Not the End: Could NuTrek Franchise Go From ‘Star Trek Beyond’ To Infinity?

Star Trek Beyond will not be the conclusion of a trilogy! Or perhaps, managing expectations, Star Trek Beyond – the third installment of the NuTrek franchise following JJ Abrams’ 2009 reboot – will not be the planned conclusion of a trilogy.

This is reported by, which writes “the rebooted franchise has no intention to close any sort of book on a three-installment arc with its upcoming third movie, Star Trek Beyond.” The article also includes a snippet of an interview with Beyond co-writer and co-star Simon Pegg:

How many installments of NuTrek could this portend? We know that Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are already signed on for a fourth installment. Could this be another “trilogy in four parts” a la the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series – which NuTrek homaged with Scotty’s search for a space towel:

Now prognosticating the future of movie franchises is difficult these days. Every movie studio seems to want every picture to generate a connected cinematic universe of future movies the way Iron Man did for Marvel Studios in 2008. But not every movie is Iron Man and not every franchise is Star Wars (or even the Hunger Games). A lot of them turn out like Dracula Untold, which was intended to (I am not kidding) kick off a rebooted franchise of Universal Pictures monster movies from the 1930s and 40s.

For Star Trek Beyond to justify a sequel in the face of increasing costs, it will probably have to generate more than either of its predecessors (Star Trek 2009 earned $257 million and Into Darkness $228 million).

Furthermore, it remains to be seen how well NuTrek will synergize with the upcoming CBS Trek series. Cross-promotion and revitalized commercial success on the small screen could either propel NuTrek to warp speed or force them to eject the warp core. Or the phase inducer. (Or some other damn thing.)

Star Trek Beyond opens in theaters on July 22.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“(Star Trek 2009 earned $257 million and Into Darkness $228 million).”
Interesting how the US market returns are only referenced. It is as if the rest of the world and the Star Trek fans and their contribution within the larger world do not exist.

A lot of time and money was invested overseas with Into Darkness to ensure Trek had a bigger presence going forward, definitely. That surely also meant Paramount was annoyed that the grosses weren’t even bigger because with all the extra expense on top of a bigger budget, STID likely didn’t make much more money than the 2009 film.

The studio gets a much smaller share of the international box office than of the domestic box office because the distributor gets a big share of the box office (and pays for distribution and marketing costs). I agree with your comment, because it’s a bit silly to reference only the US box office, but it’s important to understand that a dollar abroad is not worth the same as a dollar at home.

It depends on the country. Europe is closer to the U.S., while China can be 50% or less. On average, 60% is an adjustment factor I’ve seen used before for these calculations.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

It’s the North American box office, it isn’t only US in there, that’s a common mistake…I agree though.

@Rse – is there nothing you wont turn into an opportunity to play the victim?

Im Canadian and the domestic gross includes Canada. But gee, it doesnt physically hurt me that they wrote US, rather than NA. Im sure the writer wasnt thinking about you… ;-)


I guess we are suppose to believe — with a straight face — that six different people here upvoted your latest crapfest post against Rose here. LOL. Yea, right, like 6 independent people would care enough to support this whining and upvote you?


Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

And yet, TUP continues to insist he’s not trolling, but adding thoughtful, intelligent insight with his comments. Delusional.

It is indeed curious to reference only domestic box office numbers in this analysis. If those numbers actually did represent the earnings of those movies, they would have qualified as horrible flops.

Rose, the studios are very aware that the rest of the world exists – for North American based enterprises, the domestic box office is the higher margin product, which is why it gets the attention it does. The worldwide box office margin is diluted because the studios get a smaller chunk of the revenue – but because they make it up in volume, so to speak, it’s still important. The expectations today, though, are that they want the domestic box office to out perform as well – a given example of an underperforming movie right now is probably Batman vs Superman. It’ll make money, but I think Warner wanted it to hit a billion. Star Trek is still struggling with that ‘tentpole’ status as well.

I looked at adding a line about that, but the percentage difference between domestic/international is dramatically off for Into Darkness and 2009 (49/51 to 67/33) to be a guide for the next chapter, but the domestic total $ for both were within the same range. Thanks for reading!

Just a few days ago, Alibaba films has invested in Trek Beyond, which, in all likelyhood, will clear the way for Chinese distribution…which is HUGE. Yes, Rose, the rest of the world matters…a lot!! With this development, it may easily surpass “Into Darkness” as the most successful Trek movie at the box office.

@ Keachick,

Yea, I don’t get why Jared didn’t mention the global box office either???

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Amaricans always do that.
It’s like when they say Mariah Carey is the highest selling female Artist in the world when Madonna has sold 100 Million more records than Mariah world wide. Mariah has only sold a few Million more records than Madonna in the U.S. apparently the rest of the world does not matter lol

the last 2 movies at the box office (adjusted for inflation) are #1 and #4 all time amongst all ST movies and STID out performed ST09 if you include the international box office. so while paramount wants a star wars or marvel esque franchise in terms of being a monster at the box office, this property its doing better than it has in over 25 years.

i think a ST4 in the jj-verse will happen if the new tv show is well received and we could see the fastest turnaround between jj-verse films so far to capitalize on it, with it coming out in 2018. the franchise really lost momentum & an opportunity by waiting 4 years between ST09 and STID (and then have the writers strike affect the latter’s script)


Agreed. Paramount did better internationally with STID than ST09. They really need to be realistic about what Star Trek can actually do for them though. Also agree with your last statement. I loudly complained about the 4 year gap between the two movies. They lost so much momentum, hardly anyone knew about STID.

The best thing this film has going for it is Simon Pegg. Hot Fuzz was pure genius and I hope he was able to put his stamp on it. The previous two flicks were completely forgettable, except for the intro to ST09.

Problem is that Hot Fuzz and rest of that trilogy was co-written with Edgar Wright – Simon’s solo work isn’t as proven. Makes you wonder why they didn’t just bring Edgar Wright on as director.

Tony, I’m 100% on board with that….

The look on JJ’s face is priceless as he watches Simon (attempt to) thread the needle of talking while also giving nothing away.

Nothing new here. It was very public that they signed up for 4 movies.

For the 2009 movie the Foreign boxoffice was only 1/3rd of the total worldwide gross of $385 Mil. For Into Darkness it was actually 10 million MORE than the domestic, bringing the total to $467 mil. So there’s no real track record for Paramount to follow. It all depends on how much this third one resonates with the foreign box-office – with Idris Elba as the villain, it may have a similar track as Benedict Cumberbatch did, being that they are both arguably more popular overseas than in the US.

For all the problems with casting him as Khan in the first place, Cumberbatch would be a much bigger draw now. Sherlock exploded in China and of course his Hollywood profile increased exponentially as well.

One could argue that Cumberbatch exploded partly BECAUSE of his STID experience. It solidified is marketable value as a cinematic presence as opposed to just television.

Purely a coincidence that Simon Pegg looks to have aged a decade shortly after writing his first Star Trek feature film?

The poor guy apparently has no friends. Because if he had any friends they would surely tell him to shave off that dreadful beard.

I’d wager Pegg’s beard and haircut has to do with a role he’s taking on.

I remember years ago people being concerned about Tom Hanks’ appearance – long unattractive beard and extreme weight loss- and it turned out it was for Castaway. And a similar thing with Leonardo DiCaprio and the thick unfashionable beard he sported for about a year. It was for The Revanant.

Simon is probably being paid millions to look like that for a while.

You haven’t seen the Hipster look now so popular in Brooklyn, NY and other cities … ugly but “individual” ;-)

The man-bun can’t go away fast enough….

Honestly, man-buns don’t bother me nearly as much as the popular look Pegg is sporting. It’s a weird combo of Marine and Hillbilly.

Brian Wilson put a couple of seasons in in the Dodgers bullpen. It took some effort to not flick lit matches into that beard. Yeah, those Duck Dynasty beards can’t go away fast enough, either.

