Star Trek Loses Out at Art Directors & Editors Guild Awards

Over the weekend two of the Hollywood guilds that nominated the 2009 Star Trek movie held their award shows. Unfortunately, neither the Art Directors Guild, nor the Editors Guild awarded Star Trek with their top prize. See below fore more details.  



Avatar Beats Trek at Art Director’s Guild Awards

On Saturday the the Art Directors Guild held their annual awards show at the Beverly Hilton. Star Trek’s Scott Chambliss was nominated for Excellence in Production Design for a Feature Film (Fantasy). Chambliss was pitted against production designers for Avatar, District 9, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and Where the Wild Things Are. In the end Avatar’s Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg took home the award. The other film winners were Sherlock Holmes (Period) and The Hurt Locker (Contemporary).

Full list of winners at TheWrap

Hurt Locker Beats Trek at ACE Eddie Awards

And on Sunday night (also at the Beverly Hilton) the American Cinema Editors handed out their Eddie Awards. Star Trek’s Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey had been nominated for Best Edited Feature Film (Dramatic). They were pitted against editors for Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air, and in the end The Hurt Locker won out. 

Full list of winners at THR

Guild and Award Score Card
Here is your guide to keeping track of this year’s award shows, with Star Trek’s nominations listed after each. 

Awarded Guilds

Upcoming Guild Awards

Other Upcoming Award Shows


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Oh, what the heck….

Star Trek deserved those.

The Jerry Goldsmith theme music from the Star Trek Insurrection end credits should have been used at the end of ST09. The soundtrack was disappointing overall. Labour of Love was the best part of it.

Tips for Star Trek 12 to win more awards:

In Star Trek 12, James Kirk should have several human love interests just like James Bond and should be played by Hollywood’s most stunningly beautiful young actresses.

The Orion Syndicate need to be the villains of the sequel as they are essentially the Mafia of the Star Trek universe, involved in piracy, smuggling, and extortion.

Depict James Kirk as hardcore badass and quicker and more brutally effective.

Larger space battles with more ships directly attacking each other.

A larger all-star cast with many recognisable actors making cameo appearances.

4. Michael Reigert – February 15, 2010

I have my own tips for the sequel.

Midway through Star Trek 12, I’d like to see Kirk, Spock and McCoy go undercover to a concert of hers on a distant planet like with Diva Plavalaguna in The Fifth Element (1997). Her character (the most famous and successful singer in the Alpha Quadrant) could have dark connections to the villains. An explosively intense, thunderous phaser fight could erupt interrupting the show when she sings Bad Romance, Paparazzi, Poker Face or Just Dance between Kirk, Spock and McCoy and some Orion Syndicate henchmen.

Whether they admit it or not, when J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman came up with the alternative reality idea, they automatically came up with a way to include William Shatner in the film series. As this is an alternative reality, this new James Kirk can go on to live a long, full, rich and happy life, get married and have a family. A flashforward of an old James Kirk played by William Shatner would suffice just like when Harrison Ford made a special guest appearance on The Indiana Jones Chronicles television series.

5. Lazerov – February 15, 2010

My apologies, I meant that Lady Gaga should have the cameo that I referred to.

Saw “The Hurt Locker.” I kinda now suspect its on the Oscar list for political reasons. Basically, it shows how war sucks, America doesn’t know what it’s doing in Iraq, etc. etc. I agree with the sentiment, but I’m not really sure it makes a good movie. The characters are pretty 2-dimentional messed-up or confused soldier types. The bomb sequences (and there are a ton of ‘em; too many perhaps?) are tense. The direction is excellent as is the dialogue. But, overall it feels like it’s missing something. The last ten minutes turns to pure melodrama, but there’s no sense of revelation, like in Platoon. In short: If they don’t speak english, stay out of their country. Got it.

Thoughts? Opinions?

I told you so.

Nah, actually, I didn’t, but what the hell did you expect. This was by far NOT the best movie this year. Critics praised it as a good Star Trek movie, but it was not a great movie.

I wish Avatar had been released next year.

The art directors award should go to Budweiser for product placement and “set” design. LOL

@10: “The art directors award should go to Budweiser for product placement and “set” design.”

