from the series/movies we know that James Kirk was involved with AT LEAST five women before he became captain – Ruth, Ariel Shaw, Janet Wallace, Janice Lester and of course Carol Marcus who had a son to him. The impression given is that he could also engage in dalliances which may or may not have lead him and her into the bedroom.

Is this nu-Kirk more “sleazy” because he is seen with these women in a sexually consenting situation and/or is it because none of these women were human and moreover white women? I wonder if this nu-Kirk would be so described by Greenberg and others, if he were shown to be the black Nyota Uhura’s sister (or could that incur ire as well?) or one of the white women who turn up on the bridge later on. Just musing here…

The other issue I have with such critiques is to do with what does Kirk apparently being more willing to wield a pistol (not true) have to do with who and how many women choose to engage with Kirk, as adults, in consensual sex? None – as far as I can see. How does this make this nu-Kirk a creep any more than prime Kirk being apparently sexually involved (certainly with Carol Marcus he was!) with these other women mentioned above make him less of a creep? Four of the women from the TOS series were as career-orientated as he was and appeared to have no trouble becoming someone else’s girlfriend/wife or other.

“Pine’ s Kirk is a bruiser, a reckless thickheaded know it all and a Real jerk when women are concerned.»

Pine’s Kirk is younger, more idealistic (wanting to save *Nibiru and Spock which meant violating aspects of the letter of the Prime Directive), not quite as experienced and no more of a “jerk” where women are concerned than Shatner’s Kirk.

TOS Shatner/Kirk took similar risks and the Enterprise crew knew it and why.

I don’t know what Glenn Greenberg and others have been watching but it certainly has not been the same Star Treks I have been watching since 1968!

311. Keachick (Rose) - May 13, 2014

edit: “…shown to be the black Nyota…” should read, “…shown to be WITH the black Nyota…”

312. star trackie - May 13, 2014

#308 “And in AMOK TIME, Kirk was not choosing to use his fists to resolve his friend’s “problem” but rather he chose to go on with it because he estimated that his friend would lose to the next likely combatant, Stonn, if he, Kirk, refused. That sure seems like a move employing some diplomacy to me.”

True, Kirk used diplomatic strategy, did it all the time. But that doesn’t negate what came from the horse’s mouth. Sick with the Organian’s attitudes, Kirk gave an impassioned speech where he says, from his lips to God’s ears- “I’m a soldier, not a diplomat.”
Regardless of what anyone may interpret him to be, in HIS mind, in KIRK’S mind, in TOS, on TV, on the show we call Star Trek, Kirk is a soldier. Often a very reluctant one, but one nonetheless. Ambassador FOX he is NOT! lol

313. Disinvited - May 13, 2014

#312. star trackie – May 13, 2014

Curious that on the one hand Kirk had utmost respect for Ambassador Sarek, but on the other, almost diametrically opposite for Ambassador Fox.

314. B Kramer - May 13, 2014

ET ST2 WOK behind the scenes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpOAdrezna0

315. Keachick (Rose) - May 13, 2014

What one dimensional thinking! Seriously, so dumb.

Kirk could be many things, as can the rest of us. He could be a soldier, a diplomat, a lover, a father (if only he was given the chance) and a friend, a person capable of giving first aid, and even delivering a baby (part of his Starfleet training)…

316. Disinvited - May 13, 2014

#312. star trackie – May 13, 2014

“I’m a soldier, not a diplomat.”

That quote seems significant taken out of context but within the story Kirk makes that declaration AFTER Starfleet has notified him that they are at War with the Klingon Empire which activates the military “soldier” function of this otherwise dedicated explorer. War, having been declared, Kirk was not on Organia in any other capacity that could befall his service than that of a soldier.

317. Cygnus-X1 - May 13, 2014

291. Marja – May 13, 2014

270 Cygnus, the operative word in your phrase “…that foreign audiences might come out for…” is MIGHT. Paramount is not looking for art. They are looking for guaranteed profits.

I know, and I criticize Paramount for that. I said “might” because I’m speaking about possibilities that were never explored. One would have to explore them in order to get an idea of their financial viability.

318. Cygnus-X1 - May 13, 2014

293. Bill Peters – May 13, 2014

Cygnus-X1 fears it will become a slasher flick

No.

That was an analogy for the purpose of illustrating a point which you seem to have missed entirely.

319. Cygnus-X1 - May 13, 2014

296. CecilofRil – May 13, 2014

Cygnus-X1 You think that because audiences (wider audiences) want more action, that it “automatically isn’t Trek” anymore? Did you even WATCH the Berman productions? You said you did, but I highly doubt it. First Contact, (widely regarded as the “best” among fans) had LOTS of action.

FC had no shortage of action, but it also had no shortage of dramatic scenes and story development. I’m not saying that FC was a great movie or should be regarded as a paradigm, but it had a much better balance of action/drama than the BR movies. And Insurrection was less action-oriented than FC. So, you’re just mistaken on this point.

320. RaymondJ - May 13, 2014

Bob, if I may be so bold: if you DO get a chance to direct, could you at least incorporate into the movie a couple of suggestions?

1) Get back some of the old Jerry Goldsmith or even TOS music into the mix. Michael Giacono (sp?) may be adequate, but his complete refusal to use any of Trek’s past musical cues in the past two movies smacks of arrogance. Just like the new Star Wars film is planning on a return to John Williams and familiar music, so should Star Trek follow the same route.

2) PLEASE give us a NEW story. No more Khan or poorly written villians from the past.

3) Bring back Nurse Chapel, Kyle, and some other Trek recurring characters. Wouldn’t it make for good drama if both Chapel and Uhura were pursuing Spock?

