Watch: Wil Wheaton Gets Snarky Over JJ Abrams Commitment To Star Trek | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch: Wil Wheaton Gets Snarky Over JJ Abrams Commitment To Star Trek June 25, 2014

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Humor,ST: Into Darkness Sequel , trackback

On Tuesday night’s airing of The Wil Wheaton Project (only his 5th episode), the Star Trek: TNG actor turned sardonic geek culture commentator had a biting take on the recent news announcing the next Star Trek film was coming in 2016, but without JJ Abrams returning to the director’s chair. Watch the clip below.

Wheaton Jabs Next Star Trek as Abrams ‘Afterthought’

As it was recently reported, Paramount has set 2016 for the release of the next Star Trek film. Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness producer/director JJ Abrams remains a producer but due to his helming of the next Star Wars film, he will not be directing (that job goes to Star Trek and Into Darkness writer/producer Roberto Orci). On his weekly Syfy show commenting on all things geeky, Wil Wheaton discussed the Paramount Trek announcement, and then snarked…

Even though JJ is knee-deep in Tatooine, he promises that Trekkies have nothing to worry about… with ‘Star Trek 3: Into Afterthought.’

Watch the clip below.

The Wil Wheaton Project airs Tuesday’s at 9pm on Syfy

Comments

1. Vultan - June 25, 2014

Do we really want JJ back? He just broke his Han Solo action figure. Maybe when he learns to play nice he can come back to the Trek sand box.

2. David Oakes - June 25, 2014

I agree. JJ leaving for that other franchise felt like a massive stub in the back. Did he only do Star Trek to audition for the Star Wars chair ?
If so then maybe it’s for the best that an actual Trek fan is helping the next one.

3. Mololo - June 25, 2014

My gess is that his Star Wars deal is 1 movie long and no further, so he jumped to the oportunity, and will resume previous projects when he is done.

4. The Keeper - June 25, 2014

The best thing that could happen is that the original three picture deal was not only for the actors (who I love BTW) but for the entire writing, producing, directing and general production team to leave also.
Get them all outta of there and we can finally move forward again.

Even if they have to re-image again.

5. Jonboc - June 25, 2014

JJ brought the corpse back to life and made it relevant again. The 10 people who went to see Nemesis and the 20 people that watched Enterprise couldn’t keep the franchise alive…so….JJ did what he was hired to do and he did it well. Disney didn’t court him because he did Trek poorly. Having said that, his job is done. There is no reason others can’t come in and build on his foundation. Harry Potter had many different directors as does the Bond franchise The new Trek universe has been established, there is no reason other directors can’t come into it.

6. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

Maybe Wil wants a shot at the director’s chair himself. Wouldn’t that be something?

The TNG crew as a whole would probably love to be re-associated with official Trek. I know it’s probably anathema to some, but what if Paramount asked Jonathan Frakes to direct ST4 (if any)? Mr. Frakes did do ST: First Contact, after all. (Let’s skip over ST: Insurrection for the moment.)

7. BatlethInTheGroin - June 25, 2014

Everyone who continues to slag JJ Abrams is missing a very important point: He revived Trek when it was dead in the water. Insurrection and Voyager left Trek a bleeding, wounded creature, while Enterprise and Nemesis left it a corpse on the side of the road. Abrams’ films made Trek relevant again. That is not something debatable. Is his Trek perfect? Of course not. But is it better than Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection and Nemesis? Absolutely.

8. Michael Hall - June 25, 2014

“JJ brought the corpse back to life and made it relevant again. “

Yeah, just like the bereaved father did in Pet Sematary. Given the equally inspiring results, it’s difficult to say why I couldn’t care less about Abrams’ return one way or the other.

9. Ciarán - June 25, 2014

This JJ-bashing is really getting on my last f*****g nerve.

10. Gary 8.5 - June 25, 2014

The tone of the Wheaton show is very sarcastic.
I wouldn’t take it to seriously .

11. Gary 8.5 - June 25, 2014

I wouldn’t take it too seriously.
It is worth noting it is only 21 seconds out of the entire program .

12. Disinvited - June 25, 2014

The New York Times reporting of April 2009 makes it pretty clear Les Moonves was going to license another movie Trek with or without Paramount. I think it’s fair to claim JJ saved new Paramount’s license to Trek, but it is a complete falsehood to claim no Trek movie would have been made if JJ hadn’t been approached by Gail Berman and Paramount lost its lease.

13. Finnigan - June 25, 2014

After STID my confidence in Abrams and the hacks that wrote the script has reached a very low point. These guys turned Trek into mindless action movies. Oh, if only Fontana, Meyers, Coon, and Roddenberry were able to participate once again. New Trek has been weak Trek. Weak Trek is disappointing.

14. scotchyscotchscotch - June 25, 2014

several (many) scenes and sound effects from STID looked like nothing more than JJs Star Wars test reel.

15. LogicalLeopard - June 25, 2014

Yeah, I’m not going to criticize JJ Abrams. Contrary to the rabid hatred from some fans, he did a good job with Star Trek. And got a lot of people interested. I never thought that Star Trek would be a formidable box office presence again….well, should I say “again?”

And as far as him jumping ship, I don’t think Wil Wheaton has any problems with JJ. He’s just making a joke, that’s obviously there to make, and he made it. I don’t blame JJ for making that decision. Because if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were hired to make Star Wars movies when your real love was Star Trek, and an opportunity came up for you to make a Star Trek movie with William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and Deforest Kelley for the first time in YEARS, you’d pass on making Return of the Jedi too. *LOL*

16. Gary 8.5 - June 25, 2014

15.
Good Points All.

17. DaltonB - June 25, 2014

Jonboc , you really need to check out your facts. Trek was far from dead, the CBS/Paramount restructuring did a good job of killing off any Trek projects for a long time since it is both tv and film so they needed to get the rights figures out. If Disney loves JJ so much, why only let him do one film? They went for him because he is a poor man’s Lucas – he can do a film that looks like something Lucas would do but as we saw in Trek, he isn’t nearly as imaginative. Look at the numbrers adjusted for inflation and you will see JJ’s films are not the runaway hits they promote them to be, far from it.

18. Trekbilly - June 25, 2014

Ok, so the guy wanted to take a break from Star Trek (directing) and work on Star Wars? What’s the problem? I think it’s better to have different directors on Star Trek anyway. JJ is still producing. If I recall correctly, the actors contracts expire after this one anyway, so this may be the last film with this cast.

19. Trekbilly - June 25, 2014

#15 — Agreed!! You’re never going to please all Star Trek fans…never! There’s always going to be a faction that bitches about this or that not being what they wanted…wah, wah….babies!

The main criticism I hate about the JJ films is the one where they complain about them being action movies. Well, hell…what’s wrong with having some action in Star Trek? My favorite episodes were action episodes! Doomsday Machine…Balance of Terror…Immunity Syndrome.

Nothing JJ has done has sunk to the level of Star Trek V, Insurrection or Nemesis…lol!

20. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

Yeah, but Star Trek: First Contact was pretty damn good. If Bob Orci can combine the sophistication of STFC’s storyline with JJ’s more “modern” sensibilities, I think we’d have a bona fide mega-hit of the century on our hands, so to exaggerate.

In any event, there is plenty of material that remains unexplored for Bob to mine. There are very serious people, such as Dr. Stephen Hawking, who are very seriously concerned about the ability of mankind to compete against his own creation. This is, perhaps, just as compelling today as the SW’s central mythos of the hero against an adverse, but human, enemy: It is the question of humanity against itself. If I were Bob, I’d ask what humanity is up against that really freaks it out. It’s against the future, to be frank. People are becoming afraid of the future.

It’s sort of similar to the theme of ST VI: TUC — people are indeed afraid of the unknown; and similar to the threat faced in ST:FC. The disappearance of humanity and its total extinction. Neither STID nor, even, ST(2009), was exactly about that. (ST(2009) was about the destruction of Earth, not quite the entirety of humanity.)

