Kirk And Spock In Trek XI Wont Be ‘Official’ Until Actors Are Cast

Of course since the film was first leaked last April the working assumption in the media is that Trek XI will feature the classic characters of Kirk and Spock, but both the studio and the film makers have continued to say that they will not discuss plot details. Over the weekend has received some messages about an email newsletter from that reads in part " …we know this: J.J. Abrams will be directing "Star Trek XI," centering on the younger Kirk and Spock characters…" Some have taken this the ‘official’ confirmation from Paramount – it is not. According to, they were citing the Hollywood Reporter article which mentioned Kirk and Spock and that it is still not ‘official’. Of course long ago stated that we will no longer say ‘maybe’ or ‘reported’ with relation to Kirk and Spock, since we know it is about Kirk and Spock. However Paramount, JJ Abrams and his team have never confirmed anything about the plot or characters. The closest they got is perhaps the teaser poster that features the Kirk and Spock uniform colors and textures, but it is not ‘official.’

So when will they do it? has been told by Paramount sources that the confirmation will probably not take place until some kind of casting announcements. Just like with the final ‘official’ announcement that Abrams will direct, the studio sees no need to rush things (especially since the film is still over 21 months away). The film will begin shooting this Fall and casting deals take time, but we should probably hears something this Spring. has been told that Paramount are likely to announce something themselves once deals are done to avoid leaks to the press.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Why deny it just say its Kirk & Spock its pointless saying it isn’t then two minutes later saying it is Kirk & Spock it just a waste of time.

Embracing canon while setting a new course is a paradox if set anytime before ST Nemesis. Wouldn’t be logical to believe that it will be set in in the 24th century or beyond? And it is true that nothing was ever confirmed. Even the teaser poster was a bit pre-mature I think because it was made by no one involved in production. I may be wrong on that, however.

Um, Ryan–JJ himself “designed” that teaser poster.

As to “Embracing canon while setting a new course is a paradox if set anytime before ST Nemesis” … that’s hardly a fact. “Canon” has gaps in it a mile wide, especially in the “alleged” time frame of this setting. Fans have been demanding the “gaps” be filled in since the 70s!

What if the next movie is laying the foundation for the introduction of Kirk and Spock? Say it shows the Federation and Starfleet, April then Pike, even Carol Marcus or Finnegan and then, later in the film, the new younger Kirk and Spock arriving on the scene (maybe to save the day?) in some effective fashion. Kind of like how we waited all through ST:III to finally see Spock. Maybe Kirk freshly posted to the Enterprise as Captain and how he initially bonds with Spock. If you have a very specific (and grounded) depiction of a 23rd century world, with a reasonable crisis presenting itself (no saving the Universe crap!), then have our young heroes burst on the scene in some dramatic way (talk about an entrance!), it certainly sets up the flavour of the next two films in a trilogy! This way the audience new to Trek get an overview and introduction to the world we’re talking about, and the Trekkers wet their pants in anticipation of the arrival of you know who!

They may have negotiations going on. Anyway, until the new cast is comfirmed this is all (very early) speculation. I think they”ll be in it and hopefully they will have something important to do in the story, too.

It bugs me that in the poster, the insignia has a fabric pattern on it instead of a crinkle gold foil finish, but that’s just the prop and costume geek in me coming out, I suppose.
It’ll be interesting to look back at some of these posts a year from now.

I think the film should essentially begin with Shatner walking from stage right and gazing into the screen, then maintaining that gaze as the camera slowly zooms in closer the next two hours, then finally, with an extreme closeup on the Shats bloated girth and swollen red faced countenance, he should utter in an entirely overdramatic fashion for all the world to behold :
“SP – oooooooooooooock.”

You talk about giving the fanboys the turboshaft. I’d pay the two bucks for that indulgence. ;)

You’re a sick puppy, Josh!

Wouldn’t it be cool if the Enterprise had an actual canon rather than phasers or photon torpedos? I’m talking old school canon balls and gunpowder and all that.

Then if they could focus on Admiral Janeway traveling though time with the Borg to meet the Captain Archer and they could use some CGI and put Shatner in there using an old Twilight Zone episode (Not the airplane one, the fortune teller one!) but he could record his dialogue voiceovers via ShatnerVision while on the set of Boston Legal. Put Nimoy in a Captain PikeMobile™ because maybe you could get an actor or stand-in that looks like him and scar his face up with prosthetics and you wouldnt even need Nimoy since the dude’s like 90 or something. He also could record dialogue from his ranch in El Segundo (one beep for yes, two for no)

And then where to put Shinzon in this epic tale? Well, the plot should be about all these characters trying to resurrect Data.

grate movie, macaroni in the trousers.