4) Because this is the one shot at the 50th anniversary, go a different route. Try to incorporate some TOS original characters: Shatner, Takei, Koenig, while they are still with us. Also: some Next Gen? Maybe Stewart, Frakes, et al. I’m sure there are plenty of story ideas where this can be done, anywhere from different universes merging together, to you-name-it. Let’s really have a 50th year movie that’s classic and grand.

5) Throw in some of the original bridge sound effects.

6) Redesign the bridge so it at least looks a little more familiar. Same with the engine room.

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. Remember, Star Trek has been around for a long, long time. Reward some of us that have been with it through the beginning with a well-told original story that pays homage to what came before. Don’t be afraid to talk with past writers, directors, actors and fans to get an overall feel of where this film should/could go.

321. Keachick (Rose) - May 13, 2014

The nu-bridge looks like a brightened up version (sparkling even) of the bridge on the Enterprise series and the ENT bridge was dull and drab, like the blue overalls they wore. I much prefer the TOS TV bridge and uniforms.

What’s wrong with a bit of colour? Do they not have any paint that can receive a colour tint, other than grey or white, in the 23rd century?

I like the uniforms in nu-Trek that are worn on the ship that are based on TOS. I see that the men’s pant style has been improved. Are they wearing something more akin to a stretch blue/black denim? I like – much better! These new uniforms are keepers! I could see the women wearing similar style pants as an alternative/option to the skirt.

The problem with bringing in characters from the other series is that many people will start complaining about how Nurse Chapel or Kyle or Yeoman Rand… is not like their counterparts and the ghastly, continual gnashing of teeth and other *stuff* will be poured out on these characters, as has been the case with nu-Kirk especially, but also upon nu-Spock, nu-Uhura, nu-Scotty…I did, just now, sigh, just thinking about it…grief…:(

What to do?

322. Mike Barnett - May 13, 2014

Bob Orci got the gig, according to Variety

323. Mike Barnett - May 13, 2014

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/roberto-orci-to-direct-star-trek-3-1201180140/

324. Curious Cadet - May 13, 2014

307. Bill Peters,

You write a wasted diatribe about TOS & TNG plot holes.

What happened in the past does not justify perpetuating the problem in the future. If that were true we’d still have movies with blackface actors. GALAXY QUEST was a movie that glorified the plot holes, and hazy story points of Trek, that’s not what I want from new Trek however.

Excusing the obvious story problems in STID, because Trek has always been inconsistent, does nothing to help make your argument, and in fact does us all a disservice.

325. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 13, 2014

It may be true, but it’s still only ‘sources have told…’ in that article… I’d like to see an official announcement.

326. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 13, 2014

314. B Kramer

Oh, the happy days of Trek yore.

Thanks so much for that ET link, B. : )

327. Mike Barnett - May 13, 2014

Maybe Anthony Pascale will check back in now that Bob got the job.

328. Trekbilly - May 13, 2014

WAY TO GO BOB!!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

329. Trekbilly - May 13, 2014

Anthony who? LOL!!!

330. Mike Barnett - May 13, 2014

329. Trekbilly
He’s the owner of this website but he hasn’t been on it since last year.

331. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 13, 2014

Yes! Bob O.

I envy your position greatly. Congratulations indeed!

I wish a steady creative wind be at your back through all your future endeavors. Congratulations, once again!

332. CecilofRil - May 13, 2014

308: Disinvited:

Umm…refusing to use your fists doesn’t constitute diplomacy. It constitutes morality, as in you don’t want to murder someone. I have pointed this out before, like in Man of Steel, where Superman has no other choice but to kill Zod or let innocent Metropolans die. Ergo, Kirk not wanting to kill the Gorn is not the same thing as sitting at a table talking with a Gorn Ambassador.

Same with Amok Time. He wasn’t talking with Spock, he was trying to figure out how NOT to kill Spock. Even Bones mentions (during the fight) that Kirk may have no alternative but to kill Spock. Before administering the Triox knockout, this is what Kirk is trying to do. Then, Spock attempts to strangle Kirk, apparently killing him.

The point I am trying to make is the version of “diplomacy” that people have is wrong, and it isn’t what they think it is. Besides, on Organia, Kirk TRIES diplomacy with the Organians, but they refuse to listen. Ergo, after the “war” breaks out, they attempt to shut down operations of the Klingons. That isn’t very diplomatic.

Besides, what universe are you looking at? Bones didn’t come up with the cheat for the Kobiashi Maru….That was Kirk. Both in Prime Universe and in the “JJ Verse.”

318. Cygnus-X1

“FC had no shortage of action, but it also had no shortage of dramatic scenes and story development. I’m not saying that FC was a great movie or should be regarded as a paradigm, but it had a much better balance of action/drama than the BR movies. And Insurrection was less action-oriented than FC. So, you’re just mistaken on this point.”

Ummm…what movies were you watching? The movie I have that is labelled “first contact” has few dramatic scenes. One scene that comes to mind is the scene where Picard and Lily engage in conversation where Picard wants to kill every Borg on his ship. Is that the “dramatic scenes” you are referring to? There were some suspenseful scenes, but that is not “dramatic.” There is huge difference. The story was there, but as stated above (that you obviously didn’t read if you are fixating on this one point) the Picard there is “scarred” version. Different than Insurrection, where Picard is much more subdued. As for action, Insurrection doesn’t have many action scenes. There are the scenes in the village, plus the ones in the hills, but they are brief compared to the scenes in First Contact. That is my point. besides, you still haven’t answered my question: What is it about the BR Treks that you find “bad?”

333. Jonboc - May 13, 2014

Hot Damn!! Star Trek is STILL in good hands!! Congrats Bob Orci!! This news made my day!! Keep it imaginative, keep it smart and follow your instincts ( not the back-seat drivers on the Internet lol)…and most of all, have fun!!