There needs to be an existential threat in order to get people in the theaters when it comes to science fiction. STID didn’t present enough of that — Khan was not powerful enough to kill humanity. If we want spectacular box office, we will want a spectacular movie threat to end all threats.

That’s also part of what made TNG’s “All Good Things….” so compelling. It was never just about Picard; it was about humanity as a whole, and therefore, about us.

I don’t criticize JJ for making Trek popular again; I do, however, look forward to bold new frontiers in making Trek truly meaningful, truly relevant, truly trail-blazing, as well as gut-wrenching, jaw-dropping, spill-your-popcorn fun.

Chills, thrills, and Trek. That’s all that I for for in a movie. Is that really such much to ask for?

21. Ryan - June 25, 2014

Will Wheaton actually enjoyed both Abram’s Trek films, so I’d chalk up that segment as merely sarcasm.

JJ made Trek fun again over that lifeless low point in the franchise, Star Trek Nemesis– I remember almost falling asleep watching that film while fresh out of boot camp. I walked out of the theater thinking “what the hell just happened here?” lol I’m all for great dialogue, but Nemesis just went on and on and on, and on w the whole Shinzon/Picard segments.

Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness made Trek “exciting” and fun as compared to what we got with the last two Next Gen films.

22. LogicalLeopard - June 25, 2014

16. Gary 8.5 – June 25, 2014

Good Points All.

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

Thanks!

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

18. Trekbilly – June 25, 2014
#15 — Agreed!! You’re never going to please all Star Trek fans…never! There’s always going to be a faction that bitches about this or that not being what they wanted…wah, wah….babies!

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

True! Bottom line, you can never make a movie to please everyone. And not everything about a pleasing movie will please you. I loved both of the movies, but there were some cringeworthy parts. But really, one could say that about any great movie.

**********************
The main criticism I hate about the JJ films is the one where they complain about them being action movies. Well, hell…what’s wrong with having some action in Star Trek? My favorite episodes were action episodes! Doomsday Machine…Balance of Terror…Immunity Syndrome.

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

That is one of the worst complaints. Aren’t just about ALL of the Trek movies, with the exception of maybe I and VI, action movies? And four is a movie that relies on a gimmick – future people in present times. They’re MOVIES, you can show action and high adventure in a way that you just don’t have the budget for in a regular show. So people tend to go all out. You can get the slower, more psychological adventures on the television shows.

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

Nothing JJ has done has sunk to the level of Star Trek V, Insurrection or Nemesis…lol!

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

Hahahaha! You’re ri–HEY! I liked STV! *LOL*

23. Trekbilly - June 25, 2014

I think you can have a good balance of action, message and not having a vengeance seeking villain on the big screen. I’ve enjoyed the last two films, but I’d like the stories themselves to get back to what Trek is all about. I think that can still be done with a good degree of action…

Ultimately, I’d like to see Trek back on TV though. Something with the same sense of fun and thought as TOS…

24. Trekbilly - June 25, 2014

Exactly, Leopard!! I’ll forgive you for liking Star Trek V…lol!!

25. Jed - June 25, 2014

The JJ bashing is completely unfair he brought Trek back to life, but his timing with the move to SW proceeded to knock the wind out of ITD, as he started every press junket for that movie by telling everyone how much he didn’t “get” Classic Trek and preferred SW and then wouldn’t you know it he jumps ship. Its just such a shame as for someone who didn’t get classic Trek he sure knew how to inject the essence of 60s trek with the medium of modern cinema. Okay, some of the story telling might have got lost in the mix, but pretty much all Trek films after WOK have had a bad guy looking for some kind of revenge, the TNG movies are particularly generic in that regard
which is completely counter to most STTNG episodes.

26. B Kramer - June 25, 2014

The Green Girl

http://thegreengirlmovie.com/

27. SB - June 25, 2014

You call yourselves fans?

You should be aware that the bylaws of The International Brotherhood of Star Trek Enthusiasts, Local 1701-1/2, requires that all members make at least six (6) hacky lens flare jokes per ten (10) mentions of JJ Abrams, on penulty of expulsion. We’re 26 comments in and… nothing. Nada. Zip.

Get on it, people! These comment boards don’t write themselves!

28. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

Bring JJ back, he is the only one who can make ST 13!

29. LogicalLeopard - June 25, 2014

20. Hat Rick – June 25, 2014

Yeah, but Star Trek: First Contact was pretty damn good. If Bob Orci can combine the sophistication of STFC’s storyline with JJ’s more “modern” sensibilities, I think we’d have a bona fide mega-hit of the century on our hands, so to exaggerate.

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

Well, I liked ST:FC well enough, but what was sophisticated about ST:FC’s storyline? They’re attacking a Borg cube, which spits out a sphere that decides, “Oh wow, we lost this fight, like many others….what are we going to do….I got it! Go back in time!”

Why didn’t they do that before?

Why didn’t they do that after they failed the first time around, and have the sense to do it where there weren’t any Starfleet Borg experts around?

Why would they do it in the first place, seeing that assimilating Earth prior to First Contact would prevent all the technological advancements made by Terrans and all of the technological advancements made by the cooperative efforts of the Federation?

Why is the Borg Queen on a SINGLE CUBE near the heart of the Federation?

There is also the issue of Picard as “Ahab.” He really doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who would get all personal over that, even if he was assimilated. Not enough to do weird things like insult Worf.

But here’s the heart of it….you probably didn’t ask yourself those questions above when you saw STFC in the theatre. I didn’t either. Because I went in already invested in the characters and the movie, settled in, and enjoyed the ride. That’s what’s necessary to enjoy a movie, because mostly all movies have wild contrivances, illogical plot holes, etc. A movie is only truly bad when you come in already invested in it, and the movie seems to work against you at every turn. That’s why the whole topic is subjective, too, because some people can suspend disbelief better than others at different times. Sometimes it can be a matter of the day you see something. Oftentimes it’s the matter of WHEN in your life you see something. I grew up watching TOS reruns as a small child, then the TOS movies and TNG through my late adolescence and teen years. I’ll always have a fondness for those series and movies. I have said previously that ST09 impressed me very much, partly because I had been through some of those situations before – deaths of parents, birth of children, etc. It’s not always a question of the movie, but where you stand when you watch it.

30. B kramer - June 25, 2014

Re: new SW true of false?

http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/tom-cruise-in-and-harrison-ford-out-of-star-wars-episode-vii/

31. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

@ 25. Jed – June 25, 2014

“Okay, some of the story telling might have got lost in the mix, but pretty much all Trek films after WOK have had a bad guy looking for some kind of revenge”

Not really.

TOS movies:

TMP = No Revenge
WOK = Revenge
SFS = Revenge
TVH = No Revenge
TFF = No Revenge
TUC = No Revenge

2 out of 6 about revenge

TNG movies:

GEN = No Revenge
FC = Revenge
INS = No Revenge
NEM = Revenge

2 out of 4 about revenge

Nu-Trek movies

ST09 = Revenge
STID = Revenge

2 out of 2 about revenge

Nu-Trek, a supposedly fresh take on Trek, went back to the same overused cliches of someone out for revenge, TWICE!

Abrams did his job in making the movies looks great & fun, but his writing team failed him with their poor scripts.

Even Karl Urban acknowledges that they need to be original next time

===========================
Karl Urban: ‘Star Trek 3′ should take a more ‘original’ approach than ‘Into Darkness’

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

http://www.hitfix.com/news/karl-urban-star-trek-3-should-strive-to-be-original

32. Shane - June 25, 2014

I think JJ went to film Star Wars as a childhood dream job he couldn’t refuse even though he did at first. While I would much have preferred he’d have stayed With Star Trek 3 to complete his trilogy this wasn’t even set in stone remember he didn’t officially agree to do into darkness until only a few months away from shooting. My worry is Bob Orci directing part 3 while he is a fan he’s not directed anything before so hopefully there will be support from JJ behind the scenes.