Looks like he is taking on the role of the jerk/early victim from PROMETHEUS going by that beard.

Well, we *need* at least one more movie – in which the timeline gets fixed to remove all the Abrams contraptions, including the “Bloatprise” and Scotty’s alien dwarf. Maybe Spock could use the Guardian of Forever to restore Vulcan – and as such, he would be the only one to remember the timeline change. ;)

That would be awesome, hilarious, and insane!

As opposed to the Starship “Twiggy”…:)

I was thinking, if they would switch to a lower TV budget story telling method and release one or two movies per year, they could probably tell better and more traditional Star Trek stories that fans would enjoy more.

Spend $50 million or so on each 2-hour “episode” and crank out one or two per year. Maybe plan the shoot like Lord of the Rings did where you shoot 3 years worth all at once, then edit them over the next few years.

It would be an unprecedented model for theatrical movies, but might work.

Jeff, If they stop focusing on Tentpole status, that is a wonderful idea.

“Switch to a lower TV budget story telling method”

I typed something very similar here before 09 started filming. I think the only way for something like that to happen is if Star Trek became toxic and untouchable, for some bizarre reason and Netflix or Amazon prime took it on. That’s about the closest we would get to it. However that’s unlikely to happen either as the new series gets its feet, but then if it’s not actually going to be TOS era trek, the possibility still exists though micron thin, if that.

I think my idea was to shoot six episodes in secret along with the 09 film and put them out as very well advertised SPECIALS on TV, three before the film release with the film being both stand alone AND the conclusion to the episodes, thus maximising fan turnout and raising a general audience awareness.. Hype baby, yeah!

Then as the next film takes, as it turned out, its own sweet time getting made, release the other episodes as stand alone “specials” which lay down some clues as to how problematic the “big bad” would be in the next film.

At the time though (08 ish) I was sure this was something that JJ and bad robot could easily pull off, there was a lot of optimism in general for the team and new trek. Also I was personally “sure” the team was likely to do things differently than before, but sadly it turned out not differently enough, it took Netflix making their own shows to prove that a different approach could work and be successful.

Anyone remember the shock in the press of Netflix releasing a WHOLE SERIES all on the same day, no waiting.

But I know the bureaucracy and red tape coloured nonsense of fiscal short term gain thinking must be horrendous when trying to get a film made, so to think outside the box, do what hasn’t been done before? “How would we know we would get our money money money back? Money? Money?”

Trek isn’t seen by the money men and women as a cultural legacy, it’s seen as a money printing device, but the idea of putting “new minds, fresh ideas” AND investment(MONEY) into it to promote the idea of KEEPING it a money printing device for the next several decades and quite possibly “Beyond” just doesn’t compute.

Mm.. I seem to have begun to rant, I shall shut up now.

Also while I’m here, I REALLY miss Lenoard.

Is this poll in the right upper corner some kind of a joke? 66% are excited for the reboot movie Beyond and only 33% for a new Star Trek series? Really?

Probably because we have so little information about the new series at this point.


I have a different theory: The Star Trek fanbase has a lot of cantankerous curmudgeons.

Myself included.

I’m all for Beyond and at this point, after the last two tv series produced I’ve very little interest so far in the tv show. It funny how some fans can complain about the previous movies but not the tv shows. Voyager never lived up to it’s potential and Enterprise was misguided from the start to many errors and comparisons that’s why I can accept the JJ movies because the prime timeline still exists.

Sean, shame on you for saying that…double digit negative votes you, scumbag (sarcasm!) — how dare you say this. ;-)

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Hear, hear.

In reply to comment:


Actually, what you suggest runs counter to one school of thought that I don’t agree with but that’s been heavily promoted by fans of the nuParamount Trek product.

It goes something like this: STAR TREK is dead if some corporate entity isn’t making NEW filmed Trek. Ergo, all should be grateful that Paramount is producing its STAR TREK because it means STAR TREK lives.

What I see from the camp that promotes that thinking is inconsistency as they then go on to claim that the Prime universe still lives even though no NEW filmed Prime stories are being produced by a corporate entity which makes Prime STAR TREK dead by their definition.

If the new tv show, were over the air, instead of streaming, there would be more excitement.

It’s just possible there are a lot of fans jere who enjoy the new movies. Imagine that!


There are plenty of them. They vote with their wallets.

The comments and comment voting completely contradict the poll. But since certain posters were over joyed at it (I didnt even see it was there) I can imagine how many times they voted. Probably 500 each! lol

@ TUP “I didnt even see it was there”

Ah, that explains the results The “Mayer Daley” of Trekmovie didn’t have a chance to use his multi-vote system on this poll. LOL — no got drop 10 negative multi-votes on this post of mine, clown. ;-)

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Its amazing that someone who has been previously kicked out of here for sock puppeting and God knows what else would have the gall to make accusations towards others. Not to mention the obsessive whining about votes. Good God man, grow up.

You’re a spineless coward. But I guess thats why your “rep” means so much to you here. Unfortunately for you, its not very good. LOL

wah! wah! wah!

You come back with personal attacks, EXACTLY as a guilty person would be expected to do.

You are not fooling anyone! Keep up your lame crap and multi-votes, clown.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

“wah! wah! wah!” – Prodigal

That sums up the vast majority of your posts. Well done. And in fact, much more insightful than most!

As an experiment, I just tried to vote a second time. The ONLY option is to “CHANGE Vote”. No one can vote twice, much less 500 times. Unless they are a S–k P-pp-t.

Marja, I think that might have been corrected, HOPEFULLY. A few days I voted again, fully expecting to be told that I had already voted as has been the case in the past, but it went straight through, which surprised me. I did not change the vote.

I am way more excited to see Star Trek Beyond because the film is nearing completion and will be in a cinema near me, come 21 July, all going well.

I never vote on the up/downs below the posts.

Correction – I think my second vote also went through. Can’t be sure though. It appeared to…


You voted TWICE on the current poll? That’s what I call a real enthusiasm!

Ahmed – Yes and No. Since the new software has been running here, some are querying just how accurate the voting in general is (as in one poster, one vote), so I decided to try it a second time. That was a few days ago. Of course, I voted as I did before, because I am more excited about the coming movie (already filmed and in post-production) than a talked-about new TV series.

Also I found out some time (years) back that you couldn’t vote more than once because when I went to cast my vote on some issue, I was told that I had already voted and couldn’t cast another one. I hadn’t voted, but my son had, because he felt like it. I was likely busy, no doubt, tidying up after him…(picture a mum rolling her eyes)… when he cast MY vote.

In reply to comment:


A long time ago I pointed out that the polling system at TrekMovie was NOT scientific or properly mathematically vetted as was most polling across the internet. Thanks for confirming what I knew all along about such polling being too easily susceptible to various poll gaming strategies and of questionable scientific value,

Ah, but you can – you just need access to the machines, say, like at a public library. If a home has a desktop, laptop(s), and mobile devices you could easily have a half dozen devices at your disposal. This is what PS has observed, TUP spews his s**t, and then a consistent number of votes appear. I’ll be gracious and extend the benefit of the doubt…though he does protest his innocence just a bit to much.

Could NuTrek franchise go into oblivion, please?


I never quite got the “nu” part of Nu-Trek. It is simply Star Trek. TNG, DS9, etc weren’t referred to as Nu-Trek, so why should this be? Just silly.

In reply to comment:

Great Trek,

I think the problem is that under this exact same reasoning, the Mirror Universe, The Terran Empire, I.S.S. Enterprise, etc. is simply STAR TREK too. So let’s just drop the “Mirror”.