334. Marja - May 13, 2014

320 Raymond J, CHRIST NO, no “romance battles” over Spock. How tired, how trashy. Can’t the poor guy just keep the committed relationship with the dynamic Uhura? The same woman he’s been with since the first movie? If Chapel’s to be paired up, please god, let her be with someone who appreciates her as much as she, him. That “unrequited love” crap in TOS turned me off in the 1960s, at age 11, and forever made Chapel a “lame” character in my young mind.

However, I am with you on bringing in Rand, Kyle, Giotto, DeSalle, et. al. Who knows, maybe that cute young blonde lady on the bridge in STiD is Rand!

As for Mr Goldsmith’s music, seeing as how his theme was used for seven years of Next Gen, I don’t see the omission of it as disrespectful of Giacchino. MG has already incorporated the TOS theme in the end titles of both movies. Since NuTrek is a tribute to TOS, it doesn’t really make sense to go into the movie soundtracks of past Trek.

321, Rose, they’ll just have to get over it! ;-)

With you on the uniforms, except the womens’ minidresses. I’d at least like to see some black stockings with them. And some RANK INSIGNIA. SMDH.

327, Mike, I’ll be interested to see if that happens! I’m like Trekbilly, “Anthony WHO??” Seeing as how he’s been AWOL all this time ….

335. Mike Barnett - May 13, 2014

FYI, Brian Drew put a new article on Trekmovie about Bob’s gig.

336. Marja - May 13, 2014

320 Raymond J, I hate to give you a hard time, and I am not sure you’ve been on this site much, but really, “Reward some of us that have been with it through the beginning with a well-told original story that pays homage to what came before” … em, I’m sure they tried to do that twice now. And some of those who’ve “been with it through the beginning” have done nothing but b*tch & moan about the two efforts so far.

“Don’t be afraid to talk with past writers, directors, actors and fans to get an overall feel of where this film should/could go.” Really, gosh, ya think so? Since Bob Orci is a long-time fan, I think he’s absorbed a fair amount of Trek lore. He checks in here, so he’s got the pulse of some of the fans, and he probably checks other Trek discussion sites also.

While I’d love for him or the new young writers to have some long talks with DC Fontana, et. al., I won’t be so bold as to suggest it. As for “paying homage,” I say you mustn’t have been around here much, because some positively lamentable suggestions have been made for such.

I’m crossing my fingers that the movie will be good Trek, sci-fi with soul, fun, and a bit of romance, and most certainly lots of food for thought, as the best Trek has always been.

337. Jeyl - May 13, 2014

@198: “Bob knows Star Trek better than anyone I know.”

It may not be relevant anymore but as a Star Trek fan, I can tell you that the original Khan was not some war criminal who wanted to commit acts of genocide on those he deemed “less than superior”. Now you’re probably thinking “But Jeyl, this is a different Star Trek universe where Khan can be a completely different person!”. Well, yes. That would seem to be the case, until Spock Prime shows up. Everything that Spock Primes says regarding Khan’s character is not only disingenuous, it’s downright wrong. While the original Khan was not above killing people, he was not the kind of villain who, as Prime Spock said “would not hesitate to kill every last one of you”. When he sets out to kill Kirk in TWOK, he does something that’s worse than hesitate when he has the perfect opportunity to destroy the Enterprise. He stops his attack to gloat at Kirk. Even during his final moments, he actually stops a couple of times while activating the Genesis device to relish in his supposed victory.

Again, if this universe tried to establish that this Khan was different than the original Khan, I’d be ok with that. But that isn’t what we get here as the film not only changes how Khan works in this universe, it also tries to say that this was the ‘original’ Khan’s motivation as well. How do you justify NuSpock’s line about Khan wanting to commit genocide on those he deems less than superior when we’re told in “Space Seed” that his four year reign on Earth was anything but?

I think someone who knows a lot about Star Trek, especially a writer who lifts a lot of moments from it’s most popular film, would know that there’s more to the character of Khan than being just another revenge seeking bad guy who wants to destroy humanity.

This is why I’m not enthusiastic about Roebrto Orci directing the third movie. He may know a lot about Star Trek, but his work on the franchise shows that he’s way too eager to dumb it down. Listening to his commentary tracks and reading his comments on this website, I feel that the only reason he wants to make this movie is to impress JJ Abrams. Not the fans, not the audience, but his friends. And we are certainly not his friends.

338. Keachick (Rose) - May 13, 2014

It could be that the third movie’s budget is smaller, but I am guessing that it will be $100million minimum because that’s how much it costs to make a good sci-fi film now. There are those who think that this may actually be a good thing for Star Trek. Yes, it could be. We’ll know soon enough…

I would like to see a film with a good story, dramatic and adventurous, where war, or threat of, is not what engages our characters but something environmental that causes some to be lost, as in can’t find, meeting an alien race (who are not wearing helmets and body armour or white clay/paint), alien plant life and unusual animals (but not like those that came from the deranged, sick and psychotic mind of William Bell of Fringe).

I know – Let’s see a child float down river on their little nuli boat…

339. Bill Peters - May 13, 2014

Your complaints do the movies (even New Trek) a disservice because you want Trek one way. You can’t use the old formulas and expect new audiences. The old formulas don’t work, as evidenced by Nemesis and Enterprise. Yes, Enterprise is popular, but only with die hard fans. If you want to have new fans of Trek, new TV shows and new movies, you need to change your thinking, and give the audience what they want. Case in point, the two highest grossing Trek films of the movie series. If you don’t like new ways of thinking, how are you ever going to get new people to like Trek? You can keep to the spirit of Trek, but without using the “letter of the law” as I have said before. What do you fear about new Trek? What harms Trek at the box office, besides what you don’t like about New Trek? How does it make it soulless when you use the spirit of Trek to guide the new universe?