33. NuFan - June 25, 2014

Anthony Pascale needs to come back. The current guy is too biased and has been pretty unprofessional lately.

It’s clearly just a joke in a monologue and they try to make it into a news story.

34. I am not Herbert - June 25, 2014

…yeah, HF is out. kinda’ screws up the whole thing… REWRITE!!! =P

JJ doesn’t scramble very well… looks like another STID FUBAR / SNAFU

TC can be white Lando! =P …or Leia’s “other brother” LOL! =P

35. crazydaystrom - June 25, 2014

Lately every time I come here there’s a new article. Thanks Trekmovie.com staff, I’m loving this!

As to JJ, I really believe he would’ve stayed with Wars for more than one film if he could’ve had the control he’s grown used to having at this point in his career. For example JJ wanted to shoot Ep. VII in California but Disney said “No! WE decide these things!”. I think that took Abrams out of his comfort zone (figuratively AND possibly literally). Yay Disney!

36. crazydaystrom - June 25, 2014

And being “out of his comfort zone”, if that is indeed the case, could could wind up being a great thing for all concerned, us included. Star Wars could possibly turn out to be Abrams’ best work ever. I’d like that to be the case.

37. Trekboi - June 25, 2014

12. Disinvited – June 25, 2014

Please explain?

I think JJ’s “Revival” of Trek is blown out of proportion, anyone who made an Original era Trek with a big budget & new young cast would have had a hit- It was good in style only- many people could have done it better.

38. Alex Rosenzweig - June 25, 2014

^^ For that matter, Star Trek was very close to having another movie greenlit in 2006, barely a year after ENT was cancelled, but a change in studio leadership wiped the slate clean and opened to door for Mr. Abrams.

Clearly it took very little time for CBS Paramount to realize that Star Trek was still an effective property, and respond accordingly.

Just MHO, of course, but I’d sure have loved to see that other movie come to fruition, rather than a TOS reboot. But such is life…

39. LogicalLeopard - June 25, 2014

23. Trekbilly – June 25, 2014
I think you can have a good balance of action, message and not having a vengeance seeking villain on the big screen. I’ve enjoyed the last two films, but I’d like the stories themselves to get back to what Trek is all about. I think that can still be done with a good degree of action…

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

I think you can go in an interesting new way, but you have to measure that with reception. Would a story like TMP wow audiences today? Or would it go the way of Prometheus, which I haven’t seen, but understand to have some sort of sophisticated twist to it. Can you go the way of STV (haha, thanks for forgiving me) and introduce a higher concept? I kind of think the idea of a concept that unites disparate, neglected, forgotten people and organizes them into a formidable force is kind of interesting. But obviously, we all know what people thought about STV *LOL* I think Khan was sort of a more complex villain, who would have benefitted from having more time onscreen. It’s not just a flat out revenge story, Khan appeared to be only doing the things he was doing to get his “family” back, revenge was sort of incidental. He’d walk over whoevers’ corpse he needed to to get what he wanted. And there was an interesting ambiguity to it – what is this guy’s angle? Is he really aggrieved, or is he making things up? Is he working with us, or against us? I love Kirk’s “I’m pretty sure we’re working for him.” line. I would have liked to see more manipulation before Marcus’s reveal as who was arguably the Big Bad of the movie. Maybe that’s why I like Sybok so much, he was not your normal villain, but presented not only a challenge, but a situation in which you say, “Wait….what if he’s right? Cause he certainly sounds right….”

Ultimately, I’d like to see Trek back on TV though. Something with the same sense of fun and thought as TOS…

40. Thorny - June 25, 2014

5. Jonboc… “The 10 people who went to see Nemesis and the 20 people that watched Enterprise couldn’t keep the franchise alive”

I really don’t understand where the idea that no one watched “Enterprise” comes from. Week by week, “Enterprise” had more viewers than “Battlestar Galactica” or “Stargate SG-1″, yet those shows weren’t canceled, they both concluded peacefully.

And the movie franchise came back from “Star Trek 5″, which was a critical and commercial flop, but Paramount pulled the plug on TNG after “Nemesis”, which was actually a better (though still not very good) movie, but did worse at the box office.

41. Thorny - June 25, 2014

31. Ahmed … How was ST3:TSFS about revenge?

42. LogicalLeopard - June 25, 2014

Or you could do it this way: Isolate the movies by bad guy

TOS movies:

TMP = Alien Probe
WOK = Vengeful Bad Guy
SFS = Starfleet Advesary (Klingons)
TVH = Alien Probe
TFF = Man on a Mission
TUC = Starfleet Adversary (Romulans/Klingons)

2 out of 6 about revenge

TNG movies:

GEN = Man on a Mission
FC = Starfleet Advesary (Borgs)
INS = Vengeful Bad Guy & Starfleet Bad Guy
NEM = Vengeful Bad Guy

2 out of 4 about revenge

Nu-Trek movies

ST09 = Vengeful Bad Guy
STID = Starfleet Bad Guy and Vengeful Bad Guy hurt by Starfleet

This way, you get a better look at the patterns. Overall, we’ve seen 5 Vengful bad Guys, 3 Starfleet Adversary races, 2 Starfleet Bad Guys (I don’t count Kim Cattrall, she was a Romulan Agent more than SF), and 2 Probes, and 2 Men on a Mission. Although Khan could conceivably fall into Man on a Mission status as well.

If you’re going to reuse anything, Man on a Mission seems to be good, because Sybok and Dr. Soran are miles away from each other, but are both interesting villains.

43. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

@ 41. Thorny – June 25, 2014

“How was ST3:TSFS about revenge?”

My mistake, should have add “No” before the word revenge.

@42. LogicalLeopard

“If you’re going to reuse anything, Man on a Mission seems to be good, because Sybok and Dr. Soran are miles away from each other, but are both interesting villains.”

Agreed! Seriously, it is boring to watch movie after a movie about some random guy looking for revenge. I would take a world domination plot over revenge plot anytime .

44. Cygnus-X1 - June 25, 2014

——————————–POINT OF ORDER———————————-

(Actually, this is a point of fact.)

Let it be known, especially to those who tend to regard JJ Abrams as The Grand Savior of Trek, that it was just ONE YEAR after the end of ENTERPRISE Season 4 that JJ signed the deal to make ST09.

ONE YEAR.

It was not Trek languishing in the wilderness for 5 years like it did from the end of TOS to the beginning of TAS (which was no substitute for TOS, and isn’t even regarded as canon), nor even for the additional 2 years as it did from the end of TAS to pre-production on TMP (so, really, it was 7 years between TOS and TMP).

ONE YEAR.

And how long was it between ST09 and STID?

FOUR YEARS. With no franchise Trek going on during that period.

So, please, let’s dispense with the notion that JJ Abrams “saved” Trek. If it hadn’t been him, I’ve no doubt that Paramount would have offered it to someone else the following week. JJ just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and took the Trek opportunity to break into feature films. And it got him Star Wars, his true love, so good for him. I hope he devotes himself to Disney’s Star Wars permanently and lets some other production company have a crack at Trek. Hopefully run by someone who actually understands and appreciates Trek for what it is.

45. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

I’ll never get used to the sight of Ensign Wesley Crusher with a goatee / mustache / beard.

Wait a minute — goatee? Of course! It all makes sense now. This isn’t Ensign Crusher! It’s the Evil Wesley Crusher from the Mirror Universe! (Also appearing in Big Bang Theory.)

46. NuFan - June 25, 2014

If Star Wars gets pushed back, will Star Trek 3 get pushed forward?

47. LogicalLeopard - June 25, 2014

43. Ahmed – June 25, 2014

Agreed! Seriously, it is boring to watch movie after a movie about some random guy looking for revenge. I would take a world domination plot over revenge plot anytime .