I’m not sure there’s a lot of fans that would be happy if STAR TREK’s corporate overlords decided that THAT universe and only that Mirror universe would be the sole one allowed in which to tell STAR TREK stories for now and the foreseeable future, as appealing as that might be to the targeted demographic

Also the “nu” designator is also an acknowledgement that in 2006 the Paramount that now manages STAR TREK films is not the same one that’s owned and managed it lo those many decades prior, i.e. this is nuParamount, and is disjointed from CBS which has its own separate rights to tell whatever Trek tales that it wants apart from it.

No matter how you slice it, this is corporate STAR TREK being produced quite unlike corporate STAR TREK had ever been produced or managed before.

I can see that. Makes sense.

I just thought that nuTrek referred to the fact the movies deal with characters and events taking place in an alternate universe as opposed to, what is now referred to as the prime universe, where everything, prior to Nero’s incursion, took place.

This does not mean that the prime universe does not exist and Lord only knows what has become of the surviving Romulans. The 24th century Romulans in the prime universe are in the same position as the 23rd century Vulcans are in the alternate universe.

In reply to comment:

“This does not mean that the prime universe does not exist and Lord only knows what has become of the surviving Romulans.” — Keachick

This is most often asserted by those who claim STAR TREK’s resurrection based on a self-evident death certificate in the case of no new adventures were being filmed.

Under that school of thought where no new filmed adventures marks its death, then the Prime universe is dead for those that cotton to that way of thinking.

I’m uncertain where you stand on the so-called death of STAR TREK so I am not asserting you believe this only that a large amount of those that assert that its Prime universe lives don’t really believe it as their definition of its death prevents it from being true for them.

Bit busy, bit tired, so not quite sure what you are getting at. I have never seen the Star Trek universe, prime or otherwise, as being dead. It’s just that no new stories were being told by either of the franchise owners, until Paramount made the movies that deal with an alternate universe.

I am fine with the idea of stories being told about what happens within both universes.

However, I am more interested in alternate universe stories that deal with Pine/Kirk, Quinto/Spock et al. Such a great cast need to tell more stories…

Big screen or small, just make a great product. People will pay.

So if fans are looking for closure on the Bad Robot films, they wont get it. Meh. I would have hoped for closure in some way but I can imagine the struggle to just get a coherent story together, let alone trying to shoe-horn in some larger story.

Just imagine some closure and ignore the possibility of any new films.

On a serious note (ignoring Phil’s senseless blather), I think had STID not caused concern, perhaps STB would have fit more into a “trilogy” aspect. Ofcourse we havent seen it yet so who knows, but it sure sounds like it will be completely stand alone.

I wonder if BobOrci’s story included reference to the Alt aspect of the universe and any sort of attempt to undo or correct it.

If STID had been blown away successful, an epic that included Shatner, Stewart etc might have been possible.

Not that there is anything wrong with a stand alone film either, as long as its good.


Call off your whining and you personal attacks on Phil — that is two now in this threat. If you disagree with Phil, just say so without all of your drama. You need to man up, son.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Closure implies some sort of tragedy or disaster, something that deeply shocked the senses. As there isn’t any evidence of that, the best advice I can offer you is to don’t see the movies, and stop posting about them. Everyone wins.

Funny, I seem to recall closure in BTTF that wasn’t tragic at all (the tragedy was that they made so many films in the first place.) Ditto for JEDI. There’s definite closure at the end of FRENCH CONNECTION II and it is among the most satisfying moments I recall from the 70s.

Yes lots of ways for closure that would be feel good. Spock Prime gets home. Vulcan isn’t destroyed. Pike is alive. Kirk actually learns something. Spock controls his emotions for 5-10 minutes.

In reply to:


There isn’t ANY evidence? What do you consider the utter destruction of the Enterprise and the possibility that the film franchise will be following the continuing voyages of the starship, Franklin?

USS Excelsior, perhaps? USS Constellation? In his sole appearance in TOS, Matt Decker seemed to cut a wide swath in Starfleet history. There’s plenty to explore, regardless of the timeline you are in. Case closed.

In reply to:


Oh, so you definitely see this as a closure for Bad Robot’s Enterpise-based tales but NOT an end, or rather, an expansion into other STAR TREKS? Maybe even the adventures of Kirk and Spock after the completion of their 5 year?

Sure – it’s a creative endeavor, Trek (and for that matter, TNG) left plenty of opportunity to explore other aspects of the Federation, perhaps it’s time to pull the curtain back and take a look. I’m open to that, in either universe, it’s all Trek, after all.

@ Phil

Interesting — with your disagreement with TUP here, for all these posts, your are getting on average about -4 votes, and TUP’s are getting on average about +4 votes…and 8 vote swing.

And we are suppose to believe that these are legitimate individual votes….LOL

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

How many times do you vote, Prodigal? And do you still not realize how humiliating it is for you to keep whining about it? I believe there are professionals that can help you with your self esteem issues. Perhaps seek one of them out.

in reply to:

Prodigal Son,

Since the matter of gaming votes is now of some import to you, and you admittedly used multiple IDs to game the conversation in TrekMovie’s past, isn’t it a fair question to ask if you ever gamed TrekMovie’s polls as well? Did you ever cast a TrekMovie poll vote more than once?

LOL. OK, clown.

Thanks for taking my advice this time where I specifically suggested yesterday that you only should multi-vote around “5 or 6 times” to make it less noticeable. At least this shows that you have basic 4th Grade comprehension skills…it’s a start!

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

TUP, If you try to vote more than once on a comment, a statement comes up saying “You have already voted for this comment.” Something you may already know.

@Marja – yes, I absolutely know that. I was curious because Prodigal, someone who has been busted for being s sock puppet, keeps accusing others of voting numerous times and being sock puppets. So I was curious as to whether he figured out a way to vote 20 times as he accuses others.

The nonsense from him is getting out of hand and I hope he will take my advice and knock it off sooner or later.

@Phil – another gem of a post from Furious Phil. I cant recall a single post you’ve ever made that was insightful or even intelligent so if one of us had to go, it should be you, my embittered friend.

See above, TUP. Another pointless rant of yours disproved.

@ Phil. Yep — you turned his post into roadkill. :-))

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

I think it’d be great for the movies to be told in the alternate universe with the series set in the Prime/Original.

Intriguing possibility and rather an attractive one as well.

Agreed, though I’d suggest that Paramount needs to be getting product to the market a bit more frequently then they have to this point.

Agreed, but I sure hope they implement Jeff’s idea above, and make a movie at least once a year. Criminy. It’s been SEVEN years since the first one. Partly thanks to JJ Abrams and his devotion to his own projects after 2009, but really, three years between STID and Beyond!

Every 2 years seems doable I’d think.

In reply to:

Interesting idea. I’m not sure how this nuKirk doesn’t come off as something lesser for not bringing HIS Enterprise home intact from its 5 year mission as Prime Pike and Kirk had done, but I like that Pegg had the balls to break the “Enterprise is sacred” dictum Paramount’s earlier regime imposed.

It will be interesting to see if BEYOND’s stranded crew develops such an emotional attachment to the Franklin [or The Yorktown for that matter] in Kirk’s crew resurrecting and winning the day without a ship named Enterprise that they retire “Enterprise”.

It will be interesting to see how this Kirk recites “the captain’s oath”.

Yes, the Enterprise is important, but surely what trumps that is that Kirk is able to bring as many of his crew back as he can, safe and well, after five years out in the great beyond.

With Alibaba (Jack Ma) having invested in Paramount/Star Trek Beyond, there’s a likelihood of better box office revenues, particularly in China,

The unfortunately thing is, if STB is successful, then Paramount executives are going to feel justified with continuing their “fast and furious” overindulging of action Trek movies.

Another reminder that cerebral Trek belongs on the small screen. 2017 CBS All Access Trek ought to be interesting. I just wish Paramount would take a chance on an incredible, intelligent script for their Trek movies, not a reliance on pure action like the STB portends.,.

Well written. However, I don’t mind somewhat action-oriented movies as long as Trek lives longamd prospers.