150 million dollars well spent.

#10 You are so right. Lens flares and a beer plant. Give me Original Trek any day.

True the film is not the Best…but the basic fact is that Star Trek is GETTING SHAFTED by the awards ppl…even the score is getting shafted when Michael Giacchino is nominated for 2 films…

Liked Star Trek (2009) but the movie in no way deserves directors awards. JJ phucked up with his silly and annoying lens flares and the hectic camera….he exaggerated greatly with both tools. And i don´t wanna talk bout Budgeneering…

Therefore i don´t understand why anyone is mad that Star Trek hadn´t been nominated for a Oscar in the main categories. I am not surprised.
And off course Avatar wins not because its better than Star Trek but because it had more success…there are Hollywoods rules. and Cameron will receive his second best director Oscar eventhough he don´t deserves it….

Hey, folks, can I say something here?

There is no greater Trek fan than me, at least that I know of, personally.


But the fact that Trek didn’t win some of the top awards so far only means one thing, to those of us — all Trek fans included, that is — who believe in the future:

It means that the sequel MUST BE BETTER.

I have faith that JJ Abrams and others who are deeply involved in Trek will make the next Trek movie even better that the one before.

We are fans of Trek.

We believe in the future.

First Star Trek ahead… and onward ’til morning.

Make it so.

Everyone who thinks this is Oscar material (I grant them the nominations for sound, editing and visual effects, but everything else, nah) is dillusional, sorry to say this. The direction is flawed, the script contains a whole lot of contrivances, there is no flow to how the events unfold, and there is no character development going on (yeah, the characters change ranks and positions, big deal, but that is NO character development). The music was generic. A very basic theme that gets repeated over and over and over again in different volume. The effort that went into the making of the individual parts of this movie was considerably and noticeably low compared to other movies like District 9 or Avatar. Huge science gaps in the script and production design (Orci can repeat his Quantum Mechanics statements until he is blue in his face, compared to the science of Avatar, it’s a total joke). It is SCIENCE fiction after all, not fantasy. Unobtanium is clever with a scientific history, Red Matter is lame. Together with the knowledge that it is ONLY Red Matter because JJ Abrams desperately needs a big red ball somewhere in each of his movies… people working on Star Trek where constantly working for “cool” and “awesome”. People working for District 9 and especially Avatar were working for “makes perfect sense”, “cool” and “awesome”.

If it weren’t for Avatar, I would say that someone is out to get Star Trek.

I never thought it would win the Production Design award, not with ‘Avatar,’ ‘District 9,’ and ‘Wild Things’ also nominated. It never stood a chance there. It did stand a major chance with the Editing award, but the fact that ‘Hurt Locker’ won it instead is no surprise to me.

I can guarantee you Trek won’t win the WGA Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. I was surprised it was even nominated. With all due respect to Bob & Alex, Trek’s story just wasn’t that strong. The characters were extremely well written (though Nero came off fairly weak), but the plot itself … not so much. Don’t get me wrong, the script was certainly entertaining, just not award-worthy. I’m hoping for a stronger story next time around.

As for the other guild awards, ‘Trek’ will likely lose out to ‘Avatar’ or ‘Basterds’ in their sound mixing/editing nominations. It may win one of the sound editing categories, but I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t, not with such heavy competition. The Costume Guild award is iffy. ‘Avatar’ didn’t really have much in the way of costumes, but the costumes of ‘Imaginarium’ were fantastic, so I think that one will be between ‘Trek’ and ‘Imaginarium’ (if ‘Avatar’ wins, my BS alarm will definitely be going off). And the visual effects nominations? No chance in hell, not with ‘Avatar’ also being nominated.

BAFTAs: ‘Star Trek’ will probably lose to ‘Avatar’ in the Sound category and will definitely lose to it in the Visual Effects category.

Oscars: Again, the Best Visual Effects category is out, ‘Avatar’ won that before the nominations were even announced. Both sound categories will also likely be owned by ‘Avatar,’ though ‘Star Trek’ still has a good chance of winning at least one of them. ‘Trek’ should definitely win for Best Makeup, though. If it doesn’t… well, I mentioned my BS alarm already, didn’t I?