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

Yeah, I think it might be interesting to take the Man on a Mission concept and use it. Maybe even expand it to “People on a Mission” A group of alien travelers seem peaceful, then appear malevolent, then by the end of the movie, you end up sympathizing with them. That was the plot of more than a few Trek episodes, so maybe people will criticize it for being unoriginal. Or people will rely on the old standard, “Oh, this seems too much like an episode. When I go to a movie, I want to see something bigger!”

A good exploration story would help to cement the Kirk maturity angle. Put it a few years into the 5 year mission, with a more humble and measured Kirk. Have them encounter an alien race with some twists and turns like I mentioned above, insert some flashy space and hand to hand fighting, a major catastrophe or two, a few last minute saves, and bam, you’ve got a movie in line with TOS. Maybe their working opposite of each other, and at the end they’re working together. Maybe there’s a huge difference of opinion on how to proceed, like they did in this movie, only they have learned to trust each other’s opinions and rely on each other to make the right decisions. Hopefully the crew can act like a well-oiled machine as well.

48. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

@ 46. NuFan – June 25, 2014

“If Star Wars gets pushed back, will Star Trek 3 get pushed forward?”

Are you talking about releasing it late 2015/early 2016 ?

We don’t have any new information about ST 13, so there is no way to tell if they could pushed it forward or not.

49. LogicalLeopard - June 25, 2014

45. Hat Rick – June 25, 2014
I’ll never get used to the sight of Ensign Wesley Crusher with a goatee / mustache / beard.

Wait a minute — goatee? Of course! It all makes sense now. This isn’t Ensign Crusher! It’s the Evil Wesley Crusher from the Mirror Universe! (Also appearing in Big Bang Theory.)

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

*LOL* I haven’t gotten around to this idea on Tumblr yet (nerdtasticavenue, if anyone is interested), but I wanted to play Recast TNG with TNG actors. *LOL*

Riker = Wil Wheaton
Picard = Michael Dorn (who is bald now, I believe)
Crusher = Nikki Cox (played that little alien kid on the planet that was going to explode…Sarjenka, was it?)
Data = The guy who played Hugh the Borg

Eh, I haven’t been able to cast everyone. Troi was hard, so is Laforge, and Wesley is the hardest because it’s difficult to find someone who was in a TNG movie/series as a small child. It’s kind of exhausting to look through IMDB to find suitable actors *L*

50. Jon - June 25, 2014

#37 – Well said.

The “hit” aspect of the reboot, particularly the 1st one (’09), may well have had more to do with the timing. The core Trek fan base was good and ready for something new (no matter what that might be) after a pretty long hiatus, and the marketing folks very expertly sold it to the non- and/or casual-Trek crowd.

Looking back now and in retrospect, while “09 Trek certainly had its problems, it was still overall pretty decent and satisfied both the older and newer audiences, but STID failed pretty badly with the former and only retained a certain portion of the latter.

Mind you, the latter was enough to make STID a moderate money-maker for the powers-that-be, but they were clearly disappointed from industry postings that have come out, and hence the trimmed budget and now lowered expectations for the next movie.

And sorry folks, you can quote Rotten Tomatoes or any other source you want, but STID was most definitely not a success with a significant portion of the ST core fan-base. I literally know of almost no one who I consider to be a “real” ST fan who thought STID was good and/or anything but ST in name only. My recent visit to a Convention only confirmed my suspicions here…the buzz was definitely NOT good and whenever nu-Trek was brought up, there was either silence or outright booing. And the merchandise for nu-Trek was not selling at all, and the autographed pictures for the new crew went for next-to-nothing.

To continue to claim otherwise and cite these supposed statistics reminds me of how the government keeps saying that inflation remains low based on their own statistical analyses, but then how come every time I go to the grocery store and fill up my tank, the price seems to go up some more? :(

Just my humble opinion of course :) …

51. Roger - June 25, 2014

Sarcasm. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical.

We learn by doing.

52. Disinvited - June 25, 2014

#37. Trekboi – June 25, 2014

Will do, but it has been quoted ad infinitum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/movies/26itzk.html?pagewanted=all

”Gail Berman, then [2005] the president of Paramount, convinced Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, to allow her one more chance at a “Trek” film; he gave her 18 months to get the cameras rolling or lose the property. (Under the arrangement CBS retained the “Star Trek” merchandising rights.)” — “New Team Retrofits the Old Starship”, By DAVE ITZKOFF, NY TIMES, Published: April 23, 2009

#38. Alex Rosenzweig – June 25, 2014, 44. Cygnus-X1 – June 25, 2014

Exactly.

It took 10+ loooooong years from the airing of the first series’ last original episode to the debut of a motion picture. I don’t think it had been 10 months before Gail Berman and Moonves were wrangling over the next Trek movie since the airing of ENTERPRISE’s last original episode. And, yes, Paramount had a movie in the works before the split being worked out in 2005 upset those plans with a regime change and set a deadline for Paramount’s next Trek movie.

53. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

Hey Logical Leopard,

What about Worf’s kid, or the actor who played him? I think Worf had a kid. (He had a whole adoptive family, the Rozhenko’s.) He could play Wesley Crusher.

And, we could have Evil Wesley Crusher, with the goatee, do a cameo as Wesley’s Evil Twin from the Mirror Universe, who appears in a sitcom, playing an actor named Wil Wheaton, about uber-nerds who live in Pasadena, for some reason.

Thanks for your responses, by the way. Always interesting and entertaining.

54. Jack - June 25, 2014

“7. BatlethInTheGroin – June 25, 2014
Everyone who continues to slag JJ Abrams is missing a very important point: He revived Trek when it was dead in the water. Insurrection and Voyager left Trek a bleeding, wounded creature, while Enterprise and Nemesis left it a corpse on the side of the road. Abrams’ films made Trek relevant again. That is not something debatable. Is his Trek perfect? Of course not. But is it better than Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection and Nemesis? Absolutely.”

Exactly! I don’t think anyone else could have delivered two Star Trek movies that, between them, took in close to 900 million bucks, not including DVD etc. sales. They’re not perfect movies and the writing was frustrating but they’re certainly a) Trek and b) decent films (ST more than STID, which had no real reason to exist and which focused way too much on fanwank, but not smart fanwank).

After seeing Edge of Tomorrow, I’ve wondered about Doug Liman for the next one (although I’m still flummoxed by Jumper).

55. Jack - June 25, 2014

A Trek movie could have been made without JJ, sure. But it also could have tanked quickly and quietly like the vast majority of genre films.

And the core fans don’t matter a whit in a modern trek movie’s success, which is why building a movie to shut them up (STID) was a lousy idea.

56. Disinvited - June 25, 2014

#55. Jack – June 25, 2014

A movie was in the works and it had the same goals as JJ’s:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070804012239/http://syfyportal.com/news.php?id=2489

”Last year, Erik Jendresen — the Emmy-winning writer best known for the “Band of Brothers” miniseries on HBO — was commissioned to write a script that would become the 11th Star Trek motion picture. Instead, even more uncertainty was created of the Star Trek franchise’s fate, opening the door for wild rumors, heavy speculation and reports that are just half correct.

Just before delivering his final script to Paramount, Jendresen shared some of his ideas and hopes for what could be a true new beginning of Star Trek with SyFy Portal. And now that many observers have buried his project, Jendresen is talking again … not just about where he thinks Star Trek should go, but quite possibly where Star Trek will go in a movie project that isn’t as dead as people think.

The reception of “The Beginning” was a “classic case of Hollywood regime change,” Jendresen told SyFy Portal’s Michael Hinman. “A project is greenlighted by one regime, and by the time it’s delivered, there’s a coup d’etat.”

Jendresen is referring to the replacement of Paramount co-president David DeLine with Gail Berman, which was part of the Paramount reshuffling after Brad Grey took over as chairman and chief executive officer of the studio in January 2005. DeLine, Jendresen said, was a supporter of the project and of Jendresen’s concept. However, new management usually brings new ideas, and that sometimes makes it more difficult for older ideas, like “The Beginning,” to peek its head above water.