I suspect that nostalgia tends to drive the conversation that Star Trek was ‘cerebral’ television, The program found a good balance between action and thoughtful drama, but the notion that it was an oasis of scientific reason is wishful thinking. That’s what makes the blowback that current Trek is mindless action somewhat of a head scratcher – BR put effort into bringing some continuity to that legacy of Trek being intelligent, but they get no credit for it….with little explanation beyond it’s not original.


Least we forget, some of the episodes, and a few of the (TOS) movies were ….shall we say, forgettable, to keep it polite.

In reply to:


Nostalgia? How about a total retcon of history that has people acting as if STAR TREK came to be because Paramount put up the money to get its pilot movies and series episodes made from the start, when the truth was it only fell into Paramount’s lap because that studio was an equally financially distressed institution as was DesiLu, which itself WAS actually responsible or more specifically Lucille Ball, and both entities got bought up by Charles George Bluhdorn?

The facts are that the series’ production took on many in its employ that came from the previous employ of THE TWILIGHT ZONE what most regard as the father of ‘cerebral’ television. And in relation to its competition, LOST IN SPACE, STAR TREK’s first season out thought them without a doubt.

Paramount under Bludhorn, didn’t even want to be strapped with STAR TREK. So is it any wonder that as a series attempting to tell ‘cerebral’ stories it experienced a definite decline of such about twelve episodes into the second season when said entity took full control of it, which led many to see it as “inconsistent” in those regards as a series in toto?

“The day Star Trek was cancelled, I could have cut off heads at the network. It was a marvelous show.” — Rod Serling, FAMOUS STAR TREK FANS, STARLOG, Vol. 1 No. 2, November 1976, P 14

And you think first series fans are extreme on THIS side of the millennium because of ‘nostalgia’?

Thanks for the backstory, Disinvited, no one is questioning that the show was groundbreaking in the day. No one is also questioning that it went on to inspire a legion of scientists and engineers determined to bring a positive future to fruition. The reality check, however, is that the show strove to bring continuity and solid storytelling to science fiction broadcasting, something that was sorely lacking at the time – over time, nostalgia has had this drive toward continuity evolve into the program being ‘cerebral’. Memoirs from the various creative types were the first to admit that if science bumped up against some plot constraint, science took a back seat. So, yes, I do believe that some recollections of the past tend to lift up the better, while downplaying that which didn’t represent the shows better efforts.

In reply to:


The problem for me with your posit is many of the fans right then in 1967 far from the grip of your nostalgia held that Paramount and their disinterest in it back then as directly responsible as those you relabel ‘nostalgists’ of now do this era’s Paramount.

And I’m a little lost as to why the existence of some episodes missing the mark, is some sort of justification for the current studio to avoid all possibility for producing an award winning cerebral script? Your argument seems to reduce to: The Paramount of the 1960s failed to see the potential of STAR TREK to tell cerebral stories so its perfectly acceptable for the current Paramount to do likewise?

Agree that ST always had a good balance. The last 2 movies balanced it well too. I think that STB will follow suit. Here’s hoping!

@Hat Rick

I don’t mind the action. There was a certain amount of action in every Star Trek movie, action is part of Trek. I like it, too. I however do mind turning Star Trek (movies) into an action franchise. Star Trek is a science-fiction franchise, not an action franchise. The reboot movies seem to have the plot only as an excuse for action. That’s bad. I strongly disagree with JJ Abrams’/BR’s approach to Star Trek.

I know I’m in the minority here when I say that I actually love “nuTrek”. I don’t mind continuing the new movies. I just think that they should start looking into other stories to tell. Anything past movie #4 should maybe explore other Star Trek franchises, like TNG. Or even explore one shot adventures (like Disney’s Star Wars Rogue One). Anything to flesh out the alternate universe.

Also, they really need to work on how they promote Trek. Promotion has always been mediocre at best. Paramount should try to understand and bridge the gap between their core demographic and their desired demographic. For me, ST09 was a good starting point.

Overall, I’m really happy that people are still interested enough to make ST relevant to another generation. With the movies and the upcoming TV show, I feel very grateful.

Well said LizardGirl! Keep the cerebral stuff in the newTV series and the action stuff on the big screen. Everyone is a winner.

No, actually, you’re in a majority – I enjoy Trek, in all it’s variations. It’s a small minority who have taken the ‘us vs. them’, you can’t be a fan if you like the current franchise approach….and that’s shame on them. The Trek universe is big enough to accommodate everyone, and the success of the previous two films should ensure more to follow.

That said, I’d also agree with your observation that Paramount hasn’t quite got it’s hands around managing a franchise property, considering that Disney, Marvel, and even WB seem to understand you have to create content.

In reply to:

“Also, they really need to work on how they promote Trek. Promotion has always been mediocre at best. Paramount should try to understand and bridge the gap between their core demographic and their desired demographic. For me, ST09 was a good starting point.” — LizardGirl

The problem for Paramount was that the gent responsible, Josh Greenstein, for the excellent 2009 ad campaign, they couldn’t afford to keep, so they let him slip through their fingers.


You are in the majority — 2/3 of Star Trek fans are more looking forward to the movie than the new TV series. The reason it doesn’t seem that way here is because the posters here are over-represented by that anti-JJ sub-minority of fans, many of which seem to post here 24/7.

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

The majority of fans do enjoy the new movies. There is a loud minority though but that’s fine. The majority of fans seemed to dislike TFF and NEM, though I like both, and it showed at the BO and critics. ST and ID were both well reviewed, with ID less so, and the BO was good. Yes BO proves little but it does prove some, like the fact that many saw it and probably saw it more than once.

I highly doubt the majority of fans is more looking forward to the movie.The results of this poll are not representative.

The results of this poll are surely more “representative” than your doubts.

I always felt the either/or nonsense in Trek fandom is just as problematic as the lack of studio interest in developing a proper franchise. IMO, ‘Trek, television and movie properties, should be under one room. CBS can order for the television side while Paramount can order for the movie side. And since there are two timelines that have been established, both timelines should be nurtured to be able to do their own thing. I don’t understand this inability to see the potential for this…

Had the poll shown that more were looking forward to the new series all the ones that do not like the new movies would say, see the poll proves it! Because it doesn’t, the poll is meaningless. I believe there are many, many visitors to this page that do not ever post. I was here since ST came out in 2009, but only recently started posting. I would participate in polls, but mainly just read articles and the comments. So, I truly believe that the poll is accurate and there is a lot of love out there for the new movies.

Lets use common sense, the poll isnt scientific. We can point to comments and votes here and say the opposite to what the poll indicates for whatever its worth.

But the film is coming up soon. The series is next year. Most Trek fans are likely looking forward more to the soon-to-be-released film simply because it’s next. And we know little to nothing about the series.

If the poll is re-done in December and asks if you’re looking forward to the series about to launch or an unnamed 4th Trek film, the results are likely to be much different.

The fan poll results here are in — out out nearly 2500 fan votes, the percentage of Star Treks excited more about Beyond dwarfs that of fans more excited about the new series — BY A FACTOR OF TWO TO ONE!

WOW !!

It’s clear now — the couple of dozen people who post incessantly negative comments here daily on nuTrek are a small minority of fans…their “loud and vocal negativity” simply is not translating into large numbers of fans agreeing with them.

This is great to finally see how the “silent fans” think about new Trek. It’s exactly as I thought, but the validation is great!

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

No. No. That’s not true. That’s impossible!

Hey Phil, it looks like the “Mayor Dayley of Trekmovie”, TUP, has his multi-vote system on full throttle given it’s only been a couple hours — you at -6 and me at -12…LOL…let’s embrace the attention!

Note: Negative Votes on this post by the weak-minded are encouraged and appreciated. Ref:

Come on you know the votes are fixed. No way more people like the movies!