16. O’Neill

“..Everyone who thinks this is Oscar material…is delusional, sorry to say this.”

Everyone?? You should be very sorry, making such sweeping statements. Whether or not Star Trek deserves various awards is, obviously, a debatable subject, but you shouldn’t state YOUR opinion as if it is gospel. Lots of people don’t share your opinion about the movie, so you should take that into account, as well.

@ 11 and 12

Maybe you guys should just go and watch your old VHS tapes of the original series and take your snarky comments to

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinions…but it would be nice if we could avoid the bile and repetition. We get it. You’re in the vocal minority that didn’t like the new Star Trek movie. Well, guess what…it’s the foundation for the immediate future of the franchise. Your constant bashing isn’t going to change that. So the new movie didn’t win any major awards, that doesn’t mean Paramount is going to reverse direction and suddenly line up all the surviving members of TOS for STXII.

Maybe one of the fan productions will produce Star Trek:The Voyage To The Old Folks Home….and then you’ll have something positive to say.

Honestly, I don’t understand why anyone would think that Avatar is about science. It isn’t. Above all, apropos of Valentine’s Day, it’s fundamentally a love story and a historical allegory with science fiction trappings. The only thing scientific about it is the depiction of starships of the near future, and that’s only because it draws significantly from existing NASA and NASA-related imagery. It also extends the technological tropes found in films about Viet Nam and in more contemporary films such as “Black Hawk Down.”

For example, the Shuttle-like shape of the heavy bomber is just that — a derivation of the actual Shuttle, and of the X-33. Nevertheless, it seems very strange that technology would not have advanced further than is evidence by such design by then despite the fact that humanity is capable of traveling to the stars. If one is to be nitpicky, one could note that turbofan-like engines that keep the bomber afloat would seem grossly underpowered, even accounting for the lower gravity of the alien planet.

One should also bear in mind that Avatar is supposed to take place approximately 150 years in our future, at around the time of Star Trek: Enterprise. Star Trek (2009) takes place almost 250 years in the future and is based in part on alien technology, research, and development (e.g., the Red Matter). The science behind the latter is bound to seem less plausible to our eyes.

Finally, O & K’s statements about QM are firmly grounded on actual theoretical physics. On the other hand, the existence of technology to create and control flesh-and-alien-blood avatars as seen in the eponymous movie is wholly fictional.

Since there are certain standards as to why which movie gets nominated for what category, you can objectively say what movie is Oscar material and what movie isn’t. They not only look at the end product and judge it by how awesome it was, they look into the quality of the production. And that can be and is measured.


Most critics don’t agree with you on Avatar beyond the visual effects. As a movie, the characters are card board cutouts. Everyone is the military is EEEEVIL. All corportations are GREEEEEEEDY. All the natives are NNNOOOOOOOOBEL. Oh yeah, and the science of Hard-to-get-ium is cutting edge. Rrrrrriiiiiight. And the ending….Mother Earth sends all the animals to stop the EEEEVIL military is straight out of a BAD Disney cartoon. don’t waste your time watching Avatar again….go watch Aliens. It’s practically the same movie…just A LOT better.


1. “It also extends the technological tropes found in films about Viet Nam and in more contemporarily theme films such as Black Hawk Down.”

2. “Nevertheless, it seems very strange that technology would not have advanced further than is evidenced by such design by then despite the fact that humanity is capable of traveling to the stars.”

3. “One should also bear in mind that Avatar is supposed to take place approximately 150 years in our future, at around the time of Star Trek: Enterprise. Star Trek (2009) takes place almost 250 years in the future and is based in part on alien technology, research, and development (e.g., the Red Matter). The science behind the latter is bound to seem less plausible to our eyes.”

As corrected.

Thanks #23; I saw the preview for Avatar and didn’t bother to see it, as I have seen this predictable plot sequence countless times. And I can’t see a film for just its great special effects: the more recent Star Wars films proved that to me. But Avatar’s success proves that many people can.