But Hollywood has a knack of bringing things back from the dead, and that includes Star Trek projects. And Jendresen still believes there is at least a decent chance that “The Beginning” will come to fruition on the big screen.

”There is a producer at Paramount who has been championing this and the notion that we have the opportunity to plug the gap with this trilogy.” Jendresen said, without providing names. “We have a chance here to fill in the canon, and to create a continuum ostensibly from the beginning from ‘Enterprise’ all the way out to the future.

“It should also be indicated that the ultimate intention here was to craft a story that would not only completely satisfy the fans, but just as importantly, bring new people into the franchise.” — By MICHAEL HINMAN, Source: SyFy Portal, Apr-12-2006

This is Trek and not HIGHLANDER. This notion that there could be only one director that could have succeeded is as absurd as the notion that only one actor could succeed at playing Kirk, Spock, Bones, etc.

Although, I will give you that some of the industry reporting on how Bob Orci ascended to the chair does read as if he was offing heads as they do in the Highlander saga. One can hope that he also absorbed their talent as the TV series seemed to indicate as part of the “quickening” process.

And to better make my point, look what happened to Gail Berman for all her anointing of “The One”, JJ:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/10/business/fi-berman10

Less than 2 years into her tenure that started in March of 2005, she was canned.

57. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

@ 55. Jack – June 25, 2014

“A Trek movie could have been made without JJ, sure. But it also could have tanked quickly and quietly like the vast majority of genre films.”

Are you aware that the Directors Guild of America (DGA) has over 14K members ? The fact is that there are many other directors out there than Abrams.

Speaking of the DGA, Orci is not a member yet! Perhaps they are still processing the membership application that was sent from Paramount.

The point is, that until he gets his membership with DGA, he won’t be able to shoot a single frame for Paramount.

“Paramount is a signatory to the DGA’s basic agreement, which means that all directors, assistant directors, and unit production managers it hires must be guild members.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/04/why_not_quit_the_directors_guild.html

58. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

@56. Disinvited

Thanks for the interesting links.

“Although, I will give you that some of the industry reporting on how Bob Orci ascended to the chair does read as if he was offing heads as they do in the Highlander saga. One can hope that he also absorbed their talent as the TV series seemed to indicate as part of the “quickening” process.”

LOL

59. Phil - June 25, 2014

Shut up. Wesley!

60. Lemingsworth Bint - June 25, 2014

“I literally know of almost no one who I consider to be a “real” ST fan who thought STID was good and/or anything but ST in name only.”

Then we are fortunate “real” ST fans had no impact on the bottom line. Perhaps some “real” ST fans will make a sequel to Nemesis for you.

61. boborci - June 25, 2014

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/05/26/hollywood-doesnt-care-about-fanboy-approval/

interesting read

thoughts?

62. Trekbilly - June 25, 2014

“I literally know of almost no one who I consider to be a “real” ST fan who thought STID was good and/or anything but ST in name only.”

Then we are fortunate “real” ST fans had no impact on the bottom line. Perhaps some “real” ST fans will make a sequel to Nemesis for you.

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

I’m a REAL Star Trek fan who has been watching Trek, going to conventions, etc., etc. my whole life which is past 40 — and I loved Into Darkness! It wasn’t perfect and there are things that could have been done without or better in the film but overall I enjoyed it!

63. Gary Neumann - June 25, 2014

@61 Roberto:

It depends. One thing is honoring the material and/or elevating it and another is Fanboyish wetdreams.

64. Jonboc - June 25, 2014

#61. That article is on the money, Bob. You know, when Star Trek was on the air, it wasn’t just popular with Sci-fi fans. My parents watched it because it was a good show. My uncle ran a garage and never read a book in his life, much less science fiction. But he loved Star Trek. Examples can be found in all walks of life. That universal love is what was somehow lost along the way. Thankfully,your version of Trek put the franchise back on track. It’s not reserved for the hard-core fanboy anymore. Unlike TNG and that entire run of spin-offs, Star Trek is no longer a “geeks only” club. People are not intimidated and are comfortable jumping into the franchise. it was a good thing in 1966 and it’s a good thing now.

65. Marja - June 25, 2014

33 nufan, like AP was never biased. LOL
——————————————————————————————

61 BobOrci, Well, fan bitchin’ here’s free publicity, every day ;-)

And I’m with 62, Trekbilly, I’d rather have Star Trek than no Star Trek. Sure, I have my issues with the films. But I got to see them.

66. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

@ 61. boborci – June 25, 2014

So Mendelson’s basic argument is that the studios don’t care about the core fans & take them for granted, what a shocker!

“The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole “Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones.
It was the hardcore Star Trek fans who took to the Internet to proclaim the film to be the “worst Star Trek film ever.” But Paramount knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.”

Probably true, I don’t think that Trekkies will skip the next movie no matter what. We will watch it at least once & if it is good, then we will probably see it again. Unless the movie was about the whales :-)

As long as these movies are making money, the studios will keep making them regardless of fans reaction, after all the 4th Transformers is coming out this summer!!

67. Marja - June 25, 2014

61 BobOrci, said by Hat Rick on another thread, and wise words indeed

the grandeur of Star Trek is best expressed
when all of its potential is explored.
Trek isn’t just about spectacle

68. SpaceBunny - June 25, 2014

There’ve been so many “real” Star Trek fans who have been complaining and whining since Star Trek 2009, declaring that the only way to save Star Trek as *they* know it is to bring back Khan, to recreate their beloved Wrath of Khan.

That was part of the reason for Nemesis, and part of the reason for Into Darkness, I gather.

Now that that’s been done, again, it’s back to whining about lens flares and other minor issues until the next film comes out based on the success of the last two. I guess if “real” Trek fans didn’t like them, then it must be all the dirty peons of the world who’ve contributed to Star Trek’s current livelihood, right?

This really is a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” on the parts of those doing the new films, regarding the apparently overriding feelings of “real” fans.

Star Trek is doing well, all things considered. After Nemesis and Enterprise, it was clear those at the top wanted to shelve it forever, selling off all the remaining sets and props, destroying what was leftover, and pretending Star Trek didn’t exist.

Now we have new films that have done well enough to warrant sequels. This could easily lead into new spin-offs on TV and other films. Keeping Star Trek in the minds of the modern viewers.

I figure, in another ten years or so, the self-classifying “real” Trek fans will quiet down, while the rest of us life-long Star Trek fans, joined by new fans introduced by these new films, will continue to enjoy Star Trek and have intelligent conversations about it that don’t involve ranting at the top of our lungs about lens flares.

While there are Star Trek episodes and films I could care less about, I find enjoyment in it all. I think some people just need to relax and have a little more fun. The rampant hatemongering is tired and is ill-fit for a Star Trek fan.

69. I am not Herbert - June 25, 2014

thought: it’s obvious boborci doesn’t care what fans want or like =(

he just shovels sugary crap to the drooling masses… thanks boborci! =(

70. Red Dead Ryan - June 25, 2014

I see that the anti-Abrams Talifans are back in action, taking the opportunity to trash the reboot movies while pining for the days of “Nemesis” and “Voyager”.

I guess we can look forward to a return to the anti-reboot insurgency by the Trek jihadists who were sabotaging threads not too long ago with their fundamentalist hatred and flaming.

Tell you what guys, why not go and enjoy “Insurrection” with your fellow Talifans in your basement in the middle of nowhere, and the rest of us will continue to enjoy the high-octane, thrilling, exciting BR movies.

71. Red Dead Ryan - June 25, 2014

BTW, Wil Wheaton is a total hypocrite for ripping Abrams after he gave him a voice cameo in the first movie.

72. Jonboc - June 25, 2014

#69. “thought: it’s obvious boborci doesn’t care what fans want or like =(. ”

…no, he just doesn’t care what YOU want. :)

73. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

@70. Red Dead Ryan

Perhaps you should join your dear leader M-J at trekcore to continue your crusade against Abrams/BR haters ?