340. CecilofRil - May 13, 2014

337. Jeyl

I don’t know what TOS show you are watching, but as for me, Space Seed shows Khan as a ruthless killer who wants control of the Enterprise so he can “continue his mission.” In WoK, he is taking revenge on Kirk because of what happened after the events of Space Seed. Which includes killing Kirk’s crew. Before Kirk struck the deal where Kirk takes advantage of his(Kahn’s) lapse in judgement. It is a common villain flaw. Gloat when they should just pull the trigger. But, that is what the JJ Verse’s Khan actually does. He beats down Kirk, Scott and Carol while taking over the Dreadnaught and firing on the Enterprise. It shows the clear lack of respect for life that you obviously missed.

In Space Seed, Kahn tries to kill Kirk in the decompression chamber. Kirk is only saved by the woman that Kahn takes as his wife when the episode ends. Kirk decides to spare Kahn, because the Federation doesn’t believe in the death penalty, unless you have committed treason.

I don’t see where you are getting your logic about ID. That Kahn is almost a perfect parrot of the Prime Universe Kahn. I think you might need to go rewatch Space Seed, TWoK, and Into Darkness. Spock Prime is right to say that Kahn is “the most dangerous adversary the Enterprise ever faced.” When asked if he (and the other universe’s crew) defeated Kahn, Spock Prime says “yes, at great cost.” Because Spock sacrificed himself to save the Enterprise crew before the Genesis device exploded. So, how are his words “disingenuous?” Please, explain that to me.

341. Keachick (Rose) - May 13, 2014

I agree with you, Marja. I do not want to see Christine Chapel going after Spock. It would look especially bad since, in this universe, she would know that Spock and Uhura are already an item. The writers need to keep this S/U relationship nice and simple (no third parties) where the couple keep ticking along with enough respect, love and maturity to allow the relationship to be happy, whilst applying themselves fully to their work when it is time to be on duty.

I would like to see the same for “my captain” – that Jim form a nice relationship with Carol or other (no third parties). Why not?

This would be original for Star Trek – of a very good kind!!!

#337 – Khan, in either universe, was quite happy about killing one or lots if they got in his way. In Space Seed he was seen by many as a benevolent dictator and he could be fine, even gracious, so long as you did not resist or challenge him.

I agree that prime Spock’s description of the Khan he knew was a bit over-the-top, but then it was the actions of this Khan which leads to prime Spock’s death – thank goodness for the Genesis Effect – and they say that Red Matter makes no sense, is silly…yikes…seriously? Actually, there is more likely to be a substance more like red matter than what brought about the Genesis effect.

342. Shilliam Watner - May 13, 2014

I am not an apologist for Star Trek, though I am a huge Star Trek fan. But at least 75% of all Star Trek has been average to bad. 25% of it has been good to great. For me.

Same with the movies. ST09 made it to second base, STID only got to first. For me. So they need to hit it out of the ballpark this time. In my opinion. I’m afraid, however, that I lack faith. I would love to be wrong.

I wish you all the best.

343. Curious Cadet - May 13, 2014

@283. Mike Barnett,
“If ST3 doesn’t come out until the summer of 2017 then it’s still within the 50th year”

And you REALLY think that’s acceptable? Waiting four years between movies did no favors to the franchise. It’s the worst possible thing they do for the next one.

Nobody gives a crap about the 50th anniversary. They don’t need get a movie out by Summer 2016 because of the 50th Anniversary, they need to get it out because people will lose interest and forget about Trek.

Why do you think Disney’s going to crank out a new Star Wars film every year, just like Marvel with its various franchises? Why is the resurrected next Star Wars film going hit theaters in 2015 when Abrams was announced as director only 3 years before? Why not take their time and get it right like they did with STID?

They should have jumped into action the week after STID opened, and put a target date of Summer 2015 on it, and gone right into focusing all their energies on the next film. But they didn’t, and now you’re talking about it being acceptable to you to deliver the film a year later, because technically the Anniversary year is still in effect!

344. Disinvited - May 13, 2014

Good luck and Godspeed, Bob.

345. Cygnus-X1 - May 13, 2014

332. CecilofRil – May 13, 2014

What is it about the BR Treks that you find “bad?”

Shallow, superficially-developed themes (the gesture of a theme, at best); excessively action-oriented; plot holes; bad science; poorly written/motivated characters, especially villains; over-dependence upon bad science/technology as deus ex machina devices; Kirk and Spock re-written as annoying, one-dimensional caricatures of their TOS counterparts—Spock is now an emotional wreck in every movie, and Kirk is a know-it-all who never learns any lessons and has no real character arc.

346. CecilofRil - May 14, 2014

345. Cygnus-X1

“Shallow, superficially-developed themes (the gesture of a theme, at best); excessively action-oriented; plot holes; bad science; poorly written/motivated characters, especially villains; over-dependence upon bad science/technology as deus ex machina devices; Kirk and Spock re-written as annoying, one-dimensional caricatures of their TOS counterparts—Spock is now an emotional wreck in every movie, and Kirk is a know-it-all who never learns any lessons and has no real character arc.”

What “themes” did you want in a Star Trek movie…most of them have been done to death already. I found the theme of revenge by a slighted Romulan trying to get back at Spock refreshing. But, that is just me. Also, the take on Kahn was pretty good. No more “trying to kill Kirk just for the heck of it.” Don’t get me wrong, WoK is a great film. Just left something to be desired as he is trying to get Kirk. Once he got Genesis, he could have done anything. Instead, he had to kill Kirk. Too predictable. This universe’s Kahn, WAAAAAAAAY more unpredictable. Liked Spock’s answer. Kill the vessel without killing the crew, but make Kahn think you did.

Plot holes. I think Bill Peters and I covered this one pretty well in his post above. But, I think you don’t get that there are MANY plot holes in all of Trek. I will leave this one alone. As for “science,” what are you talking about? This is “science fiction,” not science. I would like to know what you mean by that. Since you find yourself incapable of actually answering beyond a few words…

Again, what was “poorly motivated” about a guy who wants revenge? Isn’t that what I just stated about Kahn in WoK? How about Insurrection? That guy just wanted to keep the planet for himself, and kill every living soul down there. I guess you don’t know what you want in your villain. Maybe you should elaborate what you want. Because we can’t see it.