…like there’s no way Trek 09 and Into Darkness, each, made 5 times as much money at the box office, domestically, than Nemesis?
Fans of the new movies are many. They like the films, show their support with their $ and just don’t feel the need to complain… therefore, you don’t notice them.

Fans of the new films dont complain?? lol

Complaining and responding to complaints are two separate things. :)

@Prodigal – havent you located your pride yet? Or at least some logic to your ramblings? if I could juice the votes why wouldnt you all have the same negative? Especially taking into account the 20 up votes you’re giving yourselves….

You must sob yourself to sleep every night thinking about votes. Very sad.

“Especially taking into account the 20 up votes you’re giving yourselves….”

Look everyone, now TUP is just outright LYING. If I wanted to play his little multi-vote game and up-vote myself multiple times, then the voting on my posts would change..they havens. Look at the votes – they tell the story — his posts nearly always end up with around 5 or more upvotes, and those opposing him always end up with negative votes —

LIKE, DUH — we know what is going on here folks.

How childish are you? You accuse multiple people of being a sock puppet when in fact YOU were. You accuse people of massive voting when virtually no one cares but you and then feign offence when I part back your own BS?

Please tell me you’re a child because if you’re an adult, you’re a disgrace. And again, PLEASE knock it off. This website and the community here deserve better.


On the last two posts immediately above between you and me you are right there AGAIN at +6 votes for you and -5 votes for me…AGAIN!!!

I might be willing to believe that it’s not you who is gaming the system here and have a truce with you, but come on, every single time you and I get into it you have +5 or more votes and I have -5 or more votes…always within 3-4 hours of our exchange…SOMETHING SMELLS FISHY HERE…maybe it is someone else gaming the system? This is like clockwork on all of our exchanges, dude — SOMEONE IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES HERE?

And yes, I did misbehave, was banned for a year, and learned my lesson. I’ve owned up to that.

TUP, you are protesting WAY to much. Compensating for something there, perhaps, or just pissed off that a few people are exposing your pointless posts and vicious attacks on those you don’t like for what they are?

Hmmm at what might you be compensating for Phil? I think we can guess. But this isn’t the kind of site for that level of speculation.

But congrats on another off topic, irrelevant post that was little more than an attack on me.

Also, the majority of my posts receive positive votes. And yours do not. Perhaps one of these days you will heed the message and knock it off.

“Also, the majority of my posts receive positive votes. And yours do not.”

Just when I was entertaining the thought that it might not be TUP gaming the voting system, he says this…spoken like an instigator rubbing into the receptor’s face. This, after he claimed the votes don’t matter and we are getting way too excited about them. Which is it, TUP? :-(


The poll says that people here are more interested in Beyond than the new series.
That sure is a sad statement. I would think that with just the people who have been announced as being involved Star Trek fans would be far more excited for weekly Star Trek as opposed to every four years Star Trek. Further proof to me that I am rather out of touch with the current state of Star Trek.
I’ve cast my one vote for what it’s worth.

Well, that’s a question of frequency, not content. Yeah, I’d like to see Paramount kick out a Trek movie every 18 months, not sure they are up to that task.

There must be something wrong with that poll.

Wrong as in, it doesn’t reflect your opinion?

Wrong as in, people can vote multiple times.

I could only vote once. It would only let me CHANGE my vote, which I didn’t.

No, you can’t vote multiple times.

However, I suspect it is a different matter when it comes to the up/down voting on posts. Something askew there, for sure, because the SAME people always get either up voted or down voted…It almost seems automated. Take a look for yourself.

Voting on an issue may not be “scientific”, as in how proper statistical polling is done. However, the results are a generally good indication of where those who do vote are at.

Also the question was not whether a person liked the new movies. It was whether they were looking forward to seeing the new movie (where little is known about it) more than the proposed new ST TV series. No one can say whether they will like the new movie or not at this stage.

The result of the poll, ie more people are looking to seeing the movie, also makes sense. The film is almost complete and, barring unforeseen whatever, people will get to see it in cinemas on 21/22 July 2016. However, as far as we know, the TV series is just being talked about at this stage and until production actually gets underway, then all it is, is talk. It makes sense for people to look forward more to something that (almost) an actuality rather than something that is not yet actual in any form.

You’d have to go to some trouble to vote multiple times. I can’t imagine anyone going to that trouble to vote 20 times. Then again only one person seems to be whining about it and accusing others

There are two places where a person can cast a vote. One is here, casting an up or down vote on a particular post and this is where something is seriously askew.

The other is separate from where a person writes and posts a comment. This is where someone simply votes on an issue. It may take the form of multiple-choice options, or simply give either a Yes or No vote or similar. Trekmovie has always had this. However, the software that allows for posters to vote up or down on a particular post is new.

ST:TMP was not a financial success. They brought in Harve Bennet to fix that and he did.

Where is the Harve Bennet of today?

They desperately need to change their ‘this is a huge, expensive, tent-pole movie’ way of doing things.

The last two movies just weren’t that good. STID left a LOT of people really turned off to Trek. They really need to ratchet down the budget and make smaller, better movies.

That would be Kevin Feige, over at Marvel.

TMP was ABSOLUTELY a financial success, everything printed at the time in the early 80s had it at 175mil worldwide, so that is more than triple final cost. Even with the weird revisionism in later years that somehow knocked it down to 139 (which I ascribe to Paramount not wanted to pay net-profit points), it was still profitable, as those numbers don’t count the money made from network TV (10 mil just for ABC) or cable or homevid.

I’m with you on the rest of your post, though

If I recall correctly (from things I’ve read, I was too young to study TMP when it came out and didnt see it til many years later), the financial issues were it was over budget and they struggled to finish it on time…but once complete and released it made lots of money, no?

There’s good info now suggesting that even if you didn’t count all the false start costs, it would still be over 40 mil, and that is up from the starting budget of 15 when they had the press conference in spring 78. Shortly after shooting started they raised the schedule from 60 days to 100 and I think went some beyond that, so you have that budget hit in addition to the waste on VFX and the huge huge hit on OT throughout all of post for VFX and finishing. But even if you say 7mil for phase 2 and TITANS and GOD THING story development, and say another 43 for actual costs incurred during TMP, that is still 50, and doing 2.5 times that as well as the other sales mentioned above makes for a profit, especially since the return came pretty fast (it made most of its money in 1979, I think 39 out of its total 55 in rentals … and no, don’t ask me to explain rentals vs gross again.)

In response to:


Not to mention the $30 to $40 million Paramount had up front from the blind bid. All the box office grosses after that were pure gravy.

TMP did great financially, actually. Part of the reason was the theaters had to guarantee a 14-week run. It also did well overseas for those days.

TMP was actually a financial success for me. There were hundreds of movie tie-ins released for the movie. After the film’s theatrical run – all those items were discounted.

I bought a TMP lunchbox at a drugstore for 75 cents. In 1999 I sold it for 175 dollars. Good return.

If I wasn’t lazy in my old age I would dig through all the other stuff I have in trunks in storage from that era. Including a TMP shooting script with an alternate ending.


I guess the guy who bought it was named Sheldon Copper?!?

In reply to:


Is Mr. Copper the real person the fictional Mr. Cooper was based?