While you are at it, maybe you should go to Afghanistan, since the Taliban are always on your mind :-)

74. Red Dead Ryan - June 25, 2014

Ahmed,

No need for me to go to Afghanistan. You and your co-horts are already here.

:-)

75. Cygnus-X1 - June 25, 2014

52. Disinvited – June 25, 2014

Thanks for the links. I hadn’t read those before.

55. Jack – June 25, 2014

A Trek movie could have been made without JJ, sure. But it also could have tanked quickly and quietly like the vast majority of genre films.

And/Or it could have been a meaningful, higher caliber film.

And the core fans don’t matter a whit in a modern trek movie’s success, which is why building a movie to shut them up (STID) was a lousy idea.

I can’t imagine how you’d think that STID was made with the aim of placating the fans.

76. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

RDR,

You are missing my point, my dear friend. Afghanistan it is not just about the Taliban, it is where they operate deep inside the caves, I’m sure that you will love it, just ask Tony Stark about it :-)

77. Cygnus-X1 - June 25, 2014

61. boborci – June 25, 2014

interesting read

thoughts?

I and others have been saying that Trekkies/ers don’t factor into the studio’s decisions for a while now. There’s nothing surprising about that article.

The only interesting thing about it is what point you might be trying to make by showing us that article.

For my part, my disenchantment with the BR Trek movies has greatly decreased my enthusiasm. I won’t be posting photos and updates on my FB page about BR Trek 3 like I did when you were making ST09. I won’t be encouraging or even recommending that people go see BR Trek 3 without having seen it myself. I won’t be generating any “buzz” about it, and I imagine that I’m not alone in this regard. I don’t know how much of an impact all of the Trekkies/ers have in their aggregate buzz-generation, but it’s not at all surprising that Paramount would regard it as negligible when the BR Trek model is clearly not targeted at fans of past Trek.

However, I’m sure that everyone would be much more interested to know your thoughts on the matter.

78. boborci - June 25, 2014

77 why not let the discussion go on a bit longer before I O-Pine:)

see what I did there?!

79. Ahmed - June 25, 2014

@77. Cygnus-X1

“The only interesting thing about it is what point you might be trying to make by showing us that article.”

I think it is in line with what Bob posted on January about the “research” indicating that “the biggest deterrent to a general audience watching Trek are TREK FANS THEMSELVES!”

80. Disinvited - June 25, 2014

#71. Red Dead Ryan – June 25, 2014

There’s plenty of that going around from old ask me once and I’m a Trekkie, but ask me twice and I’m a Trooper:

“I now consider myself a Trekkie, which I literally could not have ever imagined saying to anyone.” — JJ Abrams

“I quickly said that because of my loyalty to Star Trek, and also just being a fan, I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things. I declined any involvement very early on. I’d rather be in the audience not knowing what was coming, rather than being involved in the minutiae of making them.” — JJ Abrams

“To be a part of the next chapter of the Star Wars saga, to collaborate with Kathy Kennedy and this remarkable group of people, is an absolute honor. I may be even more grateful to George Lucas now than I was as a kid.” — JJ Abrams

Not to mention his finding and losing 3D religion.

But then his idol did say:

“I’ve consistently been impressed with J.J. as a filmmaker and storyteller. He’s an ideal choice to direct the new Star Wars film and the legacy couldn’t be in better hands.” — George Lucas

Except for sequels.

I mean this is Hollywood, after all.

81. Disinvited - June 25, 2014

# 70. Red Dead Ryan – June 25, 2014

“I see that the anti-Abrams Talifans are back in action.” — Red Dead Ryan

Well, you have to give them a chance to catchup to the decades that anti-Wheaton Talifans have had to hone their skills.

82. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

@Marja, 67,

I just wanted to say thanks for quoting me. I’m glad you found my message interesting; I quite enjoy reading your contributions in all these various threads.

83. Vultan - June 25, 2014

#61

Not a big revelation there, Bob. Money makes the world go round—a very old lesson.

Because no matter what someone’s opinion is, or the size of the group that holds it, corporations and their CEOs don’t worry until it significantly affects their bottom line, be it something silly like a movie or something serious like the Washington Redskins.

84. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

Methinks you’ve transposed your examples, Vultan. I don’t see anything fundamentally serious about the Washington Redskins controversy at all. In my opinion, they should have changed the name without all the sturm und drang; it’s just a name of a team featuring grown men tossing around a misshapen piece of pigskin.

Star Trek, on the other hand — it’s our future.

What proves your premise basically correct, though, is the fact that in both examples, the bottom line is the bottom line. In the final analysis, when it comes to product, there is nothing more important than that.

85. Vultan - June 25, 2014

#84

Uh, yeah, that is my point. The bottom line is the bottom line. The Redskins are still the Redskins because the money is there. And Trek will remain action adventure shoot-em-up movies because the money is there. Sad but true.

86. Vultan - June 25, 2014

And yeah, the Redskins controversy is a little more important than a dumb summer movie.

87. Hugh Hoyland - June 25, 2014

People here should remember that Wil Wheaton, on his personal blog, stated that he felt STID was the best film in the whole franchise and would love to see this crew each week on TV. Check it out.

As far as this “joke” goes, come on, its the “style” of the show.

88. petrichor - June 25, 2014

I couldn’t care less about Khan or any of that other crap, my main beef with STID is how very little of it is actually set in space. I sat in the theater wondering why the first hour was set in Earth cities (not counting the teaser), followed by hand-to-hand combat, a 30-second space battle, then more fist fighting.

89. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

@Vultan, 86,

I’m curious: Why is the Redskins controversy important at all? It’s a tempest in a teapot. It’s an outmoded name, and so it should be changed. The fact that the owners don’t want to change it makes it a controversy, but it doesn’t make it important. Not all controversies are important, and not all important things are controversial. I would argue that the Redskins name change is important to the persons involved, but not really to anyone who isn’t.

Either the team name is changed, or it isn’t. Either way, the republic will stand. And, in the same sense, either Star Trek 3 is made, or it isn’t. The planet will continue to spin. I just happen to think of the Redskins issue as a made-up news issue that doesn’t matter in the greater scheme of things. If one thinks of Trek 3 as silly, then I think the Redskins controversy is rather silly as well by the same token. A sports team is appropos of nothing but entertainment.

I would note that it makes very little difference to non-Americans, and non-media types, whether the Washington Redskins changes its name or keeps it. The FTC has already spoken, and perhaps the team owners will want to contest it. If so, that’s their choice. It really doesn’t matter much, and it’ll probably be resolved in the courts.

So much of what passes for “important news” these days is just so trivial in the bigger scheme of things. It’s the attitude in the media wherein everything that’s important to any particular lobby group of choice is also deemed important to everyone in general, for some reason, even when it isn’t. I don’t know if it’s the 24-hour news cycle that artificially elevates the importance of such events, or some other cause, but I’m tired of sensationalism masquerading as real news.

And before one responds that Trek is no more important than the Redskins controversy, I would add that the “serious” news media, as opposed to the entertainment news media, has almost never covered Trek 3. The fact that the Redskins name change receives so much coverage, so disproportionately to its real effect on real people, strikes me as ludicrous and a waste of time.

90. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

Sorry, I should have said USPTO, not FTC.

91. Vultan - June 25, 2014

#89

What makes it important is the numbers. A lot of money involved. And a lot of people offended by the name (a legitimate complaint in my opinion) and a lot of people who are okay with it, even some Native Americans, some I know personally. And that divide does say something about our current society, whether it’s oversensitive or not. It’s social commentary via controversy, you know, like Star Trek used to do.

And if Star Trek still did that, with the controversy front and center on our TV screens, I would say it’s more important. But for now it’s a money-making big top circus on the big screen. And not that important. And occasionally a waste of time, if only two hours.

92. Cygnus-X1 - June 25, 2014

78. boborci – June 25, 2014

77 why not let the discussion go on a bit longer before I O-Pine:)

see what I did there?!