Nobody seems to have any imagination… :-)

I see a movie tying together some of Enterprise with Star Trek, and thus providing a smooth transition into “canonical”, pre-Enterprise Trek, with the often “less than canonical” Enterprise. Picture Kirk as a young child, touring a Federation museum, being inspired by the legends of Archer and the original Enterprise crew, learning of their achievements in forging many of the initial bonds that would later underlie the Federation… Consider him learning, as a very young child, of Starfleet’s intention to take the name “Enterprise” out of retirement (imposed, perhaps, to honor the achievements of Archer and the original Enterprise crew, much as sports teams retire the jersey numbers of famous athletes), and commission a brand new class of vessel to bear the name… Now imagine him making a child’s prayer to one day command that ship, to follow in Archer’s footsteps, to explore strange new worlds, to seek our new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before…

Maybe it could make for a nice opening, and certainly one which could serve to give a solid CANONICAL background to Kirk’s ambition, drive, and later success as a Federation officer and captain.

Just a thought.

#11 “Kirk…inspired by the legends of Archer”

This is comparable to remaking the story of King Arthur and showing him being influenced as a child by some nothing “hero” we’ve never heard of, or even if we had, are not impressed with in the least. All that does is take away from how special Arthur was to us in the first place. Draw the analogy to Trek.
Kirk was everything to us for what impressed us about Star Trek. Archer was nothing, a mere afterthought written in to supposedly come before, impressing no one in the process. To hint that James Kirk was motivated by so uncharismatic a figure as Archer simply diminishes the fabric of Kirk as a character and takes away from our respect for him. That would be a mistake.

The script is written. Either it has Kirk and Spock or it doesn’t. The again, if no suitable actors can be found, rewrite the script, in a hurry, because filming starts sooner than you think.

Nothing that originated during 4 years of “Enterprise” is necessary to tell this story. As Larry Nemecek pointed out, the TOS characters have perhaps the least “canonical” backgrounds of any of the Star Trek characters. Very few facts are known about their pasts and backgrounds, although there has been 40 years of speculation, assumption and fanon – some of which was actually pretty interesting, but Mr. Abrams, et al, are beholden to nothing. Hopefully they will take the few ironclad facts and build a terrific film around them and, above all, be true to the characters!

It would be pretty funny at this point if Kirk + Spock had nothing to do with this film.

I think the new movie is very likely to be about Kirk and Spock, however, the teaser poster doesn’t automatically imply that. When TMP came along and used the Enterprise emblem for all of Starfleet, fans (and Mike Okuda) theorized that Starfleet adopted the emblem to honor Kirk & Co. I believe the real world explanation is that the canon of the TV series was disregarded (deliberately or otherwise) in order to have a familiar unifying symbol for Starfleet. It’s possible that JJ is doing the same thing…

What if it’s just younger Kirk and Spock, and not “young Kirk and Spock”?I’m starting to get the impression that this movie will be about Kirk’s first assignment as CAPTAIN of the Enterprise. If Pike is in the movie, perhaps this is where we see them greet each other for the first time before he takes command.

“Embracing canon while setting a new course is a paradox if set anytime before ST Nemesis.”

What a ridiculous statement. Of course you can tell a story set in an earlier era that Nemesis without causing a paradox. “the Menagerie” didn’t create paradoxes. Even “Enterprise” didn’t create too many problems thought granted it had a few. Without doubt it is possible to tell and previously untold story about Krik and Spock set before TOS.

Either way, I hope it does well at the box office. I would love to see a new Star Trek movie every two years.

So it still could be a 24th century Trek :) The poster could be just mis-infomation so perhaps it is the Titan, DS9 or VOY movie every1 really wants

re: 8. Josh T.

This is the only idea I have heard so far that I would be interested in seeing.

Eric Augst @ 17:
“What if it’s just younger Kirk and Spock, and not “young Kirk and Spock”?I’m starting to get the impression that this movie will be about Kirk’s first assignment as CAPTAIN of the Enterprise. If Pike is in the movie, perhaps this is where we see them greet each other for the first time before he takes command.”