Get out your adding machines, slide rules, colored squares, etc. here’s what they said the breakdown was in court: ”I. THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY The motion picture industry encompasses three operations: production, distribution, and exhibition. Producers make motion pictures and enter into agreements with distributors to have their films placed nationally into theatres owned and operated by exhibitors. Some distributors are also motion picture producers. In some instances, distributors will finance the production of films by independent producers. There are seven major distributors of motion pictures: Buena Vista Distribution Co., Inc. (“Buena Vista”), which distributes Walt Disney pictures; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (“Columbia”); Paramount Pictures Corp. (“Paramount”); Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (“Fox”); MGMUA Entertainment Co. (“UA” or “United Artists”); Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. (“Universal”); and Warner Brothers Distributing Corp. (“Warner Bros.”). Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer was formerly a major distributor. In 1982 it merged with United Artists. In addition to the major distributors, there are a large number of so-called “independent” distributors. Among the largest of the independents (in terms of annual rental revenue) are Embassy Pictures Corp. (“Embassy”, formerly “Avco Embassy”) and Orion Pictures, Inc. (“Orion,” formerly Filmways, Inc., “Filmways”). Although the structure of the distributor network varies somewhat from distributor to distributor, major distributors and some of the prominent independents generally market their pictures through nationwide marketing networks consisting of branch, district, and regional offices, each having responsibility for distribution in a particular geographic area. The distributors are responsible for planning and financing national, regional, and local advertising campaigns and promotional efforts in regard to the exhibition of their films. At the national level, the distributors assume the full cost of such efforts. At the local levels, the distributors pay most of the advertising *137 costs during the early weeks of a film’s exhibition, although the exhibitors also contribute. Motion pictures are licensed (rather than sold) to exhibitors by distributors on a picture-by-picture, theatre-by-theatre basis in each local market. License agreements for the exhibition of pictures generally include, among other things, percentage terms for film rental, specific playdates and length of playtime (including holdover provisions). The agreements may also include guarantees and advances. The percentage terms for film rental generally provide for the distributor to receive a percentage of the gross or net box office receipts. Typical percentage rental terms are calculated on the basis of “90/10 versus the floor.” Under this formula, the exhibitor pays to the distributor for each week of playtime the higher of (a) 90% of the gross box office income after the theatre’s “house allowance” has been deducted or (b) a percentage of the gross box office without any deductions (the “floors”). A typical rental provision in Milwaukee for an eight-week long run might be as follows: the first two weeks at 70%; the second two weeks at 60%; the third two weeks at 50%; the fourth two weeks at 40%; and a holdover provision of 35% for each holdover week. A guarantee is a minimum film rental payment that the exhibitor promises to pay the distributor regardless of the amount of film rental earned under the percentage rental terms in the contract. In the event that the film rental earned under the percentage rental terms in the contract exceeds the amount of the guarantee, the film rental earned in excess of the guarantee is also paid to the distributor. A guarantee is generally paid prior to a film’s exhibition. An advance is an advance payment of film rental which is applied against the film rental actually earned under the percentage rental terms of the contract. Unlike a guarantee, any portion of the advance not earned under the percentage rental terms in the contract is refunded or credited to the exhibitor. The existence of guarantees or advances in a license agreement is important to a distributor’s decision to award a film license. Guarantees are important to distributors in a number of respects. As indicated above, if the percentage film rental is less than the amount of the guarantee, the distributor still receives the guaranteed film rental. In effect, the guarantee is a method by which the exhibitor shares with the distributor some of the risk inherent in producing and distributing motion pictures. Guarantees are also important to distributors because, as advance payments, they allow a distributor to recoup part of its investment before a picture is actually exhibited. In addition, guarantees assure prompt payment from exhibitors, who sometimes withhold portions of amounts due under a license agreement if a picture does not do particularly well at the box office. The first exhibition of a motion picture in a market is referred to as its “first-run.” Subsequent runs of pictures in the same market are known as “sub-runs.” However, certain pictures (often classics such as Walt Disney’s “Fantasia” and “Bambi”) are re-released from time to time… Read more »

Just did an interview for CNN Espanol, They asked me about a lot of projects. Guess what they didn’t ask about?

@BobOrci – they didnt ask about STB? Really??


@BobOrci – what do you make of that?

Do you feel the studio is doing a poor job of marketing? Trek isn’t “sexy” right now? Poor research on CNN’s part?

Why would that be a surprise, knowing that there’s little you could comment on?

you’re kiddng, right?

No, I’m not kidding. I stand by my comment, because of what was not said…
– We don’t know if this was an entertainment or business report.
– We don’t know if this was related to your speaking engagement at AHAA
– We don’t know if they asked specifically about any of your other pending projects.
– We don’t know about how well the journalist prepared for this interview, or how familiar they are with your CV.
Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, if they had asked, unless you were prepared to sing like a canary, would you have said anything beyond ‘It’s a great project, and we are looking forward to it’s success’ or something like that?

Don’t take it personally, but there just isn’t enough information here to draw any conclusion, let alone the negative conclusions your detractors have already arrived at. We don’t know what was in the journalist’s head, the very simple reason could just be STB wasn’t relevant to the story. If someone else wants to believe that it’s symptomatic to a malaise around the franchise (that they blame you for), that’s on them, and we should not be feeding that narrative.

The fact that Bob himself made the post and responded affirmatively to a sense of incredulous would certainly support the idea that the lack of questions about STB was crazy.

You were wrong and can’t admit it so you’re trying to justify it. The man himself posted. Why are you arguing?

Anyway, on that subject, BobOrci, what do you make of the lack of questions and what seems like a larger lack of interest by the entertainment media about the upcoming film? Do you feel its just a normal calm before the marketing storm or something else?

No, that is a conclusion you arrived at, and based on your frequently stated bias, you’ve been happy to fill in the details with your own speculation. As I’ve noted, there are numerous reasons why it may not have come up, and as none of us are privy to what the journalist was thinking, any conclusion on your part is sheer speculation.

Bob’s a big boy, and capable of speaking for himself. I’m not arguing nor am I putting words into his mouth. If he wants to elaborate on the tone and context of the interview, he’s free to do so.

Then stop putting words in Bob’s mouth. What an ego that can’t take a step back and admit he saw it wrong.

Are we reading the same thread here? You seem to be seeing things very differently then sighted people. Nothing I’ve said could be construed as ‘putting words in his mouth’…

TUP, Bob Orci is rather cryptic in his posts at times, and because of “Reply” formatting here, it is not clear to whom he directed the question, “You’re kidding, right?” to you or Phil.

@Marja, Actually it was very clear that Orci’s comment “You’re kidding, right?” was directed at Phil.

I assumed it was directed my way. And I still stand by my observation, not enough information was communicated to have a clear understanding why STB didn’t come up, let alone supporting TUP’s line of questing, which really jumped the rails.

@ Marja…I have to smile at the irony here. TUP, who’s spent years in failed attempts to bait Orci, is suddenly Bob’s new best friend if he thinks it avails himself the opportunity to try and take a few shots at one of his self proclaimed ‘aBOBologists’…..

@Phil The Furious – Not true Philly. But good try. Well not really.

I’ve always been fair to everyone here. If I disagree with something someone has written, I say so. If I agree, I say so. I’ve said good things about Bob over the years.

But really it has nothing to do with Bob. It has to do with your lack of comprehension which I corrected. You’re welcome.

Hallucinate much, TUP? There’s nothing wrong with my comprehension of what was said….unless you didn’t actually read it….and unless you had some special knowledge of the situation, say, you were actually at the interview, then you’re not free to speculate on what the journalists reasons were. Bob was there, so only he can add that level of insight, which is what I pointed out.

Keep trying. One of these days you may actually make a point, and graduate to the pull up diapers.

@Phil – are you Bobs publicist? Why would the producer of the film not be able to comment on it? Sure, he’s unlikely to provide a reading of the script, but plug the film, the fan event etc? No brainer.

Thank u.

For many years, I worked as a journalist. Got a journalism degree and worked in broadcast journalism for twelve years. I quit when I saw that the people delivering the news were, for most part, not schooled in journalism. They were hired for their looks and delivery. Bob, a real journalist would have researched your background (much easier than back in my day) and asked you relevant questions …


It’s a lost opportunity to reach out to over 35 million Hispanic households in US & Latin America that receive CNN Espanol broadcast.


Ha! Guess the CNN Espanol interviewer didn’t check your IMDB page!