I grok it.

And after some more people have opined, we’ll either see that you have offered your opinion or see that you haven’t. Either way, it’ll give us something to Chekov our list—and, for the most passionate amongst us, something to Klingon to.

93. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

@Vultan, 91,

You wrote, “What makes it important is the numbers. A lot of money involved. And a lot of people offended by the name (a legitimate complaint in my opinion) and a lot of people who are okay with it, even some Native Americans, some I know personally. And that divide does say something about our current society, whether it’s oversensitive or not. It’s social commentary via controversy, you know, like Star Trek used to do.”

There’ s a lot of money involved in both the Trek franchise and the Redskins team. And both are a form of entertainment. So I don’t see why one is sillier than another.

I understand and empathize with the point you made about the social implications of the Redskins name. I agree with those who say that it’s outmoded. However, nevertheless, you yourself stated that not everyone who is theoretically eligible to be aggrieved, actually cares. So why should I care?

I would understand if real people were actually oppressed by the use of the name, or, alternatively, if someone other than billionaires were unhappy that they had to find a less archaic one. From where I stand, the use of a sports team name does not arise to the level of oppression. There are few, if any, financial consequences to anyone at all if the name remains, and what financial consequences there are to the owners is probably unlikely to toss them into the poorhouse.

As for social justice issues, there are much more pressing ones than a sports name change would entail. Budgetary priorities that deprive the disadvantaged of food or housing, and that favor the militarization of our police, for example, are of far greater importance. The real impact of state and national budgetary mismanagement and the continued moribund state of our economy, thanks in part to reluctance on the part of Corporate America to invest in fellow Americans, far outweighs made-up news stories relating to the name of a sports franchise. Compared to such serious issues issues, you could take the name change or leave it. It really doesn’t matter much in the end.

Besides, I could hardly imagine wanting to watch a Star Trek episode in which the central issue would be whether a sports franchise should change its name — at least without more.

94. Hat Rick - June 26, 2014

^^ Instead of “made-up,” substitute “ginned-up” in the above. Sorry.

95. Vultan - June 26, 2014

#93

There’s a vocal minority who cares about the Redskins issue. Whether you like it or not, it’s there. Just as there’s a vocal minority in every fan base on a variety of issues. What makes it more important than a dumb summer movie is the racial component, the use of a word some consider on the same level as the N-word. And the fact some are okay with it… well, it does bring up some interesting issues concerning the rights of minorities, the use of language, the meaning of words, the sins of America’s past, blah, blah, blah, social issues, etc., etc.

I just used it as an example. And yeah, in the grand scheme of things I think it is just a little bit more important than… Star Trek 3: The Search for More Money. Sorry, but maybe if Trek were doing more in the social commentary realm I would care more about it. Star Trek is silly now. The Redskins case is slightly less silly.

96. Hat Rick - June 26, 2014

Vultan, no problem — it’s okay that we disagree on which is slightly less silly, if it comes to that. We each had our say, and so let’s leave it at that. IDIC, after all.

LLAP.

97. Vultan - June 26, 2014

#96

Agreed. LLAP.

98. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 26, 2014

@61 Thoughts?

How refreshing! Bob wants more of our thoughts. At least he appreciates the true fans. And I take that as a nod from the Studio. Thanks, Paramount!
Thanks Bob!

My thoughts…

Quoted from the article:

“The hardcore fans are the least important demographic for the likes of Walt Disney and Warner Bros. because they are already sold on the property in question. Ant Man won’t be the easiest sell, but Disney knows that the comic book junkies will surely be among the ticket buyers on that all-important opening weekend.”

How does this help with sales in other media?

Quoted from the article:

“…that upside down kiss in the rain sold many times more tickets than fan approval…”?

I say it was the awesome closing shot of a wet Kirsten that sold that sold it for me!

Quoted from the article:

“Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones.

See, bob! It wasn’t just me that was reading between that lines there.

Quoted from the article:
“The passionate comic book fan is the equivalent of the hardcore left in the Democratic Party.”

More politics and Trek. Just like the Redskins. You just can’t separate them.

Oh, and as for the Redskins controversy, does anyone know the definition of Oklahoma? Answer: It means, “red skin people.”

What a racist country our founders were. Lets all try again to get past this and learn from the mistakes of the past. Like Star Trek Into Darkness. *ouch.

Nah. STid was not THAT bad. I re-watched it the other night, and it was just like a plain old goofy fun Star Trek episode. Kinda’ like, “The Way to Eden, or, “Spock’s Brain.” But BETTER!

The Wil Wheaton Project, eh?
I will have to watch for that. Hope you are tuning in too, bob o.

And BTW, pinch me if I ever get snarky.

99. LogicalLeopard - June 26, 2014

53. Hat Rick – June 25, 2014
Hey Logical Leopard,

What about Worf’s kid, or the actor who played him? I think Worf had a kid. (He had a whole adoptive family, the Rozhenko’s.) He could play Wesley Crusher.

And, we could have Evil Wesley Crusher, with the goatee, do a cameo as Wesley’s Evil Twin from the Mirror Universe, who appears in a sitcom, playing an actor named Wil Wheaton, about uber-nerds who live in Pasadena, for some reason.

Thanks for your responses, by the way. Always interesting and entertaining.
*************************************************

Thanks!

You know, I was all set to rain on your parade and say that Brian Bonsall, the kid who played Worf’s son, was dead. But it turns out as I looked to verify that, that he’s alive and well (and heavily tattooed). It was a death hoax. The only problem is, he’s 32 years old now. That’s the problem with casting a Wesley from TNG. And that’s also the problem with aging *LOL* I feel like TNG went off the air 10 years ago, when it’s more like 20. Even the Borg Baby is too old now *LOL*

But your Evil Wesley comments sparked something in my mind….Now…this may still be anathema to people who still detest Wesley Crusher, despite how personally appealing Wil Wheaton has become, but what about a new series with Wesley Crusher as the captain? I’d picture him as an enthusiastic, brilliant captain who finds it easy to step outside the lines to solve problems. The mirror episodes would be wonderful *LOL* Imagine if Captain Crusher goes to Risa for a vacation, then comes back with a full beard, acting oddly. He’s been replaced by the demented, beared Mirror Wesley, who is attempting to steal Federation technology. After they vanquish him, Capn Crusher is commended by Admiral Riker who debriefs him and adds….”But you know….you should really consider growing a beard.” Wesley rubs his bald chin in thought, fade to black. *LOL*

100. GG - June 26, 2014

@ 5. Jonboc – June 25, 2014
JJ brought the corpse back to life and made it relevant again.
_____________________________________________________________

Really? How did he make Star Trek “relevant”, when it has none of the original social or political commentary, or morality lessons? Explosions, action, and kissie-face Uhura dating Spock make the new movies “relevant”? Not sure how. “Dumbed-down for today’s Transformers/Man of Steel audience” might be a better word to describe it than “relevant”. The word relavant suggests intelligent, thoughtful and meaningful.

101. Jon - June 26, 2014

#60 and #62

Please don’t take it so personally. I am merely relaying both my opinions and my experiences at the Convention I recently attended.

My opinion of STID is obvious and I am merely stating what I have seen with my own eyes as to the reactions of others around me to the movie. I cannot deny what I saw and heard…

Of course there will be folks who disagree and that’s fine. No need to get so snarky…

I remain, as the Okuda’s say, cautiously optimistic that everyone involved with making the next movie will learn from what I see as the past mistakes and make a better film next time.

Just like what happened between TMP and WOK… ;)

102. Hat Rick - June 26, 2014

@LogicalLeopard, 99,

You’re welcome.

Wouldn’t it be great if Big Bang Theory, which in some shows seems like “Star Trek Lite,” could do a parody episode in which an Evil Wesley Crusher (from the Mirror Universe, natch) replaces Wil Wheaton, and plots to take over our timeline? We could see the combined nerd-dom of Dr. Sheldon Cooper, et al., slowly unravel the pretense through copious knowledge of Trek, until Evil Wesley Crusher slips up and reveals the masquerade.