Great minds think alike, or at least ours do. If the reports here turn out to be accurate, I expect that “younger” Kirk and Spock is going to be the focus. There may be scenes in one or the other’s childhood, or at the Academy, and I’d eat my own liver to see a sequence of Kirk on the Farragut; but what I read between the lines here makes me think that Kirk’s first Enterprise mission may well be at the center of the plot. And I’d also wondered whether the supposed scenes with Captain Pike might involve the transfer of command and Pike’s introduction of Kirk to Spock (or re-introduction, if we found that they had crossed paths some time before).

Driver @19:
“Either way, I hope it does well at the box office. I would love to see a new Star Trek movie every two years. ”

I’d rather have a really good Star Trek movie every five years than just a new one every two, but I take your point.

Actually, my favorite Treks are on the small screen. For whatever reason, it just works best for me as a TV series. A good one, of course, being preferable.

Craig @20:
“So it still could be a 24th century Trek The poster could be just mis-infomation so perhaps it is the Titan, DS9 or VOY movie every1 really wants”

Who is “everyone?” It apparently isn’t me.

The simplest answer is most likely to be correct. Kirk and Spock in a TOS setting.

Just don’t monkey it up with time travel, “Lost”-like flashbacks or trying to fix Generations. The movie’s not being made to fix bad endings or Shatner’s bank statement. It’s made to be entertaining.

A good story will do. Thank you.

#12 Michael…. it was just an opinion.

Xai @25:

Agreed on every point. It will sound odd or objectionable to some, but I’m not actually all that jazzed about Shatner’s participation. It implies (at best) a framing story that I’m not convinced is all that necessary, or (at worst) some kind of fiddling with space-time that I’m completely convinced is neither necessary nor desirable. Obviously, I’d rather have the former than the latter…and I don’t honestly care if the movie outright ignored and contradicted “Generations.” I’d rather see it focus on its own story, as you say.

if the casting proves too difficult maybe the will change their minds

Jason @28:

By the time you’ve been greenlighted and go into preproduction, it’s a little late to change your mind.

All I can say is this, if Archer is in any way, shape, or form associated with or even mentioned in anyway with the legend that is James Kirk, I STRONGLY encourage anyone reading these boards to NOT attend the opening in the same city as me, which happens to be Louisville, Kentucky, because I can unequivocally assure anyone within sight of my words, there will be a volley of photon torpedoes unleashed the likes of which God himself has not tasted, a veritable smorgasboard of weaponry unleashed on an unsuspecting slack jawed audience. I’m talking armageddon, the end-times, the apocalypse, the stuff of legends.
You will immediately see a breaking news story on CNN of a movie theater exploding with great furious vengeance and wrath the likes of which John Rambo and The Terminator would bellow a collective “DAMN! He needs to chill a bit!”
There would have to be a new category created for the paltry Terrorist threat level surpassing even the most despicable machinations of Bin-Laden, remember him? The REAL terrorist that attacked this country?
Anyway, it would be a Josh-level alert status, and the movie theater would not be the end, as the folley of my eternal wrath would spill over at the audacity of someones sheer unmitigated gall at having anally raped a beloved character, demanding the utmost reciprocity, as entire regions would be layed waste and decimated at my onslaught in the name of preserving his most bloated and holy name, the flaming tits of the one true Shatner and the First Church of Shatnerology.

Thus, I have spoken, have I made myself abundantly clear?

== By the time you’ve been greenlighted and go into preproduction, it’s a little late to change your mind. ==

All they have to do is use the exact same script, but change all the character names.

Voila! — New Crew!

Now let me see…#26 Xai responds to my post #12, where I give a reasoned argument of Archer not being mentioned in the new Trek movie. Xai is rather churlish in discounting my logical observations with the dismissive comment, “Michael….it was just an opinion”. I know that and thought I was responding with simply a different point of view.
Then #30 Josh T. goes into a long-winded diatribe, using every insult in the book, arguing the same point as me and….NADA, not a peep from the collective readership! Boy, you try to have a fun debate with people…where’s the justice? Oh,…the humanity!!

Who’s debating Michael??

I was quite serious, if Archer is mentioned in the new film, some things are going to explode with pretty colors!

I’m talking FUTON torpedoes, not photon.