PS: Any plans to revive ‘Matador’? Tony Bravo deserves another chance.

Do you think the trailer had a negative effect on interest in the film? BTW can’t wait to see your story, hopefully in book form.

Wow! That’s uh…that’s uh…CNN! That’s CNN!

I have no reason to believe it wouldn’t drive me just as crazy in Espanol as it does in English.

CNN in English is down to, what, about 300 viewers? No idea if en Espanol viewership is any better?

the one you burned all your bridges on?

Why no new trailer?

@Casey – its coming. May 20th.

Regarding the recent news about Alibaba investment in STB, I hope that Paramount has learned from previous hiccup in China & is prepared for any problems after the release of the movie such as not receiving any money from China for months!


Hollywood Studios Haven’t Been Paid by China in Months

Since late 2012, Hollywood studios haven’t seen a dime returned from a slew of movies generating big grosses at the Chinese box office, including blockbusters Skyfall, Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness.

Numerous sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that the China Film Group stopped payments pending resolution of a fight over a new 2 percent value-added tax. The China Film Group wants the studios to pay the tax but the studios say that the additional payment would violate a landmark World Trade Organization agreement reached last year between U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping….

Going by the 25 percent rule, Warner Bros. would be owed north of $31 million for Man of Steel, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and Jack the Giant Slayer; Sony would be due $23 million for Skyfall and After Earth; Paramount would be owed roughly $30 million for Into Darkness, G.I. Joe: Retaliation and Jack Reacher.

Some studios say they are due money from 2012 titles as well. Fox hasn’t received payment for Ang Lee’s Life of Pi, a check that’s expected to come in at $23 million.

@ Ahmed

Trump would have field day with this.

It gets much worse, check this article about previous Hollywood deals with China.


For Hollywood, the road to China is littered with broken deals

Hollywood talent agent Jeff Berg flew to Shanghai last summer to celebrate one of his biggest deals — a partnership with Chinese investors in Resolution, his new agency in Century City….Four months later, the deal collapsed. The millions of dollars promised by Bison Capital never materialized, and Berg was forced to shut the agency down.

While the entertainment industry eyes China as a source of capital and customers, interests there often approach the relationship with a very different agenda, according to studio executives and others who have sought partnerships in China.

Whatever the reasons, Hollywood executives have learned to greet news of a partnership with China with a healthy degree of skepticism.

In many cases, there is a mutual interest in making a public announcement about a deal, whether or not it winds up happening,” said Marc Ganis, co-founder and managing director of Jiaflix Enterprises, which helps studios distribute movies in China. “The batting average of deals has not been great.”

The market will determine whether the series is a trilogy or not.

Sweet, the more the merrier as far as I’m concerned. Maybe they can tie the original crews 6 films. Or take it further and do a James Bond type run. Either way bring more Trek on the big screen please!

So far I’m ok with the JJ Verse but they have certainly not realised it’s potential & I’m not impressed with what I have seen of Beyond so far but I want it to work & it would be great to have an ongoing movie franchise & TV series in different era’s & universes.

Agreed. We should have a ‘Trek film every year. It doesn’t have to be a spectacle, and in fact, you could easily do what Lucasfilms is doing: main story one year, anthology story the following year. Or just shoot three films together as a complete story arc, and then release them year to year (for the sake of continuity, and to give the actors time to rest or whatever). Heck, I would be curious to see a NuTrek version of TNG/DS9/VOY out of curiosity.

Why does Pegg look like he’s on the cast of “Vikings?”

Pegg looks tribal. Like he’s starring in an episode of Vikings.

Nothing wrong with the basic concepts of NuTrek, they just haven’t done anything especially good with it yet. No reason to kill it as it will probably live alongside a series just fine, as long as they aren’t covering the same era, especially for the general public.

Considering a few of the primary cast are signed to a 4th film, the key to seeing Paramount produce it will be a strong box office. Hard to say after that. Chris Pine’s career hasn’t really taken off, nor have the others with the possible exception of Zoe. But if they didn’t come back, I wonder if they could just pass the torch to a different ship and crew? Or indeed, re-cast the main characters and just keep the story going?

Saldana has starred in some of the higher-grossing movies of the last decade, “Avatar” for one (and is slated for at least 2 more Avatar films). Others’ movie careers, not so much.

I wonder if one reason for re-booting Trek in an alternate universe was so a TV series could be done in the Prime universe ….

Wasn’t the simple fact of the reboot was the hope that Bad Robot could create and control an entirely new branch of the franchise?

What’re you, kidding?

The basic concepts of Nu Trek are so un-Trek!

Shallow action movies is not what Trek was meant to be.

You can like Nu Trek all you want, and no one can stop you. But, please… don’t call it jelly.

The jelly reference made me laugh and think of a very old James bond parody series by Sol Weinstein about Israel Bond, 0y0ySeven. There’s one book where Bond hits a baddie with a load of napalm, and as the guy burns, Bond shouts, ‘it must be jelly, because jam don’t shake like that.’ (more darkly comedic if you are old enough to remember the furor about American companies like Dow Chemical manufacturing jellied napalm during VietNam.)

Nah, not true.

I your soul the same in a parallel universe? Is destiny real? Scientific? Can you learn to acceltbthe things you cant change, even when you are sligjphtly to blame? And still do your best in face od tragedy?

All Trek to me.

Time for new iphone again.

And to me!

What you did may not match what Star Trek has BECOME in the minds of some fans–but it matches Star Trek.

So true. Star Trek and TNG and it’s spinoffs are very different animals. The latter Treks aren’t bad telelvision…sometimes boring, and pedestrian… but not bad. They just bear little resemblance to their namesake.
So many have come to expect ALL Star Trek to be what they experienced over the, almost, 20 years of Bermanized Trek…even though Bermanized Trek, with the help of Gene Roddenberry, was nothing like Star Trek! The new movies’ mandate was to revisit Star Trek. Not TNG. Not Ds9. Not Voyager. Not Enterprise. JJ, with Bob and Alex’s fantastic script did GREAT justice to their source material. No, JJ’s films did not resemble the latter Trek series, they resembled original Star Trek…the fun, imaginative, exciting, sexy, action-adventure version. And the world was more than ready for it! Berman Trek fans, however…umm…not so much.

Bob Orci – I agree. TV TOS did not have much to do with science as such, since much of what took place is not possible at the moment with our current level of technology. However, it did deal with humanity’s emotions, how one copes with danger, the unknown, what is soul and if there is such (ref. Kirk’s statement in TSFS re the possibility of Spock having a soul…), how we treat our enemies, what is destiny/fate? etc
We as humans deal with these issues now and it won’t be any different in the future, irrespective of whether we cannot go beyond this earth or whether we do make it out into space a la Star Trek. We will still be confronted by inner selves, as well as what may lie beyond ourselves and what we do not know now.

Actually the science/technology is only what allows us to be there but it can’t tell us what or how to interpret it nor be our unique experience of it. If we allow it to, then we have given away some of our human integrity, or soul, if you will. Kirk was often making mention of this possibility/threat.

I also think of who the Observers turned out to be in the series Fringe…

Zachary Quinto is THE master of giving non-answers! He was recently asked about the differences between JJ Abrams and Justin Line, his answer?

Quinto: “they’re very different people, they’re very different directors.”

Dodge City.

So, the difference between the directors is that they’re different!

Gosh, thanks for that cinematic insight, Captain Obvious!

He must be taking Bob Orci’s master class with a dodge like that.

I think whar he means is quite obvious,

I think the level of respect Quinto has for JL is unambiguous.

Is that an implication that he is suggesting Lin is a much better director?

Quinto could not show JL any more respect.

Why would he necessarily imply that? It is more likely that Quinto does not want to play”favourites”. He has spoken of finding JJ Abrams a good director to work under and now he appears to be saying the same about Justin Lin. He just notes that their style of directing is a bit different.