And the plot twist would be that there has never been a Wil Wheaton — that in fact Evil Wesley Crusher has pretended to be him (bad, then good) all along. (Thus, once again, consternating aforesaid Dr. Cooper.)

Cameos from LeVar Burton (again) and Williams Frakes (as Evil Will Riker and/or his transporter alternate, Thomas Riker; damn, these twin episodes get confusing, don’t they?).

It would be so much fun as an episode. In fact, it’s so much fun it’s already playing right this instant in the theater of my mind. (Although I do find myself tuning out during the commercials….)

103. I am not Herbert - June 26, 2014

if you don’t understand the problem with “Redskins”, you are a hateful racist idiot. The word comes from the bloody scalps used to prove genocide on indigenous men, women and children, and collect state-sanctioned bounty… racial murder for money, and worse… =(

“D.C. Niggahs” would be far less offensive… =(

‘nuf said? =(

104. Senneca - June 26, 2014

From the Oxford Dictionary:

Redskin
Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).

105. Buzz Cagney - June 26, 2014

I will say this about JJ, he has a very pert little butt. Its a shame its on the end of his nose!

106. Keachick (Rose) - June 26, 2014

I am not Herbert – “thought: it’s obvious boborci doesn’t care what fans want or like =(
he just shovels sugary crap to the drooling masses… thanks boborci! =(”

No, I doubt that he cares what you want or like, then again, it is hard to work just it is that you actually like, because you are always so busy bitching and making incomplete and often nonsensical comments.

So you consider – seeing a Kirk weep over the death of his captain and mentor’s dead body “sugary crap” or the excitement that Kirk expressed at the thought of being able to do some real space exploration? As for me, I thought I was watching Star Trek and its alt TOS crew dealing with their hopes and difficulties.

107. Keachick (Rose) - June 26, 2014

GG et al
Why are you all so OBSESSED with the briefest of interludes which showed a “kissy-faced” Uhura expressing affection toward her boyfriend, Spock or insisting that Spock explain himself to a worried girlfriend, work colleague (Uhura) and to his captain (Kirk)?

Can’t anyone in future be shown to be normal, healthy human beings in relationships with others (human or alien)? What the F*ck is the matter with so many people who post to these various sites? Why can’t they cope with seeing people having relationships, as well as doing other stuff that a space faring people might do in a futuristic 23rd century?

Frankly, I get angry because my humanity feels offended when I read this insolent garbage.

108. Keachick (Rose) - June 26, 2014

#78 – Not really. All I read was the Pine bit…:)

Another interesting article. I suspect that no one really knows how many *fans* there are for these various comic characters, franchises etc. It also depends how *fan* is defined, given that some posting here might not consider themselves “real” “fans” because they have never attended a Convention or dressed up or have every single toy, magazine, DVD/blu-ray etc. I would be one of those people nor do I have much desire to have, be, do…

I just want to be able to see and enjoy the next Star Trek movie on the BIG cinema screen and then later on my smaller TV screen. I want “my captain” to be, at his core, a good, kind person, having honed his leadership skills without becoming some overbearing a-hole (Jellicoe – TNG), to show that he is a capable, intelligent, independent thinker who has a fine sense of humour to go with that intellect and good looks. He needs to exude sensuality…

Is that too much to ask? Bob Orci? Chris Pine?
Personally I do not think so, because I have faith that both of you (along with others that you work with) are talented individuals who, if you can’t hope to please everyone, could consider just trying to please yourselves and one or two people like me.

Not into Gorn, but those Horta are cool, and so are *Nulis* and their menosian (humanoid) passengers…:)

(I am here…)

Been watching Star Trek since 1967, off and on…years before either of you were a twinkle in your mama’s eye. God, I am showing my age here…oh well…:)

109. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 27, 2014

I tried the Project. Even with a group watching. No one was impressed and all wondered why I had the TV on “On-Demand” when they tryed to click away.

110. LogicalLeopard - June 27, 2014

100. GG – June 26, 2014

Really? How did he make Star Trek “relevant”, when it has none of the original social or political commentary, or morality lessons? Explosions, action, and kissie-face Uhura dating Spock make the new movies “relevant”? Not sure how. “Dumbed-down for today’s Transformers/Man of Steel audience” might be a better word to describe it than “relevant”. The word relavant suggests intelligent, thoughtful and meaningful.
*****************************************

So, you didn’t catch the 9/11 reference? The references to militarization, drone strikes, etc? That’s political commentary, and morality lessons when you factor in the drone strike/72 torpedo argument. Is it moral to kill a criminal from a distance, even if he’s in a place “where you just can’t go” (QonoS? Some house in Pakistan?), or should you make every effort to go and apprehend him and let him answer for his alleged crimes? Oh, and there were explosions and action in the other Star Trek movies too, y’know, JJ didn’t invent that. I wouldn’t describe Uhura as “kissie faced” to her face, which lets you know how much the writers have fleshed out her character over what TOS did for her. And the relationship with Spock reflects a mature, normal relationship. I can tell you for the first time, Star Trek became a LOT more relevant to me personally, and I’ve been a fan for years. I could relate to the first scene in one way because I know how it is to have a new baby, and could see how heartbroken I’d be if I knew I wasn’t going to be there for the baby. I went through the death of a parent (yeah, and my mother’s name was Amanda too, ironically) so I could see how it would make Spock feel, and I also understood the Uhura angle and the difficulty of a significant other, or spouse in my case, of helping the other person. ST09 blew me out of the water, because although I always liked Star Trek, it became a lot more personal and relevant to my life.

111. LogicalLeopard - June 27, 2014

106. Keachick (Rose) – June 26, 2014

So you consider – seeing a Kirk weep over the death of his captain and mentor’s dead body “sugary crap” or the excitement that Kirk expressed at the thought of being able to do some real space exploration? As for me, I thought I was watching Star Trek and its alt TOS crew dealing with their hopes and difficulties.

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

If there is a single person whose heart didn’t jump when Kirk turned to Spock and said “A five year mission!” they must either not be a Star Trek fan, or be a fan with a heart the size of the Grinch *LOL* Little moments like that, and the emotional moments, really flesh out the characters well and make the movies almost impossible not to appreciate, unless you are the coldest cynic.

112. LogicalLeopard - June 27, 2014

102. Hat Rick – June 26, 2014
@LogicalLeopard, 99,

You’re welcome.

Wouldn’t it be great if Big Bang Theory, which in some shows seems like “Star Trek Lite,” could do a parody episode in which an Evil Wesley Crusher (from the Mirror Universe, natch) replaces Wil Wheaton, and plots to take over our timeline? We could see the combined nerd-dom of Dr. Sheldon Cooper, et al., slowly unravel the pretense through copious knowledge of Trek, until Evil Wesley Crusher slips up and reveals the masquerade.

And the plot twist would be that there has never been a Wil Wheaton — that in fact Evil Wesley Crusher has pretended to be him (bad, then good) all along. (Thus, once again, consternating aforesaid Dr. Cooper.)

Cameos from LeVar Burton (again) and Williams Frakes (as Evil Will Riker and/or his transporter alternate, Thomas Riker; damn, these twin episodes get confusing, don’t they?).

It would be so much fun as an episode. In fact, it’s so much fun it’s already playing right this instant in the theater of my mind. (Although I do find myself tuning out during the commercials….)

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

*LOL* I’d love to see that! It would actually make a great episode to connect with the upcoming Star Trek film, it’ll have a built in audience. But you have to include a dream sequence in which Sheldon finds that his roomates are also Mirror Universe clones, all with beards, and wakes up screaming once he sees himself walk into the room with a beard!

113. Scott Hedrick - June 30, 2014

“This JJ-bashing is really getting on my last f*****g nerve.” —-> The door is that way.

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