I loved ST09 and saw it many times. I agree with many voices here that perhaps it isn’t a Best Picture, but when compared to what was nominated, I do feel it is being slighted. It was fun, and while perhaps there is room for improvement in everything, it has revitalized the franchise with the iconical, beloved characters. I like the score for the film very much as well; it’s one of the first film soundtracks that I can enjoy in its entirety.

As #15 said,
We are fans of Trek. We believe in the future. First Star Trek ahead… and onward ’til morning. Make it so.

Thank you, 25, Grace.

I think that in these troubled times, Trek itself offers much solace and inspiration, and not just in the obvious technological senses.

Trek is about nobility — not the fake kind with titles, but the real kind that actually matters. Nobility of the spirit — nobility in the sense of that rareness of human nature that rises about the common, the ordinary, the mundane, the everyday.

I am inspired right now to compose a mishmash of sorts from all this award talk. Far beyond simply awards, we are given much by Trek, because much has been invested in it.

With all due apologies to every Hollywood generality that has ever been the moral of any film, and any tale that has ever been told of which Hollywood and Broadway and Stratford-on-Avon have been exemplars…. And with every bit of good faith from the majestic heights of the Fugues of Bach and the Symphonies of Beethoven and the glorious sounds of Copland and Gershwin, and the speeches of Jefferson and Lincoln and Kennedy and King….

With all that I ask, humbly, that may we remember:

Absolute perfection is for the Borg, and for the angels, but not for us.

We are told to fight for what is right, to fight for justice, to fight against the dying of the light, to give of ourselves, to never surrender and never retreat except where to do so lets us fight another day. We are told that love is greater than war, that humanity will conquer adversity, that hate must be defeated by evil, that in the Manichean opposition of virtue and vice we must make our chioce, and that this choice is ours to make of our free will.

Trek tells us to choose the good, to choose wisely, to give the devil his due, but no more, and above all, to have hope.

Where the future is concerned, I choose to have hope.

See, its all a conspiracy. They’ll nominate Trek to please the fans, but then they’ll give the award to someone else thinking there’s no way it’ll piss fans off. Well guess what, they were wrong, and it pisses me off, lol.

@26: It’s comments like this that keep me addicted to this site. Bravo!

@27: What diabolical brilliance! All that’s missing is:

Step 3: ????
Step 4: PROFIT!



I think what he meant is that most of the people holding those opinions are NOT Academy members and thus are ineligible to vote on who should win an Oscar.

It isn’t delusional to hold the opinion that the movie deserves awards. It IS delusional to think that a subset of the planet’s population that is actually involved in making movies, something that thinker has no experience in doing, should fall inline and agree with you “just because.”

WHAT?!?!?!?!?! NNNOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Meh, I’m kinda glad. I thought Avatar was a better film all round… The art in Avatar beats anything else hands down. Star Trek is a good movie… Just not amazing and Avatar was just simply breath taking.

I wouldn’t imagine that in any awards contest where Trek goes head to head with Avatar that it will win.

On the other hand, in a Trek related title, a brilliant little Bollywood movie did extremely well this weekend. Titled:

“My Name Is Khan”

It is sure to raise awareness about Bollywood films, win a few awards next year, and prepare audiences for the next Star Trek movie. LOL


Excepting the award for “best product placement” that’s sadly true. Strange, when you think of it: that the movie which takes place in a quasi-utopian cashless future society would have more product placement than the one set in a future dominated by corporations and the military. But that’s how it went down.

#9 “I wish Avatar had been released next year.”

Hat Rick, you mean this year? Either way, your comment suggests that had Avatar not come out in 2009 that Star Trek would have somehow been nominated for or won all the awards in place of Avatar.

Aside from some of the effects awards, I seriously doubt that would be the case.

#18, Have you seen the two other movies nominated for makeup? Didn’t think so.

Star Trek’s make-up did not particularly impress me. Aside from Spock’s ears which looked better than they ever have, the alien make-up was the same old-school stuff we’ve been seeing for years. Otherwise, there wasn’t anything particularly innovative about the overall look of the makeup. Granted it is an extremely odd nomination in that three such disparate films were selected, two period dramas and one sci-fi. The voting could go either way. The two period dramas had amazing make-up – a beautiful cohesive look that captured both periods superbly. I would hate to chose between them. Star Trek on the other hand had some beautiful face tattoos. But don’t forget this category includes hair, and the hair was amazing in the period dramas, not so good in Trek, particularly some of the wigs.