Why must it be another him vs him scenario?

@Rose I asked a question, one for which you don’t know the answer. So get lost.

And neither does Bob know the answer. The person to ask is Zachary Quinto. Quinto has answered as much as he is prepared to. Leave the rack at home.

@Bob Orci – Speaking of Trek actors.
I read a while back that some kind of prank was pulled when filming in Vancouver. The pair responsible were none other than the Pegg/Pine collaboration (again!). It seems that what they did annoyed a producer or two on the set at the time. I was wondering how true this was, whether you were there at the time and if you were one of the annoyed producers.

Some are hoping that whatever our Pegg and Pine actors did might become part of a gag reel in the forthcoming STB Blu-ray/DVD release.

Who could forget the Pegg/Pine neutron cream gag?…LOL!

@rose – my question was in reply to Bob. Who are you to decide what he can and can’t answer or what he does or does not know? You just have to interject whenever you see my handle. You’re obsessed with me. Do you want me to send you an autographed 8X10? I warn you, I no longer have a hot tub so don’t ask. It would have to be a head shot.

You are right. I don’t know what Bob knows or what he can or won’t answer. However, I have not recalled a time when Bob is easily given to answer for another, which is what your question would have him do, particularly in this instance. The question is more correctly Zachary Quinto’s to answer, not Bob. Bob Orci is not an actor who has had either Justin Lin or JJ Abrams as his director.

I “interject”, as you put it, because it is not a valid question and is rude to even ask it of Bob Orci.

Once again, you above post veers into the stupid and personal…

“Once again, you above post veers into the stupid and personal…” – Rose

We call that ” Keachicking”, Ie. “Sorry, my post Keachicked there” or “There is a lot of Keachicking going on today”

Touchy touchy…

I hope that there is MORE NuTrek just so that the anti-NuTrek contingent have something to talk about. ;-) Me? I’m loving it.

@Dswynne – what a condescending but not surprising remark which belies a true lack of confident in the quality of “NuTrek”, which I, for one, am loving.

Very glad to hear it won’t be the last.

I’m not sure if this has already been covered, but STB did not make the top 5 list of most anticipated summer action movies:

Most Anticipated Summer Action Movie:
1. Captain America: Civil War (May 6)
2. Independence Day: Resurgence (June 24)
3. Jason Bourne (July 29)
4. X-Men: Apocalypse (May 27)
5. Suicide Squad (August 5)

It’s going to face heavy competition on it’s second weekend against #3 Jason Bourne.

Paramount is behind the curve building anticipation for this movie.


Let’s hope that with fan event planned to happen on 20 May, along with the release of the second trailer, it will create a lot more interest in the upcoming Star Trek movie.

I am also hopeful that the main actors, including the two main guests, Idris Elba and Sofia Boutella, will all be available to focus on promoting the movie, without having to be elsewhere because of other commitments.


Nice work, Paramount! /S

NuTrek is like New Coke… remember… New Coke failed and the classic returned.

Its an interesting comparison. There is something to be said for “Classic” anything. I think the majority of people were supportive of the “reboot” and going back to TOS. But I think many people expected the sensibilities of TOS with modern SFX, movie making and a faster pace.

And I think what we got was a little too much sizzle and but too little steak.

New Coke was replaced in less than with three months with Classic Coke,
New Coke was replaced a lot faster than JJ Trek would be, after a third film?
I am sure there are better Cinematic Comparisons.

boborci April 21, 2016 3:19 pm

I your soul the same in a parallel universe?

Whether or not there is such a thing as a soul, given an infinite set of parallel universes (and I am pleased to see you use that term now), every possibility will occur somewhere. For example, at this very moment, in a parallel universe, the Alternate Bob Orci of that universe understands that this theme—the concept of people having different personality attributes and different life experiences in parallel universes—was covered in TNG Parallels. And prior to that, in TOS Mirror, Mirror and The Alternative Factor. And, in the DS9 and ENT variations on Mirror, Mirror. So, your Trek movie simply having an alternate universe in which Kirk and the gang are different from their Prime Universe versions doesn’t say anything original or thought provoking in and of itself. If your story had been devoted to examining the deeper subtleties of how and why we are all ultimately products of our environment, through the introspective lenses of Kirk and Spock, that could have been interesting. But, your movie has a lot of running around instead. Can’t have too much running around, I know. You’ve discussed previously that such is your screenwriting M.O.—“telling the story through action,” you put it.

Is destiny real?

I can only assume that this is your attempt to ascribe meaning to Alt Kirk growing up to be a hero in the Alt Timeline just as he was a hero in the Prime Timeline. As above, this alone isn’t saying much. This theme was done in Trek many times prior to your movie, and done more meaningfully. So, yes, I agree that the theme is Trek. What is un-Trek is the shallow treatment that you gave it. Again, you prefer action over exploring these sort of themes in any depth. Look, Alt Kirk grows up to be a hero just like Kirk Prime, even though they had different upbringings. It must be destiny! Yes, I know.


There was no examination in your movie as to whether there is a scientific basis for the concept of destiny. Again, simply having an alternate universe in which Alt Kirk grows up to be a hero despite having a very different upbringing from Kirk Prime does not, alone, qualify as a scientific exploration or even much of a dramatic exploration.

Can you learn to accept the things you cant change, even when you are slightly to blame? And still do your best in face of tragedy?

I’m actually not sure what you are reference here. If you’d made a movie devoted to examining and illustrating that bit from the Serenity Prayer, that could have been interesting. But, you certainly didn’t do that.

All Trek to me.

Yes, it would be Trek, if it weren’t so shallow. Let me give you a clear, strong example from Trek past to drive this point home. Simply uttering the statement The lust for revenge can cause people to lose everything that they value, alone isn’t likely to move people very much or motivate them to think very much. But, devote two hours on screen to fleshing out a story that is centered around and driven by (the exploration and illustration) of that theme, and you can make what is widely regarded as the best Trek movie ever made. That is the difference between Star Trek and your movies. Your movies are devoted to action-spectacle. Whereas Star Trek (at its best) used action-spectacle much more sparingly as a means of accomplishing what it was devoted to: the exploration and illustration of political, philosophical, sociological, psychological, interpersonal, scientific and humanistic themes in a dramatic setting. Go back and watch TWOK. Notice how many more scenes that movie comprises in which the characters are simply talking without any other significant action occurring on screen. All of that talking, Bob? That’s the substance of the movie that makes the subsequent action scenes so much more meaningful and compelling.

dribbled white noise — in any universe

allenburch, just because you might have trouble stringing coherent ‘graphs together is no reason to snipe at somebody who bothers to give a basis for his informed opinion.

In other words, Bob and co. did not write a story that was in “Cygnus’s image”. Imagine that…

@ Keachick

Not just in my image, but in the image that he claimed.

ST09 wasn’t a story about the effects of environment on personality, or “destiny” or “the soul.” When we first meet Alt Kirk as a teenager, he’s already a rebel getting into trouble. The next time we see him is in the bar as an adult. His dad died, and he was raised by his stepfather, so now he’s a rebel is the premise of the Alt Kirk character, not a theme developed in the story. It’s not character development. ST09 is not about what Orci tries to pass it off as being about. He doesn’t seem to understand what it is to develop characters or themes over the course of a story. In ST09, we’re shown a fully-formed Alt Kirk character who does not meaningfully change in terms of his character. Just having Alt Kirk become the hero without showing him learning anything in the presumed arc from ne’er-do-well to respectable hero isn’t character development. It’s imitating previous Hollywood tropes, most notably, in this case, Good Will Hunting.

WHY NOT reboot TNG as a feature film series?! :D A younger cast, same lovable crew of the Enterprise-D, with George Takei as a 140 year old Admiral Sulu cameo!!! :D

Why the hell is Pegg styling himself after Ra’s al Ghul now?