#30 Yes, yes Josh…. we get the idea. JJ called. Bakula has been signed.

Tigress still has you riled, eh?

as for humanity, they went to bed.
Sorry if I was harsh calling you all those names and thrashing about.

# 17 Eric and #22 Evildrpuma
I agree with you guys. I think that Kirk taking command of the Enterprise would the best idea for a plot. Think of the parallels you could draw with TMP when Admiral Kirk assumes command of the refit Ent.

#27 Puma, thanks

Lots of missed opportunities for great Star Trek TV shows. The years after V’Ger on the next 5 year mission. Or after ST:VI with a new crew on the E. The E. – B., The E. C., all having in common the Big E. That’s what I miss the most from the ST spin offs. All though, I also cringe for Enterprise. Should’a been Pike’s.

I have nothing against Jonathon Archer personally, it’s just a question of leadership styles, and a Jonathon Archer cannot wipe the sweat from the loins of a James Tiberius Kirk. If neutered leadership styles are anyones thing, thats fin’e he just has no business being mentioned in the same breath as a James Tiberius Kirk, ESPECIALLY in terms of galactic significance.

With Archer, you get a mealy mouthed, almost whining head shaking “can’t we get along, we have more in common than different,” attitude. He doesn’t inspire confidence or loyalty.

Look at Kirk,

Welcome aboard the Enterprise, ::double axe handle chop:: I’m Captain James T. Kirk , ::leg sweep:: as a representative of the United ::elbow to the throat:: Federation of Planets, :: flying drop kick :: I’m very pleased to welcome ::hip toss:: your delegation aboard. :: barrel roll:: allow my officers to show you aorund the ship :: that funky maneuver where he bounced off a wall and kicked the guy with his ASS::

You just can’t compete with or beat a welcoming like that.
Kirk would eat Archer and have peices of him in his stools.

Where’s the betting pool. Closest to predicting the actual casting of the new movie wins!

#34 No Xai, she just needs to bow before the flaming tits of the one true UberShatner and his magnificent bloated countenance.

The strangest thing about the character of Archer was the casting of Scott Bakula. Don’t get me wrong, he was good in Quantum Leap and he seems like a really nice guy (in real life), but he’s totally wrong to play the part of a Starship Captain. He gives off the vibe of being warm, friendly and pretty laid back about life. Thus he doesn’t bring any weight (gravitas) to the role. Anybody else agree with this?

Yes Michael, a nice guy does not an effective Captain make, you don’t inspire loyalty or earn respect by being overly nice and wormy.

JPH @40:

Not my kind of pool. I don’t even try to keep track of what actors are “hot,” let alone what the entire range of possible actors for any given part might be. I figure that’s for the director, producers, and casting people to worry about.

#41 Josh, etc, etc..
I saw that in the other thread. I suspect she’s saying something similar of you… but likely with a long rusty razor and lots of alcohol.

I still think you two have something there. You both like Trek, you both love the same pages of the thesaurus.

On Topic:
Paramounties of course won’t give details until they have to. Why ruin the buzz they have going with facts?

Xai @45:

I remember enough about anticipating Trek movies back in the halcyon days of the Pre-Internet to prefer not to have too many details…


Captain Kirk is my favorite ST character, by far, of all the various series. Archer is not at all in the same league as Kirk (and I too would be disgusted if the STXI Kirk bases his ambition on Archer) . That said, I liked the Archer character, and I liked the way Bakula played him. He was kind of Kirk-lite, and I felt he was a more action-oriented character than Picard.
Picard was pretty good, but twenty years later he looks to me like an over-correction to the excesses of the Kirk character. In my opinion it is Picard, not Archer, that embodies what Josh said about Archer:
“With Archer, you get a mealy mouthed, almost whining head shaking “can’t we get along, we have more in common than different,” attitude.”
I think this applies more to Picard than Archer.
Remember the joke who would win in a fight, Kirk or Picard? “Picard would say “Can’t we talk about this?” and while he was speaking Kirk would kill him.

#45 “you both love…the thesaurus”.
What is that, some kind of dinosaur? Does it have a spiked tail like some reprobates I know?

Wouldn’t it be funny if after all the speculation about early Trek characters, none of them appear in the movie. I mean we see Kirk, arive on the Ent after it has been refitted. Spock stayed on board to over see the refit. Then the movie moves on from there.