Since when did a “technological” device NOT serve as a “deus ex machina” in Star Trek…? I seem to remember MANY of the gadgets (or the engineer’s sudden knowledge of devices) as “plot devices.” You will have to do better than that. Besides, didn’t Spock sacrifice himself to save the Enterprise moments before the Genesis device went off in WoK? I seem to remember something about that in STID…

About Kirk and Spock…I think that you just hate these movies too much to actually see how much is written of their characters. Sure, Kirk getting promoted from Cadet to First Officer to Captain in the span of one movie is a BIT far-fetched, but did you ever actually WATCH TOS? The show is RIFE with what you call “one dimensional behavior.” Heck, look at the KLINGONS! They are truly one-dimensional villains! And what about the “bridge laughing scenes” at the end of the second and third seasons? REALLY!? I think you need to watch more Trek before making these assumptions about characters you know nothing about.

Again, with Kirk and Spock. Spock lost his homeworld and his mother. You wouldn’t be able to keep your “logical state” in that condition. It is a by-product of being half-human/vulcan. You can’t see that, because you think that Spock is, i don’t know, an “angel?” I don’t know how you see him. In TOS, he is CONSTANTLY struggling with it. Even in 09, Spock Prime comments on this! And Kirk…when was he NOT a “know-it-all” who “never learned any lessons?” I mean, all through the movies he hates the Klingons. Even in Star Trek IV, after making amends with characters on a bird of prey in V, he wants to “let them die.” Why wouldn’t he be a gung-ho, reckless human in 09 when his mother hasn’t really raised him (and by extension, his brother). He sees Admiral Pike as his “surrogate father,” and after Kahn/Harrison kills Pike, he wants to kill Kahn, but decides to have him stand trial. I don’t see that as “indiscriminate.” I see that as restraint.

I don’t see you points, if you could call them that. I think you really just don’t know what “Trek” truly is, and are lashing out because 09 and ID destroyed your illusions about Trek, whatever they were. Maybe you need to rewatch TOS, 09 and STID. You might find that they have more in common than you think.

347. CecilofRil - May 14, 2014

Cygnus-X1

See post #307 for the “plot holes.” Bill and I explored that already.

348. LogicalLeopard - May 14, 2014

291. Marja – May 13, 2014

279 Logical, I find it hard to believe there are Trekfans who didn’t check into TNG after the first two rather stinky seasons, just to see if it had improved.

Because it had improved. VASTLY.

***********

True. I think the reception of different shows has a lot to do with what you grow up with, though. When I was a little kid, I watched reruns of TOS and loved it. TNG came out when I was nine, I think, and I was excited. So, watching it all the way through to teenhood, I don’t really ever remember thinking much about it was bad. There was a noticeable contrast from the early seasons and the later seasons, of course, but I never thought any of it was bad. I loved DS9 too. Now by the time that Voyager rolled around, I thought it was horrible. Then I tuned in during the later seasons, and thought it was decent. The 7 of 9 character had a big influence on that. And no, not her looks. I just think that Seven is one of the best “outsider” characters since Spock. By outsider characters, I mean Spock, Odo, Tuvok, Data….people who are not human (or human-like aliens) that are usually called at one time or another to embrace their humanity. But just recently, I started watching the first two seasons, and I think they’re pretty good.

349. Phil - May 14, 2014

@345. Yep. Because as we all know, all the Trek that came before Bad Robot were deep, thought provoking artsy-fartsy masterpieces that will be studied as the golden age of sci-fi in film schools for generations to come.

Sorry, but you are spilling a ton of digital ink here, and saying very little, other then bitching to high heaven how much you hate this version of Trek, and questioning the intelligence of anyone who feels otherwise. You’ve made your point…maybe it’s just time to move on.

350. Mike Barnett - May 14, 2014

343. Curious Cadet – May 13, 2014

“And you REALLY think that’s acceptable? Waiting four years between movies did no favors to the franchise. It’s the worst possible thing they do for the next one.”

I don’t think I said it was acceptable…just saying that the film can be released in that time period and technically tagged as a 50th anniversary film.
I want Trek movies every 2 years at most. I also want an animated and live-action Trek series on TV. Can’t get enough of it! I think Bob has a master plan that brings us more Trek but he probably can’t discuss that right now.

351. Cygnus-X1 - May 14, 2014

346. CecilofRil – May 14, 2014

I would like to know what you mean by that. Since you find yourself incapable of actually answering beyond a few words…

I really don’t think that you do.

Anyone who’s been coming here for the past year has seen me drone on about those points in abundant detail, citing many specific examples and in no shortage of words.

I think you really just don’t know what “Trek” truly is, and are lashing out because 09 and ID destroyed your illusions about Trek, whatever they were.

And I think that your comments are moronic and not worth my time.

If you had the appearance of being a fair-minded person, I might bother reiterating all of my arguments for your benefit. But, you don’t. And, as you’ve already concluded that I don’t understand “the truth” of Trek, I’m left with the impression that you’re not really interested in understanding my point of view about it. But, I’m happy to agree to disagree, to live and let live.

352. CecilofRil - May 14, 2014

“I would like to know what you mean by that. Since you find yourself incapable of actually answering beyond a few words…

I really don’t think that you do.

Anyone who’s been coming here for the past year has seen me drone on about those points in abundant detail, citing many specific examples and in no shortage of words.

I think you really just don’t know what “Trek” truly is, and are lashing out because 09 and ID destroyed your illusions about Trek, whatever they were.

And I think that your comments are moronic and not worth my time.