So don’t start beating the conspiracy drum should Star Trek not win makeup. There’s a lot to be said for the competition, especially The Young VIctoria.

Good the art direction sucked!

oops forgot about the editing! That sucked too! JUMP CUTS


None of the characters depicted in Avatar are in the military. Not one. They’re all corporate mercenaries, who chose to sign up not for duty, patriotism, honor, or self-defense, but for money. Period. As for corporations–well, I’ve worked for them most of my adult life, and they are indeed, without exception, greedy. Increasing their profits and maximizing market share are not only seen as worthy goals but are a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. I have no doubt that the majority of them are run by decent individuals who have no desire to wreak havoc in the world in order to obtain a favorable quarterly earnings’ statement–but on this, history is clear: all too many of them aren’t.

#23: “Everyone is the military is EEEEVIL.”

They’re corporate security mercenaries hired from ex-military stock, _not_ the military. The only thing we learn about the actual military in Avatar is Sully’s line to the effect that they’re back on Earth, fighting for freedom.

#25: “I saw the preview for Avatar and didn’t bother to see it, … I can’t see a film for just its great special effects … But Avatar’s success proves that many people can.”

You admit you haven’t seen it, but pretend you can understand why other people like it?

#26: “Trek tells us to choose the good, to choose wisely, to give the devil his due, but no more, and above all, to have hope.”

Well, it used to, back before Trek was rebooted as a dystopia.

28, thanks!

36, yes, but “next year” sounded better. :-) Also, I do ST2009 would have had a better chance, yes.

40, I think it still means that. When was ST rebooted as a dystopia, anyway?


Basically, ST09 makes no sense. It’s not believable.

While I love the new Star Trek movie — and will revisit it over the years more than Avatar — I have to admit that Avatar deserved the win for the strength of its production design.

Haven’t seen Hurt Locker, so I have no idea about the editing award. But ST09 was certainly very well edited, in my book.

#23: “Everyone is the military is EEEEVIL.”

Nope. Watch the movie again.

If you’d posted “people in the military who are isolated and whose lives depend upon military security will follow brutal and possibly evil orders” you’d be closer to the mark – and you’d also have a statement that you’d have a hard time refuting based on real world events.

I felt that Star Trek 2009, put a positive face on the future of the American way. With what I would imagine, is an intense liberal way of seeing things in that business. There would be no way they would let it win anything. It is the opposite of they way they want things to be.

#45: Okay, yes, ST09 is a very (very, very) conservative movie. Granted. But conflating that with “the American way” and describing it as “the opposite” of a “liberal” way of seeing things …

Last I checked, the Enterprise warps best when _both_ nacelles are functioning.

Anyway, I guess political conspiracy theory is a change of pace from the more pedestrian they-just-don’t-like-spaceships version. And I suppose it’s necessary to scrabble for alternatives, given the success of certain other films this year …

Off topic:
I just saw “Crazy Heart.” Great movie, Jeff Bridges gave the performance of his career, IMO.

Been meaning to see that! Heard nothing but waves of awesome about it.

Still a bit stunned that they got Bridges back for that Tron sequel … he seems pretty discerning most of the time … maybe the script is actually good? I don’t know what to make of it :/


No thanks. Not interested in sitting through Avatar a second time. But others have called me on my mislabeling the mercenary characters as military. So….all the mercenaries were EEEEVIL.

I stand corrected. But not on my “review” stating that the characters in Avatar are weak, cardboard cutouts. The story was equally weak and derivative. Very pretty movie. Not a very good movie.

IMHO, of course.

45. kirk: “[ST09] is the opposite of they way [the Hollywood guilds] want things to be.”

46. S. John Ross: “Okay, yes, ST09 is a very (very, very) conservative movie.”

Hmmm… now that you mention it, yes. Just one more reason that it makes no sense.