If you had the appearance of being a fair-minded person, I might bother reiterating all of my arguments for your benefit. But, you don’t. And, as you’ve already concluded that I don’t understand “the truth” of Trek, I’m left with the impression that you’re not really interested in understanding my point of view about it. But, I’m happy to agree to disagree, to live and let live.”

Apparently, you believe yourself “above everyone else.” Since I don’t read every post you have written, and just joined this argument recently, I thought you would go ahead and tell me your view. But, since you have (obviously) chosen to “snub me,” I guess it is true what they say about “trekkies” (or whatever you are choosing to call yourself now). I was hoping to have a civil discussion, but now you resort to these tactics.

Trek isn’t your “personal playground.” It is open to anyone wishing to watch it. Just because you don’t believe that, doesn’t make you a “fan.” It actually makes you arrogant, as your comment about “moronic and not worth your time.”

By the way, had you bothered to actually read my entire post, I pointed out that your “argument” about BR Trek is wrong, because Trek is rife with the same problems you pointed out in your post. I pointed this out. Since you decided to ignore my post, and just use a part of it, I see this as childish behavior. Typical of someone who doesn’t know what they truly wanted from Trek, just lashing out because they don’t know what they wanted in the movies so far.

I guess we will “live and let live.” But, I would prefer it if you didn’t do it so arrogantly.

353. Phil - May 14, 2014

@351. Drone on sums it up nicely. I’m sure you’ll get to your point someday. Thank you.

354. Cygnus-X1 - May 14, 2014

352. CecilofRil – May 14, 2014

OK.

355. Cygnus-X1 - May 14, 2014

353. Phil – May 14, 2014

Thank you.

And you’re welcome.

356. B Kramer - May 14, 2014

326 Glad you enjoyed it TMMW. -Best.

357. Cygnus-X1 - May 14, 2014

314. B Kramer – May 13, 2014

ET ST2 WOK behind the scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpOAdrezna0

Thanks for that link.

Listening to Nick Meyer there succinctly and accurately explain what Star Trek has always been about—its essential artistic form—is really the best illustration (by way of contrast) of why people feel that Bad Robot has done Trek wrong. In one sentence Meyer sums up the entire premise and purpose of Trek. In the next sentence he sums up his vision for his movie (TWOK) and its aim. Comparing that clip of Meyer with past statements by Abrams or Orci talking about their BR Trek movies serves as an unmistakable, crystal clear illustration of the fundamental differences in artistic approach between the two sets of filmmakers and shows you why Meyer’s movie was so much better (and so much more Trek-like) than the BR movies have been. Meyer set out to make a Trek movie. BR set out to make a very different kind of movie which exploited the names, likenesses and backstories of Trek but parted ways with the fundamental art form of Trek, that of Meyer’s description.

Also interesting to note that Meyer’s original title was “Star Trek II: The Undiscovered Country.”

358. Cygnus-X1 - May 14, 2014

And, to amplify that all a bit, we can compare JJ’s vision for ST09 with Meyer’s vision for TWOK.

JJ’s statements regarding his vision for ST09 were all about changing it. Trek wasn’t emotional enough. It was too cerebral. He didn’t get it. He wanted to change it to give it more mainstream appeal. And then there was the directive from Paramount to make it more action-oriented for the foreign market. Bad Robot set out to make their movie by changing the most fundamental characteristics of the Trek art form.

Nick Meyer, by contrast, had a clear grasp of the Trek art form and set out to make a movie that would be faithful to that form. Meyer had a clear vision of what purpose his movie would serve, not just what marks he wanted it to hit in its finished form. Meyer’s purpose was actually substantially artistic.

The BR Trek movies don’t appear to have any artistic purpose or goals. Their goals all have to do with the end product: get more foreign market revenue by making the movie more action-oriented; get more domestic revenue by making the movie more emotional (tear-jerking for the women, as JJ described his wife’s reaction—he knew he’d succeeded when his wife cried during the George Kirk death scene at the beginning of ST09); get more domestic revenue by making the movie more mainstream, i.e. less “cerebral,” and replacing thoughtful themes like, The greater good vs. the value of the individual and The perilous hubris of scientific knowledge and technological progress with action sequences, cheap appeals to our emotional proclivities and the gestures of themes which are never developed and ultimately have no real meaning within the context of the story.

Nick Meyer set out to make a Trek movie that would ultimately be sold as a product. Bad Robot set out to make a certain product that would ultimately be sold as a Trek movie.

359. Cygnus-X1 - May 15, 2014

352. CecilofRil – May 14, 2014

If discussion is really your goal, I’d suggest that you don’t start by stating that the other person doesn’t understand “THE TRUTH” of the entire field of subject matter. That doesn’t leave much room for discussion. Especially when said subject matter is Star Trek and you’re trying to have said discussion at a Star Trek fan site.

I’d also suggest not criticizing the other person when they don’t answer a year’s worth of issues in one post. We could spend two weeks on plot holes alone (and have done in the past here). And if discussion is what you’re after, you shouldn’t declare the areas of the discussion closed (such as the topic of plot holes) simply because you and Bill Peters (or whomever) have already said a few things about it.

You complain about disliking arrogance, but I would suggest that you consider the above and how arrogant your own comments come across. I’m generally an amiable person happy to talk Trek with anyone who’s not overly unpleasant. I’m even happy to exchange comments with Phil, as prickly as he can sometimes be. But, beginning the discussion on the premise that the other person “doesn’t understand what Trek truly is” is generally a nonstarter.

So, let it not be said that Trekkies/ers are a generally snobby, arrogant lot. We’re not any snobbier than any other group of opinionated people who consider themselves somewhat knowledgeable about their area of interest. And like any other group, many of us are probably not receptive to a new-comer announcing that we don’t know “THE TRUTH” of what Trek is really all about and making baseless assumptions about individuals’ personal motivations for not liking the BR Trek movies or anything else.

360. CecilofRil - May 15, 2014

Cygnus-X1

That isn’t what I said. I believe that my exact words were “illusions” of Trek. You have this “vision” in your head of what Trek should be, not what it actually is. That isn’t “truth,” it is what you perceive Trek to be. You were the one who construed it that way. Arrogantly, I might add.

Umm, and how am I basing Trek on “assumptions,” when I am pointing out the same flaws in the Main Series Treks that have the same glaring contradictions and plot holes? How is that “assuming” anything other than you just don’t want to like the BR Treks? That is my (and Phil’s, and Bill’s) points! You can’t call yourself a “trekkie” (or whatever they are calling themselves this week) and only like certain parts of Trek. You have to take it as a whole. Just like Star Wars. I have made this point before.

And, since you have clearly not valued my opinion, then I guess I shouldn’t value the opinion of someone so close-minded they can’t see what Trek truly is. The vision of Trek hasn’t changed, even if the movies have a bit more action in them. That has been my point all along as well.

About the plot holes debate…how in the heck have we declared it “dead?” We merely pointed out that your “argument” about plot holes is moot, since you don’t want to see that other movies and shows have larger plot holes than 09 or ID…I never “declared” it “dead.” Bill and I were merely pointing out that when you say “glaring plot holes” you have forgotten about 45% of Trek altogether. He posted up about STV, because that movie is one large plot hole. I still love it, but yes, it does have major plot holes.

And Nick Meyer isn’t the “saint” you think he is. STVI isn’t the “best Trek movie” either. TWoK also has major plot holes, the most glaring one being: WHERE DOES KAHN KNOW CHEKOV FROM!?!?!?! He wasn’t in the 1st season. And yes, I have heard Trekkies (or whatever they are calling themselves this week) say that maybe Chekov was on another part of the ship. Perhaps engineering. It makes sense, since he is a Chief Engineer for part of ID. But, it wouldn’t make sense for Kahn to know his identity, since he was never part of the bridge crew until the 2nd season. Even in “Trouble with Tribbles,” Chekov is being indoctrinated onto the ship as an ensign. So, where was he the first season? Plot hole. I could go on, but I think you should have gotten the point by now. I guess since I haven’t seen many of your posts, besides some ranting that Orci doesn’t know what Trek is and how great of a show TNG (outside of the first season) is, I haven’t really seen much showing how 09 and ID are that bad compared to the rest of Trek.

361. Phil - May 15, 2014

Or, to sum it up, there aren’t any more plot, character, or quality issues in BR Trek then in any of the previous Trek movies. If that’s the entire basis of protesting BR Trek, then it’s a weak argument, at best…or a strawman for some other, unspoken complaint. I have my suspicions, but another pointless fan film debate is for another day….

362. Shilliam Watner - May 15, 2014

360. CecilofRil and 359. Cygnus-X1
I’ve been reading the comments here, and I have to say that if we’re going to compare the faults of the old Star Trek movies with the new ones, we’re going to find a lot from both eras. They both have bad bad bad science, huge plot holes and some terrible writing.

I’m a fan of SOME of the TOS movies, and don’t care for others. I forgive some of their faults because they have the cast I love. But they aren’t very good movies when held up to some serious critical analysis.

I was hoping for an improvement in that area with the new films. Instead, we were given the same outlandish, illogical story lines; the same kind of bad writing. It was just dressed up with a bigger budget. And since they don’t have a cast that I’m fond of and familiar with, they don’t have any of the magic the TOS films might have.

I’m not a Trek apologist, and I don’t suffer bad episodes or bad movies. There’s maybe 25% of Star Trek that I can stand to watch. In my opinion, Meyer made the best TOS movie in TWOK, but even that film has some serious problems.

That is why I say that Star Trek belongs back on TV, and not in the movies. Until somebody can make a great Star Trek movie, I’ll stick with this belief. In my opinion, Abrams and Orci and co. have not made great movies. They are as bad, as flawed, as the older films. And since they don’t have the cast I grew up with, I don’t have enough interest in watching them multiple times. If they had been better written films, I would feel differently.

Bob Orci doesn’t have the original cast to back him up and supply the nostalgic love they engender. His audience is less forgiving. They should be. I’m still waiting for him to write a good, even great, movie. And now I’m expecting him to direct a great one as well. I just don’t see that happening. But I’m certainly not going to say the old movies were SO much better. For the most part, they weren’t.

In my opinion.

363. Cygnus-X1 - May 15, 2014

361. Phil – May 15, 2014

Or, to sum it up, there aren’t any more plot, character, or quality issues in BR Trek then in any of the previous Trek movies.

Not true. And it depends which Trek movies you’re talking about. They varied widely in plot holes. The TNG movies are riddled with plot holes, as bad or worse than the BR movies. The TOS movies are much better than the BR movies in that regard.

If that’s the entire basis of protesting BR Trek, then it’s a weak argument,

I don’t recall anyone saying that it’s the entire basis for not liking BR Trek. The poor plot construction of the BR movies is one area of problems, but by no means the only one.

I would refer you to what I said in #357 & 358 and the link therein regarding the difference between Abrams/Orci and Nick Meyer in their approach to Trek.

364. B Kramer - May 15, 2014

357 Cygnus, great points: exactly why I posted the clip. I thought De Kelleys statements were fantastic as well.

-Best

365. B Kramer - May 16, 2014

357 Cygnus, great points, that is why I posted the link. I also thought De Kelley’s points were fantastic as well.

-Best

366. Phil - May 16, 2014

@362. To the contrary – there’s no need to revisit the TOS issues, as they have been covered nicely by other posters – facts you’ve apparently chosen to dismiss because they don’t fit your Trek worldview. Further, it can be easily argued that a good percentage of TOS screentime in theaters existed to massage the egos of their cast – the tail end of WOK, Trek 3 & 4 were necessitated to massage Nimoys indecisiveness about whether or not he even wanted to play in the Trek sandbox or not, and Trek 5, because Shatner fancied himself a director. Trek 5 is in it’s own category of awful (lubricious to even suggest it’s better then BR Trek), and six gutted canon so badly that it should be considered a stand alone project. Even WOK was littered with WTF moments…

Yes, I saw that. And the parallel between Trek 1 and 2, and 10 and 11 are striking. 90% of that clip is completely in sync with how BR approached Trek (surprised you aren’t lambasting Meyer for not considering himself a sci-fi guy). JJ and his people are basically expressing the same sentiments, and yet the whiners crucify JJ for it, while holding up Meyer as the gold standard for the same approach. That’s why people look at these comments, scratch their heads, and try to figure out what it is you are complaining about. It’s like pointing at two apples at the table, one bigger then the other, and declaring you love one and despise the other. It’s an argument that makes no sense.

367. CecilofRil - May 16, 2014

Cygnus-X1

Nick Meyer wasn’t a true fan of Trek though. He was brought in to think outside the box. boborci, on the other hand, IS a true Trek fan. Besides, plot holes were one of the things YOU mentioned in your post to me above, when you listed out the things “wrong” with BR Trek. I have merely been pointing out that if that is what you think was wrong, I think you need to re-watch BR Trek. Because there is a lot more there than you think. Superficially, yes, it doesn’t have the same “feel” as some of the older Trek movies, but it is Trek at it’s heart. Plus, the cast is great. I guess I (and Phil and Bill) truly don’t know what your “complaints” are other than a few superficial flaws that are fundamentally common to Trek movies and shows in general. That has been my whole point. You have some “illusion” in your mind as to “what Trek is or should be.” BR Trek didn’t live up to those “illusions,” ergo, BR Trek is bad. I don’t ascribe to this theory, as many of Star Wars fans have done this with the “Prequel Trilogy.” It didn’t live up to the “expectations” in their minds, ergo, it’s bad. I didn’t find them that bad, nor did I find BR Treks to be bad either. Because it did for Trek what Casino Royale did for Bond. It revived a failing series. Yes me, the Bond fan of all Bond fans, calling it a failing series. It was, after Die Another Day. DAD was passable, much like Nemesis, but didn’t have the “Bond” feel to it. Same with QoS, whereas Skyfall (written by the same screenwriter as Nemesis) was awesome. Went back to what made Bond, well, Bond. I think that if we give boborci a legitimate chance (which he is going to get), we might find that the 50th Anniversary and third movie in the series will be better. I think boborci has listened to the fans, giving them name drops and easter eggs hinting at possible future movies. Let’s just wait and see what happens.

boborci

I loved your movies, and love that you are getting a chance to direct. By the way, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was AWESOME. Loved it. If you get a chance, stop by my Facebook page “Russ’ Movie Corner” and check out my reviews of movies. Thanks.

368. Cygnus-X1 - May 16, 2014

362. Shilliam Watner – May 15, 2014

When I refer favorably to the TOS movies, I’m referring to the best of that bunch: TWOK, STIV, STVI, STIII.

The only one of those that had a plot hole that took me out of the movie was STIII (Kruge has no reason to beam down to the planet and only does so as a plot convenience). But that movie on the whole is much more enjoyable than either of the BR Trek movies and has held up much better over time despite having been made 30 years ago.

I might find some flaws in the other movies that I listed if I tried, or maybe there were some that I’ll notice when watched them again, but either they weren’t bad/important enough to affect my enjoyment of the movies, or they were conceits which earned their keep by giving rise to good story lines, themes and/or character development.

Ultimately, it’s all about enjoyment of the product. The BR movies are enjoyable in the theater, with the benefit of that technology, but their splendor fades very quickly and I find them ultimately not only a shallow, fleeting experience, but one that annoys me in retrospect when I think about how un-Trek they are and how the franchise is being dumbed down to appeal to non-English-speakers who, while I’m sure they’re as quick as we are in their own language, are naturally slower on the uptake when watching a foreign language film filled with foreign cultural references.

369. Cygnus-X1 - May 16, 2014

366. Phil – May 16, 2014

It’s important to point out that citing certain flaws in the TOS movies is, alone, not a persuasive (or entirely logical) rebuttal to complaints about the BR movies.

It is an oversimplification to argue that because a plot hole or other flaw might be found in a TOS movie (or that STV in toto was awful) this somehow excuses the BR movies of their flaws or implies equivalence in caliber of the BR movies vis-a-vis the TOS movies.

Firstly, the complaints about the BR movies are not limited to one certain type of flaw, but to the entire approach in filmmaking and ultimately the entire product which manifests many and sundry categories of flaws.

It’s when you add up all of the flaws, taking into account the egregiousness and impact upon the finished product of each flaw that you begin to get a valid comparison and a clear picture.

370. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 28, 2014

367. CecilofRil

WHAT did you like about Spidey 2?!!

Also. When comparing ttrek to Wars, it occurs to me that Star Trek has done so much more to contribute to humanity than has Star Wars.

Or, am I just a bit biased?

371. Chris Fawkes - May 28, 2014

I don’t doubt he would have the skills to direct having been so close to the first two projects.

What I would like to see is a story that is no another Khan variation as were the first two Trek films that he co wrote.

Also lines such as “Khan Noonien Singh was the most dangerous adversary the Enterprise ever faced” is such blatant fanboy tickling and only for the handful of freaky fan boys at that.

As long as we can get a story that is not a repeat or painful fanboy service I think he could pull off the rest with ease.

Maybe hit Nimoy up to come in and offer advice along the way.

372. Disinvited - May 28, 2014

#371. Chris Fawkes – May 28, 2014

I think this interview will please you:

http://trekcore.com/blog/2014/03/video-co-writer-j-d-payne-on-star-trek-